Iran and North Korea causing trouble

[Jedi Master Carr]

Anybody else hear this

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=10&u=/nm/20021213/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_iaea_dc_3

It looks Iran might be trying to make nukes. I am not surprised I figured they have been working on a nuclear program for some time. Also North Korea is causing more trouble they have started up some Nuclear Power Planets. I have to say what does this mean? When the US is done with Iraq do they invade Iran and North Korea too? They seem to be doing worse things than Iraq, if you ask me, both have started up nuclear programs and North Korea probably has a few nukes. There has been no proof that Iraq is currently working on a Nuclear program like Iran is. This is a big mess and I honestly have no clue what will happen. I figure there won't be any invasion of North Korea because China is their ally, and I don't see us invading them over the threat of World War 3. Iran, I guess we will have to wait and see there.

[Jedieb]

One of the things that concerns me is what kind of government we'll end up with in a post Saddam Iraq. It could very well be one that is friendly to Iran. There's two countries you don't necessarily want to be the best of buddies. In the end it's all a moot point. In less than 50 years these countries will all probably have nukes. I don't see how you can realistically stop them or the technology from advancing to the point where it becomes easy for these governments to get these weapons.

[Darth Viscera]

Nope, I doubt it.

Iran's internal situation right now is far too unstable for them to spend billions on nukes. I believe that this particular new nuclear power plant is benign. Iran's population has exploded 325% in the last 20 years, they need the energy, and they need jobs for the college graduates. Plus, they're practically inviting the IAEA to have summer condos near the plants.

Iran is cowed ATM. Iranian diplomats, having met with our boys here in D.C., have conveyed to Tehran that they are not to try anything during Gulf War II. The Ayatollah is scared out of his wits because thousands of students are daily getting together in the University of Tehran and burning life-size idols of him while chanting "Death to Dictatorship". The course that the Islamic Republic is taking ATM involves treading lightly, appeasing the IIPF, and trying to avoid another revolution, which is why the hardliners are getting disgruntled and walking out of parliament ATM. It also involves sniveling black ops by the hardline wackos against the U.S., but that doesn't extend to something so visible as a nuke plant.

The Ayatollah isn't going to plant his butt on a political cactus by starting up a nuclear warhead factory. Not now, anyway.

North Korea, however, does not have benign nuclear intentions. I guess they think that if they bear their fangs a bit they can work out a better deal. Communists always like to show you the bomb that is lit before selling you the bomb shelter, like with Kruschev and Stalin.

[Jedieb]

Nope, I doubt it.

I wonder what the odds were on India and Pakistan BOTH having nukes were 10 years ago? The day is coming, mark my words.

[Darth Viscera]

Apples and oranges.

[Jedieb]

No, it's pretty much dead on. There's no way to indefinitely keep this genie in the bottle. We thought it would take DECADES for the Soviets to bridge the nuclear gap, they did it within a few years. The CIA was caught COMPLETELY off guard by the situation in India and Pakistan. They had no clue the Pakistanis were going to be able to produce a nuke. Within a few years China will probably have enough nukes to rival the old Superpowers stockpiles. The only thing that's stopping China is China itself. If the French can get their collective rear ends out of their rear ends then just about any nation with a serious commintment will find a way. It's only a matter of time.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you Jedieb, I think nuclear nations are going to be more common in a few decades, its actually scary, because I am certain that we will have a nuclear exchange in the next 50 years. Most likely it could happen between Pakistan and India they hate each other the most. The middle east is dangerous too because if some crazy fool got into power and obtained a nuke they might launch at Israel and Israel would some back at them, which would leave millions dead in the Middle east. And there really is no way to stop this from happening, we can't conquer the whole world to prevent it (actually that would start one) so there is nothing we really can do.

[Darth Viscera]

I'm not talking about some theoretical spot in time in the next 50 years, I'm talking about now. With the internal situation in Iran the way it is, I seriously doubt they're going to use so visible a nuke power plant for making bombs.

[Jedieb]

The declaration on Saturday follows a warning from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who said North Korea was the closest member of U.S. President Bush's "axis of evil" to building a functional nuclear weapon in terms of technical capability.


North Korea's aggressive stance -- coupled with Washington's accusation on Friday that Iran was also "actively working" on a nuclear weapons program -- threatens to distract the U.S. as it tries to disarm Iraq. North Korea, Iran and Iraq make up Bush's so-called "axis of evil."

