By So says US Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says North Korea has indeed produced several nuclear bombs. The remarks come amid a controversy over a recent U.S. report describing the North as a nuclear weapons state.
In a Foreign Affairs magazine article, Gates said that Pyongyang has produced several nuclear bombs and that Iran is seeking to join the nuclear club.
Gates failed to elaborate on the North’s nuclear capabilities, but it is the first time for a U.S. defense secretary to recognize Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons production as an established fact.
Seoul and Washington have taken the stance that North Korean technology has not yet reached the level required to produce nuclear bombs, but both say the North possesses a sufficient amount of plutonium needed to produce such bombs. [KBS Global]
I think the statement about North Korea having nuclear bombs isn’t really anything earth shattering; what would be earth shattering is if Secretary Gates said North Korea has weaponized their nuclear bombs to fit on a No Dong Missile.
2:10 pm on December 11th, 2008 1
I seriously doubt North Korea has weaponized the nuclear "bombs" to a point where they can effectivly deliver them. A small possibility exists that a "bomb" could be dropped (by aircraft) over South Korea, the explosive value would more than likely be small.
More likely would be the 155 mm shell with the radioactve(plutonium) warhead that could reach Seoul and panic the South. A dozen shells of this type would cause a war, possibly even one.
You must realize the difference between a (possible) nuclear underground explosion and the ability to weaponize the same, is extremely difficult endeavor. To make a large weapon small enough to put in a warhead is even more difficult to many degrees.
I doubt North Korea has that ability, although, I'm sure Secretary Gates would be better informed.
3:21 pm on December 11th, 2008 2
Can we trust a leader who would do this with nukes? According to some whackos, yes we can.
5:16 pm on December 11th, 2008 3
“I think the statement about North Korea having nuclear bombs isn’t really anything earth shattering; what would be earth shattering is if Secretary Gates said North Korea has weaponized their nuclear bombs…”
Frankly, I don’t think that the North’s weaponization of of its nuclear stockpile would be all the worrisome either. So what if they weaponize them? Do you really think that they’re actually got to fire them at someone?
Say what you want about the DPRK regime; but don’t sit there and tell me that a regime so bent on its own survival is going to act irrationally by launching some sort of preemptive attack with its weaponized nuclear stockpile. If they do weaponize it’s probably to have a more effective deterrent capability. Nothing more, nothing less.
5:57 pm on December 11th, 2008 4
If a single North Korean bomb falls on Seoul, you can call me Meyer.
6:05 pm on December 11th, 2008 5
but don’t sit there and tell me that a regime so bent on its own survival is going to act irrationally by launching some sort of preemptive attack with its weaponized nuclear stockpile.
I agree. History provides us with no precedence of desperate regimes acting out irrationally.
I do in fact think that the threat from North Korea is grossly overstated by the United States though, at least in a conventional sense. Nukes are a totally different ballgame though, and I can’t imagine any respectable world leader wanting the Norks to have their hands on a weaponized arsenal of nukes.
6:22 pm on December 11th, 2008 6
I think that it would behoove Rob to provide me with these historical case studies concerning desperate regimes acting out irrationally.
Provide them Rob, and I’ll show you that in fact they weren’t desperate.
And no, nukes aren’t a totally different ball game. India acquired them, Pakistan acquired them, the US initially shunned them and then eventually came back to making deals with them. The issue of North Korea and nuclear weapons only puts into stark relief the hypocrisy of the United States in regards to proliferation.
6:37 pm on December 11th, 2008 7
Before you go and make any further comments Rob, I’d suggest you go back and bone up on some international relations theory 101.
In particular, I suggest getting a better grasp of the difference between ‘deterrence’ and ‘compellence’. Perhaps this will be the first step on your road towards de-rubification.
9:07 pm on December 11th, 2008 8
Do I really need to provide you with historical examples of atrocities committed by despotic, desperate and irrational regimes? If so, you’re way over your head.
India acquired them, Pakistan acquired them, the US initially shunned them and then eventually came back to making deals with them.
