Facebook Blogging

Edward Hugh has a lively and enjoyable Facebook community where he publishes frequent breaking news economics links and short updates. If you would like to receive these updates on a regular basis and join the debate please invite Edward as a friend by clicking the Facebook link at the top of the right sidebar.

Monday, September 01, 2003

No Nukes are Good Nukes

Joerg has just come through with a link to a piece from one of his favourite 'nuke' authorities: Dr J Gordon Prather

Do you remember the name James Gordon Prather? I once mentioned him to you. He served in the Reagan administration as deputy assistant secretary of the army for science and technology. Like James Baker (who publicly talked about an impeachment process against Bush if the latter were to initiate another attack after that against Iraq), he has been a critic of the current administration´s foreign policy. Here is what he
wrote about the North Korean nuke crisis on Saturday

I think it is deeply disturbing that even a conservative American with Republican credentials like Dr. Prather sees fit not to believe in the accuracy and truthfulness of his government in nuclear-arms-related matters. I wish the U.S. would just go ahead with missile defense and otherwise dismantle its nuclear arsenal. No victim of terrorism will ever
come alive again because of its existence, after all. (And, no, I don´t care for the idea of the EU starting to build its own arsenal of nukes, either. If that´s supposed to be final proof of sovereignty, then let the EU be an incomplete sovereign. Worldnetdaily certainly is an odd choice for Dr. Prather to publish at. I would characterise it as a hangout of the radical right.)

Report on N. Korea nukes: Bogus
By Gordon Prather

You can come out of your nuke fallout shelter – for a while, at least. It was just another neo-crazy false alarm. Contrary to what an anonymous high-level Bush-Cheney official told the Associated Press, North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Yong Il did not announce to the Russian, Japanese, U.S. and South Korean delegates at the Beijing conference this week that DPRK actually had a nuke stockpile and would test one of them in the near future. Now, DPRK did withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – as was its right – six months ago.

No longer subject to International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards, they expelled the IAEA weenies who had been keeping DPRK nuclear facilities "frozen," under lock and seal, since 1994. They restarted their plutonium-producing reactor and may have recovered enough weapons-grade plutonium, by now, from their "unfrozen" spent fuel to make a half-dozen nukes. They are no longer prohibited from developing nukes. They can even buy nukes, or nuke designs or nuke technology from other nuke powers not subject to the NPT – such as Pakistan – if they want to.

Where would they get the money? Well, they could sell ballistic missiles to Pakistan or perhaps weapons-grade plutonium to Islamic terrorists. Why do they want nukes? On numerous occasions, President Bush has said that he would "not tolerate" Iraq, Iran or North Korean having nukes. Look at what Bush just did to nuke-less Iraq.

So, by now, DPRK may have a nuke stockpile. The CIA reckons it may, but the Russians consider it unlikely. Having supplied the plutonium-production and plutonium-recovery technology, the Russians don't doubt DPRK now has the necessary weapons-grade plutonium for making implosion nukes. But, they do doubt DPRK has the technological capability to produce nukes. The DPRK has never admitted to having – while subject to the NPT – a nuke development program. In fact, in his opening remarks at Beijing, Kim implied that they never did. "Without solid evidence, the United States accused us of developing a new clandestine nuclear-weapons program with uranium enrichment. We replied we have something stronger than a program with enriched uranium. We have stronger weapons, such as national solidarity."

Some anonymous high-level Bush official had charged last October that a DPRK weenie had admitted they did have a uranium-enrichment program. When the DPRK officially denied it, some neo-crazies told their media sycophants that it was even worse than they imagined; the "stronger weapons" referred to in the DPRK reply meant "thermo-nukes"! [It should be noted at this point that if the DPRK does have – or is building – a uranium-enrichment facility, the CIA hasn't got a clue as to where it is. Not a clue.]

Now comes some anonymous high-level Bush official – who wasn't even at the Beijing conference – to tell the Associated Press that Kim admitted to having nukes and intends to test them. Well, if Kim did, the Russians and Chinese didn't hear him. Kim did refer to allegations that DPRK had nukes and intended to test them that had appeared in a Japanese newspaper in July. Kim charged that report, and others, were lies, spread by the U.S. with the intention of derailing the Beijing talks before they began. Here is what Kim actually told the delegates. DPRK would "declare" its "intention" to give up its "nuclear" programs in return for resumption of fuel-oil and humanitarian food aid; DPRK would "freeze" all "nuclear" activities and allow inspection of all facilities in return for U.S. signing a non-aggression pact; DPRK would dismantle all "nuclear" facilities once the South Korean-supplied light-water power reactors came on line. Notice that Kim consistently refers to "nuclear" programs and facilities. Never "nuke." Never "nuclear weapons."

It is not as though the North Koreans don't know the difference between "nuke" and "nuclear." At the official DPRK news website, they frequently rail about U.S. "nukes" and "nuclear weapons." But they never acknowledge that they have either "nukes" or "nuclear weapons." All they say is that they are working on their "deterrent" against "nuke" attack. Kim emphasized the demand that the United States sign a legally binding non-aggression pact before DPRK would even allow "inspections" of their "nuclear facilities." He warned that a verbal assurance by President Bush of DPRK's security if it gives up its "deterrent" will not suffice. Kim also rejected the suggestion, put forth by Russia, that a joint security assurance by the U.S., Russia and China would suffice. How are you fixed for duct tape?

No comments: