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

Skip to comments.

Pyongyang capabilites rising, say experts: NK preparing to reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods
Reuters via Taiwan News ^ | 3/1/03

Posted on 03/01/2003 12:58:15 PM PST by Heartlander2

North Korea, believed to have just activated a key nuclear reactor, now appears set to raise tensions further by preparing to start reprocessing plutonium and test a ballistic missile, officials and reports said yesterday.

As South Korea's new government scrambled to cope with the apparent firing up of the Yongbyon reactor, reports from Tokyo and Washington indicated that the North might be moving to cross what experts call critical "red lines" in the nuclear crisis.

U.S. officials and congressional sources said on Thursday that North Korea was continuing to ready a spent fuel reprocessing plant and could have the facility operating as a source of weapons-grade plutonium within a month.

The nuclear developments were likely to increase the drumbeat of calls from Seoul, Beijing and Moscow for the United States to talk directly to North Korea - a course Washington has resisted in favor of multilateral diplomacy.

In another sign of North Korean brinkmanship, a major Japanese daily reported yesterday that U.S. satellite photos and other intelligence indicated that North Korea had tested a rocket booster in January for a Taepodong ballistic missile capable of hitting Tokyo.

Japan's defense minister, Shigeru Ishiba, told reporters he had no information about the report, in the mass-circulation Yomiuri Shimbun, but said Japan did not believe that North Korea was about to launch a ballistic missile.

"We don't have a view that the danger of a missile launch is imminent," he said.

Asked about the missile booster report, a spokesman at South Korea's National Intelligence Service said: "We still don't have tangible material to confirm that."

In August 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage Taepodong-1 missile over Japan, demonstrating that major population areas including the capital were within its estimated 1,000-kilometer range.

That missile - and longer-range rockets the North is thought to have built but not yet tested - compound worries about the nuclear ambitions of a militant state that also has chemical and biological weapons and the world's fifth largest standing army.

On Wednesday, U.S. officials said that the North had restarted a five-megawatt research reactor at Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang, which had been mothballed in 1994. At an adjoining reprocessing plant, plutonium for use in nuclear warheads could be extracted from the reactor's spent fuel rods.

On Thursday, other U.S. officials told Reuters that a steam plant associated with the reprocessing facility had been fired up and chemicals delivered that could be used for reprocessing.

"They could start (reprocessing) on fairly short notice but they haven't yet," said one official who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity.

"There also seems to be some effort to make sure they have the necessary chemicals in stock for reprocessing. There have been railroad cars full of chemicals arriving at Yongbyon," said another official.

Previously, Reuters and other media reported that the North Koreans have been moving fuel rods around the Yongbyon complex, possibly including some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods stored there.

Activating the reprocessing plant would give North Korea the means to boost its nuclear inventory quickly. The 8,000 spent rods could be used to make another five or six bombs - about one a month through the summer.

Pyongyang has not commented on any of the latest developments in the crisis, which it blames on U.S. hostility and says can only be defused by bilateral talks and a non-aggression treaty.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: axisofevil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 03/01/2003 12:58:15 PM PST by Heartlander2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Heartlander2
Is it just me, or is March '03 not getting off to a particularly auspicious opening act? When it rains...
2 posted on 03/01/2003 1:01:39 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander2
Another result of the Clinton administrations foreign policy. Carter's appeasement. Maybe we should now build a nuclear power plant for Al Queda? After all, the one in N. Korea was so "successful..."
3 posted on 03/01/2003 1:02:50 PM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Is it just me, or is March '03 not getting off to a particularly auspicious opening act? When it rains...


Yeah, I'm starting to dream about scenes from Road Warrior
4 posted on 03/01/2003 1:04:47 PM PST by Bulldogs22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: donozark
So what's the problem with the US formally swearing off future military action against NK in exchange for an elimination of their nukes?

Just a devil's advocate question here.

5 posted on 03/01/2003 1:05:25 PM PST by zarf (Republicans for Sharpton 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: donozark
Another result of the Clinton administrations foreign policy. Carter's appeasement. Maybe we should now build a nuclear power plant for Al Queda? After all, the one in N. Korea was so "successful..."

Let's be realistic here, North Korea's plutonium program began in the 1980's and was virtually ignored until Bush Sr. started the negotiations process, the bulk of which was already completed when Clinton took office.

The north koreans kept their plutonium plant shut down until just recently, and they didn't start their uranium enrichment program until about two years ago.

However, given all that, we've got a nation that has threatened to nuke us and we're giving them a free pass. Bush should be firm here, he should send them the message that any ramp up of refinement at Yongbyon will not be allowed. Any missile tests will be seen as an act of war. And then, we must be prepared to carry out the threat. If we need to nuke Yongbyon then so be it. I'd rather deal with this situation now then see it escalate any further. I don't believe that Kim Jong Ill is suicidal, so even if we destory Yongbyon I don't think he would respond. And if he did, we should be prepared to destroy his country, regardless of the price. We can't let them become the world's plutonium and nuclear weapons supplier.

6 posted on 03/01/2003 1:08:55 PM PST by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Do we use UN "Inspectors?" As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." The N.Korean Commies played Jimmie Carter like a drum. What a fool. All the while deceiving everyone.

As for swearing off future US actions against N.Korea? We essentially did that at the armistice. We haven't gone north since (intentionally). Meanwhile, they have violated the Truce many times. Tunnels. Saboteurs landed by sea. Infiltrations over, under and through the DMZ. I wouldn't trust these SOBs at all. In particular where nukes are concerned.

7 posted on 03/01/2003 1:12:03 PM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
Clinton "gave" $6 Billion for construction of two light water reactors in N.Korea, back in 1994.

No one really knows exactly what went on since the 2 UN inspectors were booted out. Not that they knew anything. We didn't even know they had a missile capability until they launched one in 1998. We didn't know they had such a large army until we discovered many were busy tunneling under the DMZ.

Clintons sale of missile technology to the Chinese, via Loral also compromised or security (and certainly that of the 2nd ID) as such has ended up in N. Korean hands.

Back in 1997, Pat Robertson had photos up and on TV showing this plant in operation. Were they merely warming Kim's hot tub?

8 posted on 03/01/2003 1:22:26 PM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: zarf
As we've seen in Iraq, dictatorial societies are pretty good at keeping secrets. We learned about Iraq's nuclear and chemical programs only from defectors.

Dictatorial societies also consider having weapons of mass destruction an unambiguously Good Thing. They are willing to lie and cheat to keep them - again, as we've found out in Iraq.

There are, however, some reasons to negotiate with North Korea instead of attacking them.

* They have an army that would probably fight.
* They have nuclear weapons and could do significant damage before we shut them down.
* They can't cause much trouble because they have no allies of importance save China, and China's relationship with the US is much more important. As a result, they are more or less contained by their neighbors.

To me, shooting down Saddam will tell North Korea to fall into place or be next, at a much lower cost than actually attacking North Korea.

D
10 posted on 03/01/2003 1:37:26 PM PST by daviddennis (Visit amazing.com for protest accounts, video & more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
and they didn't start their uranium enrichment program until about two years ago.

I'm not sure this is true. There were reports out of DoE and the CIA in 1998 of North Korea's covert nuclear program violating the 1994 AF. What's your source for two years ago?

11 posted on 03/01/2003 1:48:55 PM PST by optimistically_conservative (We're approaching the one-year anniversary of Democrats accusing Bush of a "rush" to war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: daviddennis
We should not attack NK, but we also should not negotiate. NK's increasing hostility is hurting Roh (S. Korea), China and Russia and helping us.

After our war in Iraq, the anti-war countries will need to decide on a position concerning NK. One of the reasons I think China is sitting out the Iraq debate.
12 posted on 03/01/2003 1:55:34 PM PST by optimistically_conservative (We're approaching the one-year anniversary of Democrats accusing Bush of a "rush" to war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Their covert nuclear program has been going on considerably longer than two years. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to pin the 'Axis of Evil' speech as the scapegoat.

You are correct in that we should neither attack nor negotiate. There is no call for either. We don't fear an imminent attack, nor do we need anything from them that would require talking. The fact that they need our food and energy aid to stay out of the red is hardly our problem. All we need to do is step back and let them implode.

13 posted on 03/01/2003 3:25:36 PM PST by Steel Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
I don't think he would respond. And if he did, we should be prepared to destroy his country, regardless of the price. We can't let them become the world's plutonium and nuclear weapons supplier.

YOU DON'T THINK??????????? So you're willing to snuff the lives of about 1 million Koreans because you don't think? What do you suppose happens to world economy if NK nukes Seoul? Sure, we'll nuke NK, but the human and economic devastation would be enormoous.

Don't talk about such important matters flippantly. You sound like a man with a paper asshole in a match factory.

14 posted on 03/01/2003 4:18:20 PM PST by irish_lad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: donozark
Do we use UN "Inspectors?" As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." The N.Korean Commies played Jimmie Carter like a drum. What a fool. All the while deceiving everyone.

The problem is that Reagan and Bush didn't act when the North Koreans refused, and then deceived IAEA inspections after signing the NPT. The IAEA reported in 1992 that North Korea was hiding plutonium.

15 posted on 03/01/2003 7:17:57 PM PST by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: donozark
Clinton "gave" $6 Billion for construction of two light water reactors in N.Korea, back in 1994.

It is amazing how much bad information floats around on this topic. Clinton didn't give them $6 billion, he arranged funding through several countries. The U.S. tab was $20-30 million per year for up to ten years.

Where Clinton failed was in not enforcing a rigerous inspection process.

16 posted on 03/01/2003 7:19:44 PM PST by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
and they didn't start their uranium enrichment program until about two years ago.

I'm not sure this is true. There were reports out of DoE and the CIA in 1998 of North Korea's covert nuclear program violating the 1994 AF. What's your source for two years ago?

I went back and researched it, you are correct, the first indications of a uranium enrichment program were known in 1998.

17 posted on 03/01/2003 7:20:56 PM PST by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: irish_lad
YOU DON'T THINK??????????? So you're willing to snuff the lives of about 1 million Koreans because you don't think? What do you suppose happens to world economy if NK nukes Seoul? Sure, we'll nuke NK, but the human and economic devastation would be enormoous. Don't talk about such important matters flippantly. You sound like a man with a paper asshole in a match factory.

The alternative of doing nothing means that we simply allow North Korea to become the world's supplier of nuclear weapons. That is something we can't allow. I urge you to go back and review the words of George W. Bush in his 2001 State of the Union speech - something to the effect that we weren't going to allow members of the axis of evil to develop weapons of mass destruction. It is quickly becoming time for us to enforce our doctrine of pre-emption. The cost to South Korea may be great, but the cost of inaction to the U.S. is much greater.

18 posted on 03/01/2003 7:23:28 PM PST by stimpyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
They are next. They want to be next. They deserve to be next and once they are next they won't be anything at all.
19 posted on 03/01/2003 7:28:11 PM PST by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stimpyone
Well, according to Bill Gertz, Newsmax, Worldnet Daily,etal the precise figure is $4.6 Billion. I have in fact read/heard the $6 Billion figure from the various "experts" (read:talking heads) on FOX, MSNBC,etc. But let us not quibble over who has the sharper accountant's pencil. I am a country boy. Anything over the cost of a good, used pickup truck confuses me. If you disagree with my figures, contact the aforementioned sources directly.

But the point is this: Regardless of dollar amount Clinton DID construct the actual power plants. Reagan and Bush 41 may have been reticent to attack N. Korea during the Cold War because of the involvement of Warsaw Pact nations. However, there is a difference between not attacking a rogue state in which you believe has a couple of nukes and what Clinton did. That is, the actual CONSTRUCTION of nuclear power plants.

These plants will be able to turn out upwards of 50 nukes per annum according to Gertz,etal, in 2005. Whether it is 50 or 15, etiology is the same. Their increased ability to produce these weapons came from the Clinton administration.

Keep in mind, these are the idiots that assured us N. Korea had no missile capacity in 1998. Two weeks later they dropped one of Alaska. And during this period, the commies were busy in their nefarious activities while Clinton/Carter assured us all was well. WRONG!

Even Colin Powell got duped when last weeks' "...antique Silkworm missile" turned out to be a type of Cruise missile. If anything our intel from CIA/NSA/Military has understated N.Korean capabilities.

Clinton officals did in fact plan on taking out N.Korea in 1994. Just like they were going to arrest UBL. They dropped the ball, times ten. Now we may pay an awful price. At least those in the 2nd ID, who interestingly enough are expected to hold out for two weeks until reinforcements arrive. Somali on a much larger scale...

20 posted on 03/02/2003 8:32:48 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 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