Are you saying that India and Pakistan, and the circumstances surrounding their acquisition of nuclear technology / weapons, is comparable to that of the current situation we face with the loon who calls himself The Dear Leader up north?
At the time, Pakistan had a leader who was well liked by the people, and in fact was educated in both the United States and The UK, and India was / still is the largest democracy on the planet. Yes, I totally see how those two examples compare with that of the current situation in North Korea.
11:01 pm on December 11th, 2008 9
Since no one acts irrationally and no one has a problem with NK having nukes then lets give them to Hamas and Ben Laden. Or better yet, keep ours and let NK supply these weapons to the Talaban. Development is the hard part – delivery is easy.
11:14 pm on December 11th, 2008 10
I'd hate to worry anyone further, but the purpose of their nukes would really be HEMP to knock out South Korean, American, and Japanese C4I prior to a conventional assault.
This could even be done over North Korean airspace or the East Sea
of Japan.12:40 am on December 12th, 2008 11
"Are you saying that India and Pakistan, and the circumstances surrounding their acquisition of nuclear technology / weapons, is comparable to that of the current situation we face with the loon who calls himself The Dear Leader up north?"
Yes I am Rob. India acquired nuclear capabilities in order to deter Pakistan. Pakistan in turn acquired their own nuclear capabilities in order to have a counter-deterrence mechanism against India's nuclear capabilities. The North wants nuclear capabilities in order to deter against a possible US pre-emptive strike.
Again Rob, I implore you to go and review your international relation theory 101. Deterrence vs. Compellence. You need to know these concepts, because given the drivel you're writing you clearly don't.
"Can we trust a leader who would do this (citing a WAPO story about N. Korean refugees) with nukes? According to some whackos, yes we can."
Rob, you once asked me if English was my second language. I should ask the same of you. Did you even read and comprehend what the main point of that article was? Did it even make a link that the DPRK regime was explicitly using its nukes in order oppress its people. Are they pointing these nukes at their people in order to starve them? From the comment you wrote this is the distinct impression I'm getting.
But let's just for a moment follow you train of thought here. According to you Kim Jong-Il is the totally off the wall, insane leader who cannot be trusted in anyway, let alone with a nuclear device. Given the DPRK regime's long history of human rights violations, acts of terrorism, saber-rattling, and general undemocratic ways, the civilized world should do every in its power to stop these mad-men from the North from acquiring the world's ultimate doomsday device.
Fine, if that's the standard we're going to apply then the world should be making a serious concerted effort in disarming the United States of its nuclear capabilities. After all, does the United States not violate human rights (Gitmo, extraordinary rendition)? Does the US not commit aggressive pre-emptive military aggression (Iraq)?
If there's any country in the world who has utilized its nuclear capability for the sake of pressuring other nations in the world to go its way, it is the United States. And yet, after all is said and done it is North Korea that the likes of Rob are worried about. And he says that I'm in way over my head.
1:34 pm on December 12th, 2008 12
Elias, your myopic view of the world is painful to contemplate. It really is. I suppose that we should dole out nukes to every country in the world so that we are all on an even keel when it comes to deterring and compelling on another, eh? Gee, wouldn't that be just swell?
8:54 pm on December 12th, 2008 13
“I suppose that we should dole out nukes to every country in the world so that we are all on an even keel when it comes to deterring and compelling one (sic) another, eh? Gee, wouldn’t that be just swell?”
Well that’s one way to go about it. Impractical and silly to be sure, but one way nevertheless.
I’ve got a better solution however. If the US is really serious about stopping the proliferation of nuclear capabilities then perhaps it should be the one to draw down significantly its own nuclear capabilities. I mean think about it: What credibility does the US really have to tell other countries they can’t have but a single or few nuclear weapons when the United States itself maintains a nuclear arsenal literally unmatched or unsurpassed by any combination of nations throughout the world? Such an act would be the first step towards the sort of confidence building measures (another IR concept you should probably bone up on Rob) that would help ameliorate this problem.
