# North Korean activity at nuclear facilities **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882 "2003-01-31T16:04:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/21 "2003-02-03T18:20:22Z")
**istara:** Interesting theory but if China is indeed doing what you suggest then they are being extremely short sighted and I for one thought short-sightedness wasn’t an accusation normally levelled at Chinese who seem to take a longer view than most. [ul] [li] They are creating trouble on their own doorstep. If you want to distratc the authorities you set a fire a few blocks away…not on your front porch.[/li][li] They are playing with nukes here and I am reasonably certain China would like to be the only nuclear armed country in the region if at all possible.[/li][li] While NK and China are allies and friends even China knows NK is…unpredictable…at best. I can’t see the Chinese being thrilled at NK adventurism.[/li][li] If China is trying ot distract the US from the Middle East then it isn’t working anyway.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/22 "2003-02-03T21:59:12Z")
I think the idea with the theory is that China effectively controls NK, so it’s China’s nukes, China’s control over NK’s “unpredictableness.” You’re right about the Middle East distraction. That would only be an effective strategy if the US was well aware that China was 100% behind NK’s nukes, and prepared to use them to stop the US getting full oil control. Korea as a whole really fascinates me. This tiny, impoverished, backward “rogue” state having such a huge lever. The other theory banging around is that NK already has nukes and has had them for a while, hence America’s extreme egg-shell tiptoeing compared to their mega hardline stance on Saddam. I am trying to remember who recently declared that NK is far, far more dangerous than Iraq… Schroeder?? Some leading international figure anyway. The overall issue though is that NK is a hell of a lot closer to nukes than Iraq, if not already there. And whatever China’s involvement, NK must have got materials and expertise from somewhere. If not China, then who? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/23 "2003-02-04T03:04:14Z")
“If not China, then who?” Pakistan. In return for North Korean help with their missiles. I don’t really buy the China theory. The fact is that China won’t control the nukes so it has no interest in a nuclear North Korea. And North Korean nukes may well trigger a nuclear arms race in East Asia if Japan decides to go nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/24 "2003-02-04T03:14:11Z")
China probably has factions trying to work every side of this thing. They can look very good by brokering a deal. But, brokering that deal might just keep us tied up for a long time and cost a lot of money. So, they might simultaneously participate in and drag out any settlement. In the meantime, NK can sell weapons to other nations or groups and occupy us even more. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/25 "2003-02-04T05:47:23Z")
According to a [NY Times (Free Registration)](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/international/asia/04KORE.html?ex=1044939600&en=3b2b7a62133dd85a&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1) published today, Rumsfeld has ordered “24 long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment within range of North Korea, both to deter ‘opportunism’ at a moment when Washington is focused on Iraq and to give President Bush military options if diplomacy fails to halt North Korea’s effort to produce nuclear weapons, officials said today.” It appears the Administration is publicly upping the ante with North Korea. Does Bush & Co. really think this will scare North Korea? Or will this increase tensions? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/26 "2003-02-04T06:08:05Z")
> [@](#): > > **Duckster** Does Bush & Co. really think this will scare North Korea? Or will this increase tensions? No. Yes, a little. Problem is, there is the issue of military necessity. If NK continues with the overtly bellicose rhetoric, even for a Stalinist backwater, the DoD would feel remiss if it did not try to up its forces somewhat. Note, “long-range bombers.” That is like saying to NK: we are not creating any capacity to invade, but rather to punish _you_ for invading or attacking. Well, that is if you buy into the whole diplomacy through military maneuver stuff, which I do to a point. Once the escalation gets out of control, which it can, who knows? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/27 "2003-02-04T06:12:31Z")
I think the specific threat here is, “Put those rods back where they belong, or we’ll be forced to destroy your processing facility.” The U.S. may in fact have to do that. The only problem is that they can only bomb the plutonium processing facility. There is a parallel uranium program, but it’s hidden so the U.S. can’t bomb it. But taking out the plutonium facility would probably stop North Korea from getting more nukes for at least a couple of years. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/28 "2003-02-04T06:20:42Z")
**Sam** , what do you think the North Koreans will do if we drop even _one_ bomb on their heads? My thought is that the North Koreans use their huge numerical advantage on the ground and attempt to unify the Koreas into one autonomous worker’s collective. “Resistance is futile.” Take my MSNBC a few posts back and click the link on the left called “military balance.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/29 "2003-02-04T06:26:13Z")
I don’t know. The North Koreans could do something very bad. On the other hand, how do you like the thought of having a North Korea with, say, 50 nuclear weapons and making 20 a year? How would you like the lunatic in Pyongyang to have the ability to wipe out a hundred million people and throw the entire world into a depression by obliterating Japan and South Korea? Or having a terrorist group get their hands on a nuke courtesy of a suddenly-invincible North Korea? This is some serious stuff we’re talking about here. None of the currently available options are in any way desirable. If diplomacy fails, I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/30 "2003-02-04T19:02:23Z")
