NK about to start up their Nuke weapons site?

[audtatious]

North Korea to Restart Nuclear Weapons Plant

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 AP

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea vowed Tuesday to restore its nuclear facilities and boycott international talks on its atomic weapons program to protest the U.N. Security Council's condemnation of the country's rocket launch.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it "resolutely rejects the unjust action" by the United Nations, which it said "wantonly" infringes upon the country's sovereignty and "seriously" hurt the dignity of its people.

The statement was North Korea's first reaction to the Security Council's unanimous censure Monday of the April 5 launch, which Pyongyang says sent a satellite into space but the United States and others say tested long-range missile technology.

Analysts including Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University, said that Pyongyang appeared to be using its threats as a negotiating tool and that after some time had passed talks were likely to resume.

The North's statement said the country will not be bound by any agreement signed under the six-party talks — a multilateral effort aimed at getting Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programs. The talks include negotiators from China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.

North Korea also said it will restore nuclear facilities it has been disabling and resume operating them, apparently referring to its five-megawatt plutonium-producing reactor and other facilities at the Yongbyon complex north of Pyongyang.

North Korea also said it will reprocess spent fuel rods, also apparently referring to an activity at Yongbyon, and "actively consider" building a light-water nuclear reactor.

North Korea famously blew up the cooling tower at Yongbyon in June of last year to symbolize its commitment to denuclearization under a six-party agreement.

The isolated communist nation, which carried out an underground nuclear test in 2006, is believed to have enough plutonium to produce at least about half a dozen atomic bombs.

The statement also said North Korea "will never participate in the talks any longer" because other members of the forum "publicly denied" the spirit of the negotiations — which it said were respect of mutual equality and sovereignty — in the name of the U.N. Security Council.

The Security Council's statement demanded an end to the North's rocket launches and said it will expand sanctions against the reclusive communist nation.

Koh, the analyst, said Pyongyang would watch how the U.S. reacts, saying the country now has "one more negotiating card" to play with Washington.

Yoo Ho-yeol, a professor at Korea University, said North Korea appeared "upset" now, but will find it difficult to really boycott the talks because that will further isolate the country.

The six-party talks began in 2003, but they have been stalled for months over how to verify the country's accounting of its past nuclear activities.

Under a 2007 six-party deal, North Korea agreed to disable its main nuclear complex — a step toward its ultimate dismantlement — in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions.

North Korea had threatened last month that any criticism by the U.N. Security Council over the launch would result in the end of the talks.

"We have no choice but to further strengthen our nuclear deterrent to cope with additional military threats by hostile forces," the statement said, employing the common North Korean euphemism "deterrent" for nuclear weapons. It also hinted that Pyongyang would conduct more satellite tests, saying it will "continue to exercise its sovereign rights to use space."

China, the host of the six-party talks, called for calm on all sides.

"We hope the relevant parties will proceed from the overall interest, exercise calmness and restraint," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a press conference in Beijing.

Russia's Foreign Ministry of Russia said if true, North Korea's decision "prompts regret." It called on Pyongyang to consider "the consequences of such a step."

South Korea's Foreign Ministry earlier issued a statement welcoming the U.N. action and urging North Korea to respond to international calls for the peaceful, diplomatic resolution of nuclear tension.

The statement by the Security Council said it "condemns" the April 5 "launch" — without specifying whether it was a missile or a satellite — and demanded that North Korea "not conduct further launches."

The statement, agreed on by all 15 members and read at a formal meeting of the United Nations' most powerful body, said the launch violated a council resolution adopted after the North conducted a nuclear test explosion in 2006 that banned any missile tests by the country.

The statement was a weaker response than a U.N. resolution, which had been sought by Japan and the United States but was opposed by China and Russia. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice insisted the statement is legally binding, just like a resolution — a view backed by Russia — but other diplomats and officials disagreed.

In its statement, the Security Council expressed support for the six-party talks and "calls for their early resumption." It also expressed the council's desire "for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation" and for efforts to achieve "the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."

President Barack Obama called the statement a "clear and united message" that North Korea's action was unlawful and would result in real consequences, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a release.

The statement also demands that Pyongyang must fully implement the 2006 resolution, which ordered the North to suspend all ballistic missile activities and "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner."

The council's statement also said it "agrees" to expand sanctions under the 2006 resolution, which ordered a financial freeze on assets belonging to companies and groups tied to North Korean programs for nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction and banned the sale of specific goods used in those programs.

Since its adoption, no North Korean companies or organizations have been put on the list, diplomats said.

Jiang, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said however, that China does not support "fresh sanctions against" North Korea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems nobody believes the hallow threats by our current Administration?

[480sx]

Its a shame that our military is so extended in its current state(and planned future state..). If it wernt, there is no way NK would have the balls to make moves like this. They are banking on the weak resolve of the UN to sit by and do nothing substantial, or bow down to their demands for, whatever the hell HE wants.

Whats more threatening to the world than the potential of a tiny, pissant country that is in shambles and on verge of collapsing under its own weight with nuclear arms? Nuclear arms, as i have stated before in many different threads represent the holy grail for terrorists. Arab money. Nuclear bombs. North Korea. Scary s***.

Thats forgetting Iran..

Seems nobody believes the hallow threats by our current Administration?

I dont think its so much that. It goes beyond the US. NK knows that the UN is historically inept at dealing with 'problem countries'. NK wants global respect, and in its current state cant come up with any better ideas to get this than to develop WMD's. Or at least threaten to.

[audtatious]

I agree with you. Concerning the missile launch Obama stated “Should North Korea decide to take this action, we will work with all interested partners in the international community to take appropriate steps to let North Korea know that they cannot threaten the safety and stability of other countries with impunity.”. I wish Obama had taken a more forceful step forward and shot down the missile in the first place.

We both know the UN will threaten sanctions and possibly impose them against NK but that does not stop Russia and others, at least in the past, from coming to their aid anyway it seems. If NK pulls out of the 6-party talks as they have threatened then I simply see the UN and others cowtowing to them.

[WDRacing]

I agree with you. Concerning the missile launch Obama stated “Should North Korea decide to take this action, we will work with all interested partners in the international community to take appropriate steps to let North Korea know that they cannot threaten the safety and stability of other countries with impunity.”. I wish Obama had taken a more forceful step forward and shot down the missile in the first place.

We both know the UN will threaten sanctions and possibly impose them against NK but that does not stop Russia and others, at least in the past, from coming to their aid anyway it seems. If NK pulls out of the 6-party talks as they have threatened then I simply see the UN and others cowtowing to them.

Yeah that's what we need...more force.

NK has been saying crap and making threats for years. This is just another example. They want foreign aid, this is just a negotiating technique that that they know works.

[audtatious]

Ahhh...The 'ole "kid is crying for a cookie so you give the kid a candy bar so you can discuss why they can't have a cookie" routine.

I say let them have nukes. All they can hit right now is Palinville and Pelosiville.

[480sx]

Aud man you cant possibly be serious. The idea of NK with advanced nuclear arms is unacceptable. The idea that they have nuclear capability at all isnt really acceptable IMO.

I would support a full out war, land grab and then setting them up as a part of the 'states before i would even consider the possibility of letting them develop their nuclear arms program any further.

WGAF really? Anyone gona cry for NK at that point? Anyone? They have no allies currently, there is no real cold war, they have isolated themselves from every potential ally and seem to be pursuing that path with vigor.

Whats the aftermath of such an event? Significant enough to deter us from the only realistic option of dealing with a NK that is truly pursuing WMDs for WHATEVER reason?

The main problem that i see with my idea is, once again, giving terrorists a battle ground from which to fight us. But in this circumstance, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, WE would run s***. Pretty sure it would have a different outcome. In the end the people of NK would be better off, without a shadow of a doubt. Might take some getting used to, and 20-30 years before we really saw the fruits of our efforts, but anything to stop NK from pursuing WMDs. Killing two birds with one stone the way i see it. No more NK, one less avenue for terrorists to get nukes from. I would think that a side, long term benefit would be a more stable world.

Another problem is Iran, but at that point, they would be the lone 'Rogue' state as far as the US is concerned. We are a giant. We dont have to move unless provoked. But we damn sure dont need the homeland nuked, and should make sure that the chances of that happening are as nill as we can make them.

This idea currently isnt really feasible IMO, and i hope the situation is resolved diplomatically. We are overextended, ect ect. Just throwing the ideas out there.
Modified by 480sx at 4:29 PM 4/14/2009

[audtatious]

Aud man you cant possibly be serious.

On letting them have Nukes? Of course not.

[480sx]

I just caught the Alaska joke. Double 'villes should have caused more scrutiny lol, its just, the idea of NK with nukes got me fired up.