George Bush/Colin Powell - hypocrites

[Dutch]

Horned Frog Purple - I will answer this. N. Korea has enough weapon-grade refined uranium for 3 warheads. Three.

I think this guy disagree's with your assessment.

North Korean Nuke Sites

Yongbyon 0.1 megawatts thermal (MWt) critical assembly - This small reactor is believed to be the first nuclear reactor in N Korea. It was provided by the Soviet and went into operation in early 1960s. Its primary function is isotope production.

Yongbyon Reactor I - The construction of this natural uranium-graphite power reactor began in 1980 at Yongbyon, 100 km north of Pyongyang. It is based on a 1950 MAGNOX technology (graphite moderator, aluminum-magnesium clad natural uranium fuel , CO2 gas cooling). The reactor was completed in 1984 and it as was activated in February 1987 under Prof. Ha Kyong Won, a Korean physicist educated in US. After many startup problems, it was operating at 20-30 MW by 1990.
N Korea removed about 30 lb. of plutonium from this reactor in 1988 and built two nuclear bombs. From 1989 to 1991, N Korea may have extracted additional 60 lb. of plutonium, enough for five nukes.


Yongbyon Reactor II - A 50 MW MAGNOX-type reactor was started in 1984. N Korea built a military nuclear complex next to this reactor. This complex was completed in 1989 and the reactor was tentatively activated in 1992. This reactor alone is capable of producing enough plutonium for 10-12 nukes a year.

Taechon Reactor I - The construction of a 200 MW MAGNOX-type reactor was started at Taechon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang in 1988 and it is expected to be completed in 1996.

Taechon Reactor II - A 600-800 MW reactor is also underway at Taechon (completion possible by 1997). This reactor could produce 180-230 Kg of plutonium a year, enough for 30-40 nukes.

Simpo Reactor I - This 635mw reactor is based on a German design. In May 1989, N Korea and Germany signed a comprehensive agreement on the transfer of "substantial" amounts of German nuclear technology and nuclear weapons materials, including enriched uranium, to Pyongyang. The transfer of the German nuclear know-how has continued via Iran, Libya Syria and Yugoslavia.

Yongbyon Separation Plant - A plutonium separation facility ("Radiological Research Lab") was built at Yongbyon in 1987. This plant is capable of handling several hundreds of tons of fuel a year, enough to handle fuel from all of the reactors , some 33 lb. of plutonium annually.. The plutonium factory for the nuclear weapons is a single story building constructed on top the main plutonium reprocessing facility, deep underground. In 1993, N Korea completed a second plant, doubling its capacity for plutonium production.
About 70 lb. were believed to have been extracted from the reactors since 1991. In 1992, N Korea bought 120 lb. of plutonium from a former Soviet block country and may have produced 10 bombs. It is quite possible that N Korea has acquired additional nuclear material from the former Soviet republics.

Most intelligence sources, including Russian and Chinese, state that N Korea has close to 10 operational nuclear warheads for its missiles and two nuclear devices that can be carried by truck , boat or transport aircraft. N Korean warheads are of 50 KT class, weighing around 1,100 lb.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

[andy m]

also: http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[HornedFrog Purple]

Thanks for proving my point Dutch.

Did you even read what you posted? See a lot of "may" in there?

Your own government even disagrees with that.

Several senior Bush officials maintain that North Korea has one or two nuclear weapons and is committed to hiding that fact. They believe North Korea wants to delay the “day of reckoning” that inspections would cause. A few senior military officials in the region also believe that North Korea still intends to reunite the Korean peninsula by force.

These officials rarely offer new information to support their claims, and their views may or may not reflect any new information. They may simply represent the most hawkish U.S. intelligence agency assessments. But because of the uncertainty of available information, it is prudent to assume that North Korea could have one or two nuclear weapons. Conducting inspections would be the best way to find the truth.

Oh might want to read this:

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...fastfacts.html

- North Korea may have one or two nuclear weapons.

- North Korea possesses enough plutonium in spent fuel to make about five nuclear weapons. Because this plutonium is in spent fuel, it cannot be used in its current form to make nuclear weapons. North Korea could separate all this plutonium into a form suitable for use in nuclear weapons in six months, or by the end of June 2003. It could separate its first bomb's worth of plutonium by the end of February.

- North Korea could restart its 5 megawatt reactor at Yongbyon by February 2003. This reactor would need to operate for almost a year to make enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After cooling the spent fuel for a few months, North Korea could finish processing this fuel in about five months. Thus, North Korea may need a year and a half to produce and separate another bomb's worth of plutonium. North Korea, however, may decide to keep the fuel in the reactor longer to produce more plutonium for nuclear weapons in this core.

- North Korea may finish two larger reactors over the next several years that combined could produce enough plutonium for about 55 nuclear weapons per year.

- North Korea could finish a uranium enrichment plant in the next few years that could make enough highly enriched uranium for 2-3 nuclear weapons per year. Possession of highly enriched uranium could enable North Korea to build thermonuclear weapons.