Condemnation has mounted against Pyongyang since it upped the ante in the nuclear row with the United States by saying on Thursday it would restart a nuclear reactor mothballed since 1994 after a deal with the then-Clinton administration.

"The DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] remains unfazed as it has made full preparations to cope with the confrontation and clash with the Yankees," a commentary in the ruling party newspaper Rodong Sinmun said.

"The army and people of the DPRK with burning hatred for the Yankees are in full readiness to fight a death-defying battle," the commentary said, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

Concerns over North Korea's nuclear ambitions have mounted since Pyongyang said earlier this week it intended to "unfreeze" its nuclear program and a demand that the IAEA remove cameras and seals from nuclear waste facilities where spent fuel rods are kept.

Speaking about the threat posed by North Korea, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, described the situation as "tense."

"I appealed to them to rethink their positions," ElBaradei told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "We are waiting for their response."

ElBaradei said North Korea already has the capability to build nuclear weapons, and that Iran lagged behind, followed by Iraq.

On Friday, the U.S. accused Iran of "actively working" on a nuclear weapons program and said that recent satellite photographs of a massive nuclear power construction project "reinforce" that belief. (U.S.: Iran working on nukes)

The renewed escalation of tensions between Pyongyang and Washington follows the stopping and boarding of a North Korean vessel carrying Scud missiles to Yemen by Spanish and U.S. forces in the Arabian Sea on Wednesday.

North Korea has accused the United States of "unpardonable piracy" in seizing the ship, which eventually was allowed to continue on to Yemen. (N. Korea hits out at U.S.)

North Korea agreed in 1994 to freeze its nuclear facilities, at least one of which was suspected of having the capability to produce weapons-grade plutonium, in return for regular shipments of heavy fuel oil and the promise of newer and safer nuclear reactors from the Japan, South Korea and the United States.

That deal averted a possible military confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington.

But North Korea said the "Agreed Framework" is no longer valid and that it is unfreezing the facilities because it needs the power generated by the nuclear plants since the fuel oil shipments were halted earlier this month.

The oil program was voided by the United States after North Korea divulged a few weeks ago that it was engaged in a "highly enriched uranium program" -- violating international agreements and the agreed framework.

ElBaradei said North Korea's response to entreaties from the IAEA has not been positive.

"I think it's much better to try to find a diplomatic solution," he said. "I'm encouraged that even Washington today is speaking of an agreed settlement."

In a telephone conversation on Friday, President Bush and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung agreed Friday that while North Korea's decision was regrettable and unacceptable, they would work with Japan and others to resolve the situation peacefully.

"The president will continue to work in concert with our allies," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "And the fact of the matter is diplomacy -- often the best diplomacy -- takes time. And that is something the president will continue to pursue." (N. Korean move 'unacceptable')

The most serious concern, ElBaradei said, is North Korea's demand for the removal of seals and cameras from the spent fuel rod storage site -- and warning that they would remove them if IAEA does not. Access to those rods, ElBaradei said, would give North Korea the material for plutonium and would be a serious breach.

"If they were to remove the seals or cameras it will be in serious violation of their non-proliferation obligation. We will have to go to the Security Council," he said.

But so far, North Korea has not requested the removal of the two on-site IAEA monitors -- the last barriers to a possible crisis with North Korea and the issue that pushed the United States close to war before the Agreed Framework was signed in 1994.

"We have our inspectors still on the ground, still monitoring the freeze of North Korean nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

North Korea is closer to having nuclear weapons than either of its "axis of evil" companions, Iran and Iraq, ElBaradei said, but stressed that he could not address the intent of any of the three countries.

"We know at least that North Korea has a reprocessing plant, a process that ... reprocesses material into plutonium," he said. "They already have the technical capability if they want to have the plutonium."

"We do not know that Iran has an enrichment or reprocessing plant in operation. They don't have that capability yet."

"We know that Iraq, at least when we left in 1998, has no capability whatsoever to produce either a weapon or weapon-usable material," he said.

White House spokesman Fleischer, however, said the administration was less concerned with North Korea than Iraq "because the situation in Iraq involves somebody who has used force in the past to attack and invade his neighbors."

"That is not the history of North Korea for the last 50 years," he said. "The world cannot just be treated as a photocopy machine: the policies in one part of the world need to be identically copied through another. It's a much more complicated endeavor than that."

-- CNN's Christiane Amanpour and John King contributed to this report.


Those wacky North Koreans! The "The army and people of the DPRK with burning hatred for the Yankees are in full readiness to fight a death-defying battle," is my favorite line. So when's the invasion? Oh that's right, it's a different "situation." I'm sure the fact that China wouldn't stand for it and an invasion of N. Korea would be a bloody nightmare and not the 2 week stroll in the park that a steamrolling of Baghdad would be has nothing to do with it.


"That is not the history of North Korea for the last 50 years," I'm sure the presence of the world's largest minefield and a constant U.S. presence had nothing to do with halting N. Korea's aggression. I'm sure the S.Koreans think the North are a bunch of sweethearts that pose no threat. So again, when's this N. Korean invasion coming? Oh that's right, we've got to take care of the incredibly dangerous threat that Baghdad is posing. I mean they just said they were starting up their nuke program again... wait, that was the N. Koreans. :rolleyes

[Darth Viscera]

I don't know if your theory about China is correct. Those boys in Beijing change partners an awful lot. A lot of the driving factors that led to Korean War I are kaput now, and there are a lot more reasons at present not to continue the war.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I disagree I still think they are allies, if the U.S. invade China would come to their side, IMO. Heck it wouldn't shock me if they are the ones supplying them with the material to build their nuclear program.

[Darth Viscera]

Heck it wouldn't shock me if they are the ones supplying them with the material to build their nuclear program.

Apples and alligators. The whole communist world was supplying North Vietnam with everything from WW2-era U.S.-built waterproof telephone wire (sent over as lend-lease material to the Soviet Union) to cheapo Katyusha anti-tank rockets. This doesn't mean that the Soviet Union and China were about to leap over the border and start filling Vietnamese battlefields with Soviet and Chinese troops. There is a huge difference between assistance that can be plausibly denied and visible, active military participation.

IMHO, China would play both sides in a potential Allied war with N. Korea. They need to try and sell us cheap hats, standardized CD players and Buick clones as much as they desire to hurt us over North Korea.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but China seems very much in support of North Korea, and they haven't condmened their nuclear program. Still the threat that China might do something would prevent any invasion, IMO. It also would be a messy war as Jedieb said there is a huge minefield there and we would have casualites higher than every war since WW 2, and then if N Korea has any nukes they would use them killing more people, so invading them would just be insane.

[Darth23]

China doesn't have to do anything.

They have both Republican and Democratic administratiosn in the US kissing their butts, even after Tienimen square.

Remember the whole air collision incident? Bush said give us our damn plane back RIGHT NOW, and China said F--- You.

Did we ever get the parts back? The story kind fo fell off the headlines after the crew came back.

[Marcus Telcontar]

China is one huge market the Capitalistsin USA are drooling over and China knows it. You think the Administration, as fully owned by commercial interests as it is, is going to do anythign to stop trade?

Not a chance.

I actually doubt Iran is a problem in the end. And as for N. Korea, best idea is simply block all access from anywhere. I'd be more worried about a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan myself.

[Jedieb]

There are several reasons why the U.S. treats China with kid gloves.
1) Over 1 Billion potential customers
2) Over 1 Billion enemies to deal with
3) Taiwan
4) A potential superpower to rival the U.S and the former USSR if they ever got their economy together

It's easy to say it's just about greed and money. I think money has much to do with it, but China is too important for us to ignore and they're too big for us to bowl over militarily (Iraq) or with economic sanctions (Cuba). In any kind of Korean conflict the U.S. will side with the South and China with the North, just as they always have. Any U.S. action against N. Korea would immediately result in the North attempting an invasion of the South. And N. Korea isn't a push over like Iraq. The terrain is different and it's a very different kind of war. One we've fought before and the best we managed was a stalemate.

[JonathanLB]

I personally hope we can go about dealing with North Korea and Iran peacefully and not threaten them constantly.

I don't like to hear this propaganda that these countries are an "axis of evil" when we are not even at war with them! To me, it's inappropriate to label an entire nation evil like that and of course I'm sure there are North Koreans now thinking all of these stupid yankees deserve to die or something. That's horrible. I don't feel any ill will against the North Korean people, even if they did cheat the hell out of me when I used to play StarCraft online :)

I think it's wrong to go about treating these countries like enemies because it makes them more likely to want to arm themselves and protect themselves from what they see as a beligerent U.S. government. Why not just try to reason with these people and stop calling them our enemies but try to improve relations? It's better than trying to attack every country that just wants to arm themselves with the same weapons we have. Not to say I really want these countries having nukes!

