US warned of 'imminent' nuclear peril

The Age (Australia) ^ | 7/16/2003 | Shane Green & Louise Dodson

[Concordant_Opposition]

US WARNED OF "IMMINENT" NUCLEAR PERIL

July 16 2003 By Shane Green (Tokyo) & Louise Dodson (Canberra)

Former United States Defence Secretary William Perry has warned that the US and North Korea are drifting towards war, with an "imminent danger" of nuclear explosions in American cities.

His chilling assessment of the communist state's nuclear program came as an increasingly worried China intervened, revealing a push for talks and sending a special envoy to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

Mr Perry, in an interview with the Washington Post, warned that time was running out in the nuclear crisis. "I think we are losing control of the situation," said the Clinton-era defence chief.

He warned that North Korea could soon begin exporting nuclear weapons to terrorists and other adversaries of the US, posing "an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities".

Referring to reports that North Korea had begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods to make weapons-grade plutonium, Mr Perry said: "I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing, then we are on a path toward war."

North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear facility has about 8000 spent fuel rods capable of producing enough plutonium to make between six and 12 nuclear weapons. South Korean intelligence reported last week that reprocessing had begun.

Mr Perry oversaw former US president Bill Clinton's plan for a military strike against the Yongbyon nuclear facility a decade ago. The strike was never carried out after a deal was reached with Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear ambitions in return for energy aid.

The current crisis was triggered by North Korea's admission last October that it had a nuclear arms program.

Mr Perry said the US policy on North Korea was in disarray, with President George Bush to blame for an absence of negotiations. "I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong-il is evil and loathsome and it is immoral to negotiate with him," Mr Perry said.

With the crisis deteriorating, it was revealed yesterday that China - a mentor of North Korea - had intervened with a compromise plan for talks.

Washington has insisted on multilateral talks, while North Korea wants only direct talks with the US. Under the Chinese plan, there would be multilateral talks first, with direct talks on the sidelines.

News of the proposal followed a rare visit by Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. China's state Xinhua news agency said the two men had "in-depth discussions on issues of mutual concern" in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.

In Manila, meanwhile, Prime Minister John Mr Howard yesterday dismissed claims that North Korea would target Australia with nuclear weapons.

Mr Howard said North Korea posed no nuclear threat to Australia, and the Government would not be deterred from involvement in an anti-proliferation initiative agreed to in Brisbane last week.

President Bush plans to exert pressure on Pyongyang by intercepting North Korean vessels suspected of carrying components for nuclear weapons or missiles technologies.

Kim Myong-Chol, of the Centre for Korean-American Peace, said on Monday night that if North Korean ships were stopped at sea, its nuclear arsenal could be turned on Australia. "If Australia becomes part of American manipulation against North Korea, North Korea reserve the right to strike back on Australia," Mr Myong-Chol told ABC TV's Lateline.

The Government and Labor both dismissed the claims yesterday, saying North Korea did not have the ability to launch a nuclear strike on Australia even if it wanted to.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Mr Myong-Chol was a self-appointed spokesman with no international standing.

The North Korean embassy in Canberra also said its country had no reason to bomb Australia.

[Rev. Lou Chenary]

Personally it's looking to me like the commies learned some lessons from Reagan that our elected oficials are far to blind to see.
We have let the chinese wrap their hands so tight around our economy they pretty much have free reign around the world. A decade or two of these proxy wars they are throwing at us and we will just be another third rate bankrupt country.
At least the socialists will naturally be the first to get killed off. Then we can start over again.

[Poohbah]

It is my understanding that no nation can withstand the detonation of a dozen or so well placed nukes. Imagine the top 12 cities in the USA reduced to rubble, millions dead and many millions more needing medical attention.

Millions of Democrat voters evaporated...millions of welfare recipients off of the rolls permanently...

Every cloud has a silver lining.

[shaggy eel]

,,, yeah, I suppose the subs have probably been on rotation roster for months. I'm sceptical about any country like NK whose leader gives their population a national holiday on his birthday. Quite possibly the first sign of madness and overestimating the depth of "Presidential importance" [LOL!]

Anyhow, if something's going to happen, I'm picking it will be well before next year's elections.

[Poohbah]

I prefer to call NK's Chief Thug "Li'l Kim."

[Kudsman]

I see we haven't paid enough attention to the children running North Korea. I guess they want their time in the sandbox.

The media is screaming for negotiations. How dare Mr. Bush ignore threats from a communist "nation", especially one that has such economic needs as only USA can meet! [/sarcasm]

Remember this specific goal from our own useful idiots:6th Goal Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.Want to see more goals?

[jpsb]

Well you do have a point there, but I kinda like eating and driving my mustang. But then again, if everything goes to hell I'll bet getting laid will become a lot easier. :) I'll have to think about it. I could always just hop in the old sailbaot and go fishing for a year or two.

[shaggy eel]

I prefer to call NK's Chief Thug "Li'l Kim."

,,, I noticed that - but I wouldn't give him the satisfaction. He's certifiable.

[Poohbah]

I call him "Li'l Kim" 'cause there's NO way he'll ever match his pappy, "Big Kim." Now THERE was a right proper totalitarian thug who made the trains run on time! :o)

[shaggy eel]

"Big Kim." Now THERE was a right proper totalitarian thug who made the trains run on time! :o)

,,, trains? I guess so!

"When the revolution comes everyone will drive a Rolls-Royce."

"What happens if I don't like Rolls-Royces?"

"When the revolution comes, you won't have a choice."

[nmh]

If they'd nuke San Franciso and/or Hollywood, I wouldn't be too upset. Just kidding or am I? ;)

[Ichneumon]

If they'd nuke San Franciso and/or Hollywood, I wouldn't be too upset. Just kidding or am I? ;)

On September 11, 2001, how upset were you when New York City, another liberal stronghold, was attacked?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

that the US and North Korea are drifting towards war

What war? A couple of our bombers ought to be able to take out their reactors and plants, rather like the Israeli's did to Iraq in the 80's. A surgical strike is all that is required. Why didn't they do it long ago?

[GrandMoM]

BUMP

[lawdude]

"This may lead to a pretty decent sized nuclear war, but the alternative is far worse."

And if a dem is in the CIC chair, he will fold like a cheap tent! THAT is my biggest fear.

[BikerTrash]

What war? A couple of our bombers ought to be able to take out their reactors and plants, rather like the Israeli's did to Iraq in the 80's. A surgical strike is all that is required.

Agreed. But I wouldn't do it stealthy-like. We should tell them exactly what we will do and that it will happen immediately after the very next idiotic threat from those miserable peons.

Sneak attacks lack honor. They couldn't stop it no matter how much advance notice is given. And what a good lesson for other potential pissants.

In an insane world, we should come off just a little more crazy than them regarding our security.

[harpseal]

Very dangerous times...similar in potential strategy (outside of the specific type of threat) to what I describe in my novel series, (ie NK drawing us in while China pretends to mediate, until the SHTF, then they pile on too).

Precisely.

[Akira]

When it comes to national defence, I believe the president does what he sincerely believes in his heart is best for the American people.

I would like to agree, and I do agree on Iraq. But I don't care what this administration says, both Iran and N. Korea were (and are) bigger immediate threats. Iraq was low-hanging fruit. If the president lets the Iran and NK issues sit on the back-burner until after the election, I'm not sure he would have done what is best for the American people. Just in case the Dems win in 2004, do you want to leave Iran and NK to them?

[thepainster]

I shudder at the thought of leaving anything up to the Democraps.

In regards to you low hanging fruit analogy, I think that is too simplistic reasoning on why we went to Iraq first. I believe the real motivation is 1) Remove a dictator who is supplying the terrorists 2) Instill a democratic republic in a muslim country 3) Use Iraq as a central base for the USA so that we can influence the rest of the region.

Now that we are there we can exert a lot more pressure on Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I believe we are taking absolute best course of action in Iran. Iran will implode internally. With a little help from us, sooner rather than later.

NK is another story. Clinton got us in this mess. I have no idea of the best way to handle this one. But I still believe the trio of Bush, Cheny and Rummy are much better at dealing with the problem than say Gore, Liberman and Hillary.......I perish the thought.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Re-arm Japan!

(snicker)

Already happening.

Japan departs from pacifist stance, plans two aircraft carriers

[Akira]

Simplistic perhaps. But 3 countries were grouped into the Axis of Evil. Do you think Iraq was the largest short-term threat? No matter what reports you believe, Iraq is light years behind Iran and NK in nuclear capabilities. Beyond some devestating biological attack, that is what I fear the most. But the case against Iraq was much easier to make due to the UN sanctions, Saddam's history and the fact that the average American knows much more about him than the others. On your arguments:

Remove a dictator who is supplying the terrorists

This does not separate Iraq from Iran or NK (for Iran, replace dictator with mullocracy). By all accounts it pushes Iran immediately up to the top of the list, far beyond the others. So why Iraq if not mainly b/c it would be far easier than the other two?

Instill a democratic republic in a muslim country

On the surface this does not separate Iraq from Iran, Iran could have fit this goal. However, I realize that with the Shah disaster and with Iraq being secular, this goal was much easier to reach in Iraq. Also, Saddam's genocidal history is well-documented and thus easier to sell on the American people (which adds to my "long hanging fruit" comment).

Use Iraq as a central base for the USA so that we can influence the rest of the region

We can debate how much of a reason this was, but Iraq is more centrally located than Iran, that much is obvious. We'll see how much benefit we get here.

I want to believe you on Iran, but they are not getting anywhere near the help they need from us. They are pleading and begging and we are not doing enough.

I realize every encounter has risk vs. reward associated with it, and Iraq probably scored highest due to the short-term risk. A war with a genocidal dictator with limited WMDs and who was openly challenging UN authority (barf...oxymoron alert) is an easier sell on Joe American. And a large part of the population is not up for war after war. So I fear that in going after Iraq first, then quieting down for an election year, we will allow the greater threats to foster until it is too late. But giving 2004 to the Dems also falls under the "it is too late" category, I guess.