[North Korea country study by the Library of Congress.](http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/kptoc.html) [North Korea’s special weapons programs - FAS](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/) > [@](#): > > Both North Korea and Iran seem to be using the “building block approach,” by developing space boosters that could be reengineered and deployed as ballistic missiles. **This approach could allow North Korea and Iran to posses a Limited Range ICBM within the next five or ten years, while retaining the option to develop a Full Range ICBM, without initially committing to such a course.** In general, the performance attributed to the various missile systems appear to far exceed the performance that would be seen under real-world conditions while carrying a legitimate strategic lethal payload mass, which would not be sufficient to reach the continental United States. However, they present a legitimate lethal threat to the Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and much of Africa. [_North Korea a military threat?_ BBC in 2000.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/787837.stm) > [@](#): > > The military balance is far more in favour of the South than it was at the outset of the Korean War in 1950, to the extent that even without the presence of the 37,000 US troops deployed in the South, South Korea might now have a good chance of winning a war with the North …[snip]… > As William Perry put it in his report, ‘‘the unknowns continue to outweigh the knowns’’ in intelligence assessments of North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/31 "2003-02-04T19:28:52Z")
s ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/32 "2003-02-04T19:29:04Z")
> [@](#): > > The basic goal of a North Korean southern offensive is destruction of allied defenses either before South Korea can fully mobilize its national power or before significant reinforcement from the United States can arrive and be deployed. Final war preparations most likely would not involve a noticeable surge in military-related activity because almost two-thirds of the ground forces and a significant amount of logistical support already are concentrated in the forward area between P’yongyang and the DMZ. Immediately preceding the initial infantry assault, North Korean artillery units would attempt to saturate the firstechelon South Korean defense with preparatory and continuous suppressive fire. North Korean infantry and armor elements of the first-echelon divisions of the forward conventional corps would attack selected narrow fronts to create gaps for the follow-on echelons. The penetration would be supported by North Korean special operations forces. At the same time, the KPA would launch several diversionary attacks in order to confuse and disperse the defensive effort. The mechanized corps would attempt to push through any gaps, bypass and isolate defenders, and penetrate as deeply as possible into the strategic rear. > > The overall objective of the breakout would be to disturb the coherence of South Korea defenses in depth–including its key command, control, communications, and intelligence infrastructure (C3I)–so as to disrupt any significant counterattacks. In support of what would be primarily a ground war, the navy might attempt to insert amphibious-trained special operations forces on each coast or to secure the northern islands or support operations against the Kimp’o Peninsula, across the Han River estuary near Seoul. In addition, Scud and FROG missiles would be used during the assault to disrupt rear areas and C3I. After initial naval support and supply, however, the navy’s limited capability to control the sea would leave embarked forces on their own. Both the navy and the air force would be hard pressed to sustain a level of offensive operations and would revert to a largely defensive role. > > In order for the KPA’s military strategy to succeed on the battlefield, the KPA would have to achieve initial strategic surprise and execute its operations quickly. The most critical period would probably be choosing when and where to commit the mobile exploitation forces. > > Data as of June 1993 Sorry about the age, but things move slowly in North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/33 "2003-02-04T20:17:17Z")
If I understand it correctly the North Koreans can use the fuel rods to make bombs even if the Yongbyon reactor is taken out. So bombing the reactor now won’t really stop North Korea from going nuclear . Frankly the Bush administration doesn’t have any policy. They aren’t offering any diplomatic deals. They don’t have any credible military threats. They seem to be hoping the problem will go away. All in startling contrast to their silly bluster a year back which lead to the current escalation. What exactly was the point in making threats and talking tough if they had no way of backing it up? Pure stupidity. A good article by Fred Kaplan of Slate: [http://slate.msn.com/id/2078063/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2078063/) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/34 "2003-02-05T01:42:28Z")
