NK out of control: warns it may launch a pre-emptive attack on American forces.

[grooveman]

No worries!

These links are a bit odd - don't know if they'll linkify properly -

http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/ABBZH/abbzh250.nsf&v=c&e=us&c=316DCEEDCA12D32E4125686C00433604 - "ABB, the global technology group, said today it has signed contracts to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on the east coast of North Korea. The contracts, with a value of US$ 200 million, were awarded by HANJUNG (Korea Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd.) and KOPEC (Korea Power Engineering Corp.)."

http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&c=D0E90B053BD5AA65C12569F8002A7CB5 (Left as text in case the linking didn't work right.)
"The company said that Donald Rumsfeld has resigned his membership on the Board as a result of his recent appointment as U.S. Secretary of Defense. In addition, Göran Lindahl and Peter Sutherland have both decided not to stand for re-election. "


Have a good day, all. 🙂

(Edit: One more edit! 🙂) FWIW, these are the light water reactors - but, according to testimony from Gary Milhollin, "Although light water reactors (LWRs) are less efficient at producing bomb fuel, these two giant reactors could turn out at least 70 bombs' worth of "weapon-grade" plutonium per year. North Korea's existing graphite reactors are only one eighth as big, and could make only about 25-30 bombs' worth per year." Linkified!)

 

[tcsenter]

FWIW, these are the light water reactors - but, according to testimony from Gary Milhollin, "Although light water reactors (LWRs) are less efficient at producing bomb fuel, these two giant reactors could turn out at least 70 bombs' worth of "weapon-grade" plutonium per year. North Korea's existing graphite reactors are only one eighth as big, and could make only about 25-30 bombs' worth per year."

"Could" is the operative word, but they would have to run at full duty 24/7 for a year, and still the plutonium is NOT anywhere near the purity that is desirable for producing nuclear weapons with an acceptable degree of efficiency.

But more to the point, our agreement gives monitoring rights over these light water nuclear reactors. The US or the UN will be keeping tabs on the spent fuel, not the North Koreans. We did not have that with their graphite reactors and this was only agreeable to the North Koreans because they were getting these reactors for free. So the point of how much plutonium might be produced from the light water reactors is moot. The point of how much plutonium CAN be produced from North Korea's current reactors is not.

And I still don't see the 'problem' of Rumsfeld's connection with ABB.

 

[grooveman]

Am popping out in a minute for the day... yak... this type of thread always pulls me in. :\

"Could" is the operative word, but they would have to run at full duty 24/7 for a year, and still the plutonium is NOT anywhere near the purity that is desirable for producing nuclear weapons with an acceptable degree of efficiency.

On that, I don't know if I could comment... I can only go by the expert I have access to. If you have other experts testimony that might be relevent, I would be interested in seeing it. 🙂 (I like discussions a lot... everything here is meant in a kind manner... just hate to see these things go down into shouting matches of: Person A: "Coke is good. You're stupid!" with a reply by Person B: "You're crazy AND stupid. Coke sucks!")

But more to the point, our agreement gives monitoring rights over these light water nuclear reactors. The US or the UN will be keeping tabs on the spent fuel, not the North Koreans. We did not have that with their graphite reactors and this was only agreeable to the North Koreans because they were getting these reactors for free. So the point of how much plutonium might be produced from the light water reactors is moot. The point of how much plutonium CAN be produced from North Korea's current reactors is not.

From the above linked document:

If operated to maximize electricity production, the two light water reactors would make at least 500kg of plutonium per year. That plutonium would be almost all "reactor grade." It could be used in bombs but would not be of optimum quality for such a purpose. If operated to produce "weapon-grade" plutonium, the light water reactors would only have to be shut down and reloaded more often. In such a mode they would produce at least 400kg each per year, enough for roughly 70 bombs if one assumes between five and six kilograms per bomb. The three North Korean graphite reactors would not produce more than 150kg per year, enough for 25-30 bombs. I should point out that under the agreement, plutonium from the light water reactors will not be available for at least a decade, whereas more plutonium from the smallest graphite reactor could be available as early as next year. Also, if North Korea started to extract plutonium from the spent light water reactor fuel, the supply of fresh fuel for those reactors could be stopped. However, North Korea could wait until it had accumulated a year or so of plutonium produced from the first light water reactor before it moved toward extraction, which would give it about 35 bombs' worth. Thus, cutting off the fuel would not be much of a remedy.

I guess my point about Rumsfeld is that he was on the board of a corporation that was supplying (what the US considers to be its / the) "enemy" with materials that could be used to make an unfortunate device. This, after he was on the, "President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control" way back when. Then, he became, well... secretary of defense... and got mad at NK because they withdrew from the NNPT, when the US had recently, with his blessing, withdrawn from the ABM treaty. In the history of many countries, the US included, treaties, agreements, etc., are disregarded with much frequency. I guess I just feel that if he truly had not wanted NK to have any access to any type of nuclear weapon, he would not have been on the board of a company hired to fix and / or construct and / or maintain nuclear plants that *could* be used to make them.

Oof. Such a day! 🙂

Have a good one, everybody! 🙂

Andy

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
*shakes head*

They're just asking for it, aren't they?

Hopper

Let's say the US tells the world they have a new weapon again, and China, Russia, and a few others all positioning their weapons and soldiers at the US' borders, threatening to attack if the US does not immediately destroy all of its weapons. Do you think the US would immediately comply? Why do you presume NK will just because Bush is being anal as usual?

Sick of this crap,North Korea should be giving us money!

Seriously! They agreed to shut down their plutonium-based nuclear program, in return for two light-water nuclear reactors and 500,000 tons of fuel oil a year until the reactors are built. Now they say, they have a uranium enrichment program to build nuclear bombs. WTF? :disgust:

We ought to repossess those nuclear reactors and the value of that fuel in other commodities. They broke the fvcking agreement, not us! :frown: