Posted on 12/23/2002 8:05:48 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo
North Korea Breaks Seals on 8,000 Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods
DECEMBER 23, 2002 22:32 (Dong-a Ilbo News, Seoul, S.Korea)
North Korea has removed the seals and surveillance cameras installed to monitor the storage facilities containing 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods that had been closely watched by the IAEA. A couple of days ago, the North also eliminated all IAEA`s inspection devices set up at the nuclear reactor in Yongbyon.
What makes the latest move of North more serious is the fact that the fuel rods have nothing do to with generation of electricity and can produce plutonium, which in turn can produce nuclear weapons. Therefore, the situation is spinning more and more out of control.
So far, it is believed, North Korea has dismantled surveillance devices at two of its 5 nuclear facilities whose operation had been frozen under the 1994 arms control accord in Geneva. The five facilities are the 5MW nuclear reactor in Yongbyon, the storage facility containing 8,000 spent fuel rods, the 50MW nuclear reactor whose construction was supposed to be completed sometime between 1995 and 1996, the 200MW reactor in Taechon, Pyongbook, and the radiochemical laboratory in Yongbyon
The IAEA announced on Sunday, "North Korea has taken additional actions to hinder the operation of the inspection devices on the storage facility of the nuclear wastes containing the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods. The storage facility is the number one target of our inspection activities."
IAEA`s Secretary General, Mohammed Elbaradei criticized, "The rods contain a considerable amount of plutonium. Therefore, it is a matter of grave concern in connection with the nonproliferation. The action North Korea took this time poses a profound hindrance to IAEA`s inspection activities to prevent the conversion of the nuclear material extracted from the spent fuel rods into production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosives."
Experts believe that the 8,000 fuel rods could produce 25kg of plutonium #239, which in turn could suffice to produce at lease three nuclear warheads, reported the AFP.
The facility whose seals were broken this time is in vicinity of the 5MW nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. The IAEA had double-sealed the spent fuel rods in stainless containers, and stored them in water tanks with surveillance cameras rolling over them.
One senior South Korean official said, "The IAEA bound 400 stainless containers and hang them on ropes connected above water in such a way that, if a person other than an inspector tried to temper with them, the trace must be left behind. It were these seals that North broke this time. The fuel rods, however, are still in the water tank."
North Korea`s state-run Central Agency reported on December 22 that North Korean regime started removing IAEA`s seals and surveillance cameras that had been set up under the Geneva accord. The agency announced that this action was caused by the United States` discontinuance of the fuel oil shipment.
At first, North Korea, through its Foreign Ministry spokesperson, announced that it would reactivate its nuclear program. Then, on December 21, it removed the seals and cameras on the 5MW reactor in Yongbyon.
Yesterday, South Korean government, through the comments of the Foreign Ministry, demanded, "The additional action on the part of North Korea may increase tension over the Korean Peninsula, and will amplify the concern of the international community over the nonproliferation issue."
The New York Times, citing a senior Bush administration official, reported yesterday that the United States government might consider "non-diplomatic" reactions if North got closer and closer to production of a nuclear weapon.
US State Department spokesperson also warned on Sunday that this action had caused a more serious consequence.
In the meanwhile, the Japanese government defined the removal of the seals as a violation of the 1994 accord, and protested against North Korea`s action via its embassy in Beijing.
Good question. It's not mine. nK uses their nuclear weapons program for 3 things, IMHO:
I don't think most Americans understand how their thinking on war differs from Europeans and Asians (not that it should drive what we do). We haven't felt the devastating impacts of a war on our soil for 140 years, and never by a foreign invader (I don't count the British as a foreign invader of the US, for obvious reasons). These folks still have living relatives (and lots of dead ones) that remember and scars on the buildings and landscape. Hell, we've still got folks pissed off over the "War of Aggression" here.
It'll be interesting how this pans out, maybe we do strike the facilities. I'd let them sweat it out while we push for support for Iraq.
Quite a shopping list of targets for pilots, predator operators and cruise missiles.