Furthermore, why this visceral distaste for an “even keel” dynamic when it come to security relations? What the hell makes you think that the US has this special prerogative to have unipolar military dominance throughout the globe? You seem to forget that countries attempting to develop nuclear capabilities are sovereign countries just like the US and have no desire to have that sovereignty sacrificed on the altar of some DOD Klingon’s ideological fantasies. There not going to collapse their right to national self-defense in order to make the United States feel that it’s still the big dog in the alley.
9:08 pm on December 12th, 2008 14
I guess blowing one up in 2006 gave them away.
9:06 pm on December 12th, 2008 15
Somebody has to make and enforce the rules Elias; someone has to lead. And I'm not talking about riding roughshod over allies either. Are you for a One-World Government, a New World Order? Are you a United Nations and International Criminal Court kind of guy? Who makes up the rules in Elias' perfect world?
Frankly speaking, the United States (for all its supposed evils) is a very stabilizing force in the world, and it's pretty scary to imagine who would fill the void in her absence.
10:11 pm on December 12th, 2008 16
#4 and #5 — It seems Silly Sally or a clone decided he/she didn't put enough bait material in #4 and had to come back with the typical insults in #5 — probably smiling in part at the idea he/she-it was at yet another computer GI Korea would have to censor…
I skimmed quickly and skipped him after that…
One thing I don't hear people saying, here or in the news and think tanks, is how NK and other nations want nukes as a deterrent – yes – but to use such deterrents to give them a room to maneuver in their regions.
Iran wants nukes to keep the US off – so it can make moves to become the regional leader above Saudi Arabia – and to make moves against Israel.
Pakistan just showed us it understands what moves it can try thanks to the fear its nukes – and even fear of its collapse and the nukes being taken by rogue elements – give it.
NK cut down on such stunning provocations in the 1990s — after it lost the fear factor the Soviet Union and China together gave it — and as it suddenly found it had to have more cooperation from the rest of the world (the US, Japan, EU, and so on) to survive.
With nukes, the North has less to fear from a US military threat, and it can increase its use of brinkmanship to try to gain more concessions.
And this type of geopolitical game is always dangerous. You never know when the emotional and other factors involved in button pushing will result in things getting out of control.
On the issue of rogue regimes acting irrationally — if we scale back the definition from words like "desperate" – history is filled with nations making stupid decisions – which they might have convinced themselves were smart:
When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, they thought that was a swell idea that would work out in the end for them – but Hitler was pissed and Churchill danced a jig.
Germany invading Russia to open a two front war was also deemed rather stupid by people at the time and later.
That is what generally happens: for whatever reason, leaders of nations often make big mistakes that seem like a fine idea to them at the time.
I'd also note, in both Japan and Germany's cases, they thought they were strong enough to handle any negative consequences of their acts — they thought they could pull it off. Why? Because of their strength.
Which gets back to why 2nd and 3rd and lower tier powers want nukes: It gives them the power, they think, to stand off 1st tier nations – leaving them free to make moves against neighbors.
With India and Pakistan, you might have had a more true Cold War development — two powers locking horns and developing nukes out of that confrontation, but you still end up in a situation where the nukes gives at least one side the balls to try things they wouldn't have minus the nuke capability.
That is the message Pakistan just sent the United States.
1:57 am on December 13th, 2008 17
"One thing I don’t hear people saying, here or in the news and think tanks, is how NK and other nations want nukes as a deterrent – yes – but to use such deterrents to give them a room to maneuver in their regions."
"With nukes, the North has less to fear from a US military threat, and it can increase its use of brinkmanship to try to gain more concessions."
Alright, USinKorea, let's grant for a moment your contention here. If this is the North's true intention then why are they doing all this right now? Why not have not signed on to the NPT, develop the capabilities, and start projecting and maneuvering in their region back 10, 20, even 30 years ago?
Let me answer for you. Because back 10, 20, 30 years ago, the US maintained a deterrence posture not a compellence posture towards the North. The North had little to fear from a US strike, plus they had superpower patronage. Regime secure from external threat=no need for nukes.