No, what the U.S. can bomb is their plutonium processing facility. The fuel rods are not weapons-grade right now. They would need to be processed to make weapons-grade material. Bombing the processing facility would buy some time. Unfortunately, once the plutonium rods are there, bombing the facility runs the risk of spreading plutonium all over the place, which would be a bad thing, and probably enough to deter an attack. And the other big reason why that may not work out is because North Korea has a hidden, parallel uranium-based nuclear program, and we don’t really know how far along that is. Bomb the plutonium plant, and you give them even more incentive to make a uranium bomb. I wish I knew the solution, but I don’t have a clue. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/35 "2003-02-05T02:41:28Z")
But now that they have taken the fuel rods away can’t they process them elsewhere? Do they have only one re-processing plant? The Kaplan article seems to suggest otherwise. Ironically Bush’s bellicose rhetoric may have made a limited military option more difficult. If the Yongbyon plant were ever bombed it would be important that the North Koreans not interpret it as the begining of a full-scale invasion. However that is precisely what they will now think because of the whole “axis of evil” rhetoric. This may be why Bush has apparently taken the military option off the table which basically means that his current policy is **more** dovish than Clinton’s and the North Koreans have gone further than they ever dared under Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/36 "2003-02-05T03:20:43Z")
Well, the thought is that NK actually _has_ nukes already, whereas Iraq is still nowhere near, so it’s a much more delicate situation to deal with Pyongyang than Baghdad. I am not fully up to speed on all the evidence, but as well as these spent fuel rods, they already recently used fresh fuel rods, IIRC. It may be (any ballistics experts?) that the use of spent fuel rods implies they are stockpiling up on nukes, creating a massive amount of them. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/37 "2003-02-05T03:41:40Z")
> [@](#): > > _has_ nukes Right. FAS does a nice job on the history of the NK nuclear program [here](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html). > [@](#): > > Estimates vary of both the amount of plutonium in North Korea’s possession and number of nuclear weapons that could be manufactured from the material. South Korean, Japanese, and Russian intelligence estimates of the amount of plutonium separated, for example, are reported to be higher – 7 to 22 kilograms, 16 to 24 kilograms, and 20 kilograms, respectively – than the reported US estimate of about 12 kilograms. At least two of the estimates are said to be based on the assumption that North Korea removed fuel rods from the 5-MW(e) reactor and subsequently reprocessed the fuel during slowdowns in the reactor’s operations in 1990 and 1991. The variations in the estimates about the number of weapons that could be produced from the material depend on a variety of factors, including assumptions about North Korea’s reprocessing capabilities – advanced technology yields more material – and the amount of plutonium it takes to make a nuclear weapon. Until January 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that 8 kilograms would be needed to make a small nuclear weapon. Thus, the United States’ estimate of 12 kilograms could result in one to two bombs. In January 1994, however, DOE reduced the estimate of the amount of plutonium needed to 4 kilograms–enough to make up to three bombs if the US estimate is used and **up to six bombs** if the other estimates are used. [four to six within months](http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1042491489900&p=1012571727162) > [@](#): > > Within several months North Korea could extract 25-30kg of plutonium - enough for four to six nuclear weapons - from the 8,000 fuel rods it has stored at the Yongbyon nuclear facility. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/38 "2003-02-05T16:22:04Z")
Incidentally, just as the newswires are flooded with excerpts of Colin Powell’s speech on Iraq’s non-cooperation as he’s still talking, we’re also getting flashes that: > [@](#): > > **N.KOREA THREATENS TO IGNORE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON NUCLEAR DISPUTE** ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/39 "2003-02-06T01:27:57Z")
It has happened. [North Korea has reactivated its nuclear facilities](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/nkorea.nuclear.ap/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2003, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882/40 "2003-02-06T12:25:24Z")
Another update to this thread, it’s now looking like NK already has at least two nukes, quote from US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld: > [@](#): > > **In addition, today, with their nuclear programme, they pose a new threat that of not simply having what is assessed to be at the present time, one or two weapons - nuclear weapons, but also the threat of developing nuclear material in a relatively short period of time to make another six to eight weapons."** I can’t link to this, it’s on the wires and I have a video clip of him saying it, but also this story on BBC: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2731305.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2731305.stm) > [@](#): > > \*\*The North Koreans are believed to possess one or two nuclear weapons already, as well as enough spent fuel rods to make four or six more. > > However, analysts say that reactivating Yongbyon reactor gives North Korea the capacity to mass produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, raising fears of a nuclear arms race in Asia.\*\* Is anyone aware when this “speculation” or “possiblity” because probability or fact? Because up until today, I thought they were officially at least a month or so away, and it was only very tenuous rumour/conspiracy theory that nukes already existed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-korean-activity-at-nuclear-facilities/151882.md?page=3)