Actually, I'd rather nobody had nukes, we'd all be a hell of a lot better off, but that's besides the point because that's not possible.

I agree, though, that Iran and N. Korea are both more dangerous than Iraq. I don't know what gives with our obsession about Iraq other than the obvious fact of, ahem, oil, but if it really is about the threat they pose to the United States and its allies, well it seems to me that N. Korea is the first biggest threat, then Iran, then Iraq, of those three.

Furthermore, I think establishing good relations with China should be a huge priority. There are a lot of people over there, a huge market, we don't need anyone as our enemies, let alone a country that big with 1 million people!

Not to sound like a pacifist, but I don't think war is the answer here.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedieb
1) Over 1 Billion potential customers

We're never going to see that potential while the darn commies are in power. Ever heard of the trade deficit? They sell us everything they make, take that money and instead of using it to buy U.S. finished goods as would be decent, they turn around and use it to purchase Russian T-90 tanks, 105mm rifled guns for those tanks from Israel Defense Industries, plans for the prototype Russian T-99 tank (and I'm sure they've already bought the plans for the T-10 by now), fighter jets from western Europe, and Airbus (instead of superior Boeing products) commercial airliners.

Now I don't know about you guys, but where I come from (Texas) that's called screwing over your business partner. Shrewd capitalists, these communists.

[Sanis Prent]

I'm still having Iraq at the top of my priorities list. Yes both North Korea and Iran are potential enemies, and don't really like us. Neither, however, have a totally unhinged madman in charge with a prior record of genocide and a hobby for weapons of mass killing. Ever seen the villages of Kurds after Saddam played Orkin Man with mustard gas? That is horrible stuff, and he isn't afraid to use it. You think he'd stop there, if he could upgrade his arsenal? The next scud that falls on Tel Aviv might not have a conventional warhead next time. Think that one over. At least the other bad guys are somewhat sane about what they do.

[JonathanLB]

Dude, what are you talking about? Saddam hasn't done anything like that since 1988 -- that is 14 years ago! That is before The Gulf War. He hasn't done anything in the last decade to prove that he is any greater threat to us or his neighbors. It seems to me as though he has already figured out that if he tries anything stupid, he will get his butt kicked, and last time he was LUCKY enough not to have us overthrow him, he knows that if he ever tried anything like that again, though, we'd kick him out. The last thing he wants to do is lose power. He may be crazy as hell, and he is, but he isn't stupid.

[Eluna Thals]

You mean like annihilating Kurdish villages with Hind gunships immediately after the Gulf War? No, he's been a regular boyscout since the war, of course.

Sit down.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I still think North Korea is a bigger threat, of course I also think India and Pakistan is worse than any of them, I think in the next 20 years these two countries will have a Nuclear war they just hate each other so much and all it will take is one mistake to do it.

[Darth23]

Originally posted by Eluna Thals
You mean like annihilating Kurdish villages with Hind gunships immediately after the Gulf War? No, he's been a regular boyscout since the war, of course.

Sit down.

Pop Quiz:

When was the last time the US dropped bombs on Iraq?

I think it was yesterday. We bomb them all the time, it's not even a news story anymore.

Of course they ALWAYS deserve it.

It's just too bad we can't get away with dropping bombs on EVERY country we want to.

Yet.

[Eluna Thals]

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Saddam used the leeway that we gave him by not fully backing the northern Kurdish insurgents, and crushed them with a fully mechanized assault. These are the same people he used mustard gas reprisals on four years prior. The reason he did so is because he could get away with it...because America wasn't turning the heat on, and applying the pressure. Our inaction prompted Saddam's action...what else do you need to know?

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Darth23
Pop Quiz:

When was the last time the US dropped bombs on Iraq?

I think it was yesterday. We bomb them all the time, it's not even a news story anymore.

Of course they ALWAYS deserve it.

It's just too bad we can't get away with dropping bombs on EVERY country we want to.

Yet.

Smack yourself, please.

Don't compare an airstrike with a precision laser-guided bomb to an act of genocidal retaliation by a gas-toting madman dictator which results in the death of 5,000 people. Saddam knows the deal. Do I really have to spell out the no-fly zone requirement? Better yet, stand in a room with a homicidal maniac armed with an AK-47 and see what happens. A day later, you'll be wishing you had had some kind of wall up between him and you.