- If unchecked, North Korea could have 5-7 nuclear weapons by the middle of 2003. Such a nuclear arsenal is viewed as being the minimal size to be useful both politically and militarily. This arsenal would be the same size as South Africa's nuclear arsenal in the late 1980s.

- North Korea could possess a total of 8-10 nuclear weapons by the end of 2005. The projected growth in North Korea's arsenal after the middle of 2003 is slow because the larger reactors and the uranium enrichment plant are not expected to operate until about 2005 or afterwards.

- North Korea could have over 200 nuclear weapons by the end of 2010. Such an arsenal would be comparable to China's nuclear arsenal


Care to explain why South Africa "got away" with it? I know, its because they jumped to democracy right?

I also noticed you didnt want to touch my question about China with a 10-foot pole. Good move.

Dutch most of the time I agree with what you say in principle, but I do not believe in coulda, woulda, shoulda. The real target of worry is China not North Korea and they have been the target of worry for the last 15 years. Its easy to try and shove North Korea around because they in reality are little minnows. China is a shark. We got away with the last shark when they self-destructed. I dont think China is going to do that.

[Dutch]

Actually, the article I cited was from 1998(?) or so. Basically it was the direction North Korea was going in before they froze all their production facilities they were operating or were building.

The point I was hoping to make was that now that they have withdrawn from the non-poliferation agreements, these are the reactors they are re-heating up and their capabilites.

They may only have 3 now (while this article alluded to believing it were 10 or 12) but next year, same time, doesn't seem likely.

BTW, I had no idea you agreed with anything I ever said, usually, it seems like everybody disagrees with me. Maybe it's my rugged charm...

[sabotai]

"Ever bought a war bond? Ever had to deal with rationing? These are skirmishes and only called wars. The United States has not been in a war since 1950. I am not talking about what Congress said, I am talking about how these last 53 years of "wars" have impacted you as a citizen. The only case you have is plus or minus in gas/oil."

What the effect on the common citizen is has nothing to do with what is and is not a war. And Vietnam was only a skirmish!?

From dictionary.com

war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1. a)A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b)The period of such conflict.
c)The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

2. a)A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b)A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.


Sorry, but it doesn't say anything about rationing and bonds.

"I will answer this. N. Korea has enough weapon-grade refined uranium for 3 warheads. Three. Then you have to develop a workable deployment system and all the other headaches. Meanwhile currently we have 400 times what N. Korea has in refined weapons-grade uranium with the method to deploy it. And before the Cold War ended we had 1200 times. How many times do we need to annihilate the planet? I think once would do it."

Ok....but you asked what power plants had to do with weapons, and I answered it. I fail to see what this little mini-rant has to do with how power plants can produce weapons-grade masterial...

[sabotai]

Easy Mac -

Thanks for the lengthy post, but as I stated before, that's just all legal stuff.

Take the north-east right now. Some states have declared a state of emergancy, while others have declared other things. NJ and DE declared states of emergancy, while PA has declare somethign else.

It's all just government procedures which define how much money gets allocated to clean up the snow, certain laws like if citizens can be out driving on the road, and other things.

But that doesn't mean a blizzard hit NJ and DE but in PA, it was only a snowstorm...

I posted the definition of "war" above. In simplist terms, a war is an extended conflict between 2 or more parties. "Military Engagements" like the Gulf War and the Vietnam War certainly qualify under the definition of what a "war" is.

What the government calls it, however, is just a classification. Legal mumbo-jumbo.

[Easy Mac]

Sab -
I was just pointing out how many official wars there were and when the last were, since that seemed to be in dispute. What you offered from the dictionary was just as useless as the legal mumbo-jumbo.

And I noted the Korean War was absent on my list (from a government site). Was that never an official war or even considered a skirmish? Did we fight just to fight? I thought it was a war, or did I just misread it?

Also. I think if I were alive and my age during Vietnam I would have definitely been pissed. If they are going to send me overseas, they better damn well declare it a war.

[sabotai]

"I was just pointing out how many official wars there were and when the last were, since that seemed to be in dispute. What you offered from the dictionary was just as useless as the legal mumbo-jumbo."

OFFICIAL wars is not what is a dispute. Again, the whole thing about legal and official wars is just government matters. Perhaps you should read what you posted. A Declaration of War gives the president more authorities than a Military Action.

Like I've been saying, It's "legal mumbo-jumbo" that dictates what can and can't be done.

NONE of which has anything to do with whether or not something is considered a "war".

And I would think my posting of the definition of the word "war" would be relevant to the discussion of if there has been a "war" in the passed 50 years. So yeah, I would say it was useful.

[Dutch]

Also. I think if I were alive and my age during Vietnam I would have definitely been pissed.

Easy Mac, if the government asked you to lift one flippin finger you'd be pissed...

[Easy Mac]

Depends on if its the middle one

[sabotai]

"Depends on if its the middle one "

LOL

[Dutch]