You cite the instance of Iran and it's desire to develop nuclear weapons. How it's doing this simply to have greater projection ability in the region. Again, the question that must be asked is why now and not before? Why not have made a serious attempt to develop a nuclear capability when it was engaged in a serious conflict with the US backed Saddam Hussein? Why not in the years immediately preceeding the '79 revolution so as to have ironclad insurance against any possible internal or external threat?
In the case of Pakistan, you seem to think that recent actions it has taken are solely a function of it's nuclear capability. Fact is, Pakistan, particularly its ISI has been engaged in the sort aggressive behavior you cite long before its detonation of a nuclear device. Furthermore, it's difficult to say that "Pakistan" or the "Pakistani gov't" is engaging in or coordinating the sort of activities you're talking about. There is a clear difference between "Pakistan", "Pakistani gov't", and the Pakistani ISI. The aggressive actions your seeing being taken right now in South Asia are probably elements of the ISI that are under little control from central authority. That's why they act so aggressive. Not because of some nuclear capability that they have no control over, it's because there is so little oversight of them, their contacts, and funding.
To your historical example of countries acting irrationally, namely that of Japan in 1941: Think about why they attacked USinKorea and I don't think you'd being saying the Japanese were so misguided: In the 1930's and 1940's, Japan is expanding it's empire in order to achieve autarky and hence is in need of natural resources. The US does not like this hence began to impose imbargos on Japan. Seeing the imbargos as a threat to its national security let alone its autarky, Japan does what any country facing a similar situation would do: it attacks the very source that is preventing it from getting the necessary resources it needs to maintain its national security. The Israelis did it when Arab nations attempted to cut off the Straits of Tiran during the Six Day's War, the Americans did it under Bush I when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
I fail to see how when Japan does it it's "irrational" but when the US and her allies do the same exact thing in very similar circumstances it's called "acting in the national interest".
Getting back to North Korea, the same logic applies: The US makes promises with the North under the '93 agreement, fails on its part to live up to certain parts of the agreement, the US makes bellicose statements about how the North is part of the "Axis-of-Evil", goes and invades the Arab third of that axis and then acts flabbergasted that the other two-thirds would be developing capabilities in the ensuing seconds.
The hypocrisy displayed is truly astounding.
2:35 am on December 13th, 2008 18
"With India and Pakistan, you might have had a more true Cold War development — two powers locking horns and developing nukes out of that confrontation, but you still end up in a situation where the nukes gives at least one side the balls to try things they wouldn’t have minus the nuke capability."
Why do you say "at least one side [has] the balls to try things they wouldn't have minus the nuke capability". Why is that Pakistan is the only one in playing a game of chicken with its nuclear insurance policy?
According to you logic, nuclear capabilities give regimes incentives to act in far more aggressive ways. Why aren't the Indians doing so? Shouldn't they be sending its intelligence operative abroad to Pakistani consulate around the world to blow up and terrorize. In fact, it more or less been confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons. They've got a military ace-in-the-hole that would allow for them to take far more greater actions against its enemies in the region, but yet it doesn't.
You present a facile and almost persuasive theory. Its only problem is that it only explains the situations that stack up well for your argument and is utterly useless in other important instances.
9:03 am on December 13th, 2008 19
I’m sorry, In the second to last paragraph I write the “’93 agreement”, I clearly meant the ’94 agreement. My bad.
9:12 am on December 13th, 2008 20
The fact that nation states want nukes to increase their leverage and power is almost as "earth-shattering" as the fact that atrocities happen in war. Wow!
Since Silly Sally is such an expert in international relations, the theory of Realism should not be lost on her. Basically, it says that nation states will attempt to mass resources (economic, military, etc.) in order to increase their power, and that relations between states will be determined by that level of power. It also states that the international system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions. States must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
The inherent and very real flaw in this system is that nations with power get to make up the rules. That’s just how it is, and Elias doesn’t like it. No, until he gets his wish of a New World Order with One-World Government, states will continue to be in competition with each other and will only be able to negotiate on a level equal to that of their relative power.