Nuclear NK 'within months'

[Grasshopper27]

The U.S. has announced spy flights near North Korea will resume amid warnings Pyongyang's nuclear program is much more advanced than previously thought.

Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly said North Korea could have enough weapons grade material within "months, not years" to produce nuclear weapons.

Though some members of the Bush administration -- as well as the CIA -- believe North Korea may already possess one or two nuclear weapons, experts had thought Pyongyang's nuclear program was still years away from creating a nuclear arsenal.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/13/nkorea.nukes/index.html

 

[datalink7]

And yet, Iraq is still #1 priority.... (not to say that Iraq isn't a priority, but I do think NK is WAY more of a threat).

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: datalink7
And yet, Iraq is still #1 priority.... (not to say that Iraq isn't a priority, but I do think NK is WAY more of a threat).

Sorry NK doesnt have oil.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: datalink7
And yet, Iraq is still #1 priority.... (not to say that Iraq isn't a priority, but I do think NK is WAY more of a threat).

Sorry NK doesnt have oil.

I doubt Iraq is about the oil. If it was about the oil, why didn't we take any after the first Gulf War?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: datalink7
And yet, Iraq is still #1 priority.... (not to say that Iraq isn't a priority, but I do think NK is WAY more of a threat).

Sorry NK doesnt have oil.

or maybe NK has neighbors who should take a more active role in this crisis. Crap all we do to NK is send them food and oil.

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: datalink7
And yet, Iraq is still #1 priority.... (not to say that Iraq isn't a priority, but I do think NK is WAY more of a threat).

It certainly does seem that way from that article, yes.

Separately, the United States is sending up to six F-117A stealth warplanes to South Korea for joint military exercises.

Anyone else think that's just a stupid idea? I'm assuming NK doesn't already have stealth technology.

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: rudder
or maybe NK has neighbors who should take a more active role in this crisis. Crap all we do to NK is send them food and oil.

It appears Japan may gear up and do just that. Better for the US, IMO, ot have others concentrating on NK.

North Korea test fired a short-range missile on Monday, its second test in as many weeks and the first series of launches since it shocked the world in 1998 by sending a long range Taepodong over Japan's main island.

North Korea is sticking to its demand for direct face-to-face talks with the United States.
Japan has said it may launch preemptive military action against North Korea if there was evidence Pyongyang was preparing a missile strike.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

NK is a priority, but we'll be able to deal with them through negotiations, and to ensure that we mean what we agree upon, Iraq will be the example of non-compliance.

 

[drewshin]

I doubt Iraq is about the oil. If it was about the oil, why didn't we take any after the first Gulf War?

we haven't "taken" any, but we have made great deals with the kuwaitis, made loads of money selling weapons/defense systems to them and other countries in the area. also, until last year the u.s. was the biggest buyer of oil from iraq under the u.n. oil for food program. the first gulf war was just to keep saddam in check, we had no basis to take over the country and depose saddam just for attacking kuwait, now though the government would like us to believe we have a better reason to.

i say we let u.n. inspectors run around everywhere in iraq to keep iraq busy, then send our troops to north korea before that gets out of hand.

 

[drewshin]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
NK is a priority, but we'll be able to deal with them through negotiations, and to ensure that we mean what we agree upon, Iraq will be the example of non-compliance.

i doubt that north korea can be dealt with through negotiations, why do people believe that? their government has played their game much longer than saddam has, yet the u.s. looks the other way! they comply once they get what they want, then make a few threats a few years later, and get more, and this has happened at least two or three times already.

 

[DanJ]

Perhaps it would have been easier to negotiate with North Korea if we didn't say that they were EVIL and were part of the AXIS OF EVIL.

Just a thought.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Perhaps it would have been easier to negotiate with North Korea if we didn't say that they were EVIL and were part of the AXIS OF EVIL.

Just a thought.

But Dubya said that they were evil and the bad boys!

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: DanJ
Perhaps it would have been easier to negotiate with North Korea if we didn't say that they were EVIL and were part of the AXIS OF EVIL.

Just a thought.

Link?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: godmare

Originally posted by: DanJ
Perhaps it would have been easier to negotiate with North Korea if we didn't say that they were EVIL and were part of the AXIS OF EVIL.

Just a thought.

Link?

BBC axis of evil stuff

I'm no expert - but if the UK was listed as part of an axis of evil, I'd be pretty much convinced that they thought the UK was evil. Any other interpretation is just a bit too technical to be believed in my mind. The intention is clear.

Andy

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
NK is a priority, but we'll be able to deal with them through negotiations, and to ensure that we mean what we agree upon, Iraq will be the example of non-compliance.

I'll rephrase, I hope they can be dealt with through negotiations. But maybe not. If so there are a lot more countries behind a coaltion than UK and US.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
NK is a priority, but we'll be able to deal with them through negotiations, and to ensure that we mean what we agree upon, Iraq will be the example of non-compliance.

I'll rephrase, I hope they can be dealt with through negotiations. But maybe not. If so there are a lot more countries behind a coaltion than UK and US.

I wouldn't be holding out too much hope for UK backing for a US led non-UN war in Korea.

Andy