The fact remains that the North will continue to develop capabilities that will allow for longer range and more targeted capabilities, as well as rapid production of nuclear weapons both for their own use as well as for uncontrolled, massive proliferation throughout the world to any rogue nation or terrorist group willing to purchase from them.
This simply is an unacceptable situation any way you look at it.
Negotiating, good will, economic support, light water reactor construction, special economic zones, etc. have all shown that it will not retard nor conclude nuclear and strike missile development by the North Koreans. I believe much of your position is based on wishful thinking regarding that regime, which cannot be trusted in small or large matters. A line must be drawn. Unless your premise is they could halt such development and expansion based on more 'carrots' (the Carter approach) or diplomacy.
Thats why we need an orbital space station and asteroid collection system, deployed in secret. Go use it and divert one small asteroid to impact North Korea's nuclear facility, and no one could blame us. :)
Seems like it was more like negligence of duties to me......
The entrance speeds (11 to 74 km/s) of comets and asteroids are so high that these objects possess more kinetic energy per mass than the chemical energy per mass represented by explosives such as TNT. A 10 km diameter asteroid entering at 30 km/s would have the energy equivalent to 15 billion times that of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. The effects from a major (about10 km in size) impact include: shock waves in the crust of the earth, tsunamis (tidal waves), firestorms over large portions of a continent, destruction of the ozone layer, atmosphere alteration (due to the huge amount of material ejected into the upper atmosphere), etc. and range in time scales from hours to thousands of years.
A land impact of a more modest object can also cause severe destruction, through earth shocks and firestorms. One can estimate the approximate area of devastation from such objects by using the relationship area of devastation (in square km) =3D 400 x (kinetic energy in terms of megatons of TNT)2/3. A 500 m object would be expected to devastate an area comparable to Ontario plus Quebec.
(Don't tell Rummy....)
"On November 11, 1999, Mr. Aoyama (Japanese alias for North Korean defector who worked on DPRK nuke program) handed his first confidential report on North Korea to Mr. M (cannot be identified) at the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. Mr. Aoyama's first report contained information on a missile base in Reteiri (in Japanese reading of Chinese letters) near the border between China and North Korea. The report says, "Reiteiri County became a military location in 1993. All residents were evacuated. Currently, only military service people are living there. The military base there was built underground. All missiles and their facilities are hidden underground. In an emergency, missiles are made ready for launching by opening the 10-ton iron door. The underground military base has missile hangars, diesel electric generators, barrack facilities for military men, a command room, ventilation facilities and many secret tunnels." Mr. Aoyama's report contained information that could only be supplied by a person who had actually been there."
Not at all. I do not trust the NK can be trusted any more than Saddam. My point was simply that much of the conversation on the thread (not necessarily yours) was going off in the nuclear brink direction.
A few have gotten it correct that these developments have the effect of removing several options we might otherwise have for dealing with rouge states. The military option is still there, but the risk is much greater. The option of 'punishing' NK militarily may be palatable, but the cost of a regime change strategy in NK is now far greater (where NK would use their WMD if they realized the outcome of a conflict was not in their favor.)
The SK (and Japanese) have the most at stake in a conflict and it will be even harder to get them behind us if the US deems a military strike is required.
Of course he or she doesn't. For a good number of the members here, politics stops at the water's edge.
Correct.
The U.S. has the ability to fight at least 2 "brush fire wars." This is not like the Warsaw pact.
It's a pathetic attempt to being us to the barganing table and lift our sanctions, imho.
...a politically motivated decision to justify defunding the military. Clinton = traitor.
Of course it is a pathetic attempt to force us to negotiate. But there is more than enough evidence to show that it is not only this, but it is a serious effort to continue with development, pose a larger threat, and continue to be a source of missile export which could have larger ramifications.
The situation is not sustainable and seriously merits our counter response; if not fully right now due to Iraq pre-occupations, then certainly within the next calender year. Whether that is destabilization, a blockade, regime change or an attack, I will leave it up to the planners.
What cannot be done IMHO, is 'nothing.'
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.