Tag: nuclear weapons

Considering that this analysis is coming from David Albright this should be taken with some skepticism:

North Korea is estimated to have up to nine nuclear weapons built with highly enriched uranium, and uranium bombs could account for up to 60 percent of the North’s nuclear arsenal feared to grow to up to 100 weapons in five years, an American expert said.

David Albright, a top nuclear expert who heads the Institute for Science and International Security think tank, spoke about the forecast in an interview with Yonhap News Agency, saying highly enriched uranium is easier to make than weapons-grade plutonium.

Last month, Albright and Joel Wit, a security expert who runs the website 38 North, rang the alarm about the North’s growing nuclear capabilities with a surprising assessment that Pyongyang could expand its nuclear stockpile from 10-16 nuclear weapons to up to 100 weapons by 2020.

In that case, “40 percent of the arsenal would contain plutonium and 60 percent would contain weapons-grade uranium,” Albright said in the interview at his office in Washington. “The weapons-grade uranium cannot be forgotten by any means.”

Some experts have questioned the 100 weapons, including Olli Heinonen, a former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official. Albright said in response to such skepticism: “North Korea is not a country just starting to make nuclear weapons. North Korea has been making nuclear weapons for up to two decades.”

The worst case scenario is based on an assumption that the North has two centrifuges, not only the one at the country’s main nuclear complex, but also a secret facility whose existence has been widely suspected but has not been confirmed, he said.

“I went from deeply skeptical to believing that it’s possible … that they have another major centrifuge plant. We have to do more work … to see if that’s true. But I take the U.S. assessment intelligence that there is this earlier centrifuge plant much more seriously now than I did maybe five, six years ago,” he said.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link, but what is ironic about this is that Albright is the person who for years claimed that North Korea did not have a uranium program and accusations that they did he tried to fit into some Iraq War weapons of mass destruction Bush/Cheney plot.  It is interesting now to see him do a complete reversal on this issue.

Interesting article in the Diplomat which discusses what should be the trigger for the ROK to launch a preemptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear program?:

As North Korea continues to develop both nuclear weapons and the missile technology to carry them, pressure on South Korea to take preemptive military action will gradually rise. At some point, North Korea may have so many missiles and warheads that South Korea considers that capability to be an existential threat to its security. This is the greatest long-term risk to security and stability in Korea, arguably more destabilizing than a North Korean collapse. If North Korea does not arrest its nuclear and missile programs at a reasonably small, defensively-minded deterrent, then Southern elites will increasingly see those weapons as threats to Southern survival, not just tools of defense or gangsterish blackmail.  [The Diplomat]

You can read the whole thing at the link, but the author makes an argument that at some point the ROK cannot allow the North Koreans to manufacture a huge stockpile of nuclear arms. Right now they have it is believed 5-10 nukes which is good enough for regime survival purposes, however what happens if they begin developing over 100 nukes?  This would change the military balance of power on the peninsula towards North Korea because the ROK does not have the missile defenses to survive an attack from that many nuclear weapons not to mention the conventional artillery strikes they would launch.

I think the wild card in this is if the Chinese want that many nuclear weapons right on their doorstep or the threat of a war caused by a preemptive strike to stop their nuclear program.

US negotiators are talking tough with North Korea which is better than appeasement, but still there has been nothing that has changed significantly that in my opinion would cause the North Koreans to change course on their nuclear and missile programs:

North Korea is trying to follow Pakistan’s example in the hope of winning recognition as a nuclear state, but such a situation will never happen, U.S. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said Friday.

Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank, Sherman also said that the communist nation cannot obtain the security, prosperity or respect it wants “without negotiating an end to its provocative nuclear and missile program.”

“They see in Pakistan, a country whose nuclear program was first protested, then accepted, and hope to follow that example, which also isn’t going to happen,” Sherman said.

North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests, in 2006, 2009 and 2013. Earlier this week, the U.S. raised an alarm with a projection that the North’s nuclear arsenal could expand from 10 to 16 nuclear weapons now to up to 100 in five years.

Sherman said diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang keeps mounting, including U.S. President Barack Obama’s executive order authorizing fresh sanctions on the regime early this year, China’s firm opposition to the North’s nuclear program, and the U.N. Security Council’s first-ever review of the North’s human rights record.

“They are apparently under the illusion that the best way to conceal a weak hand is with a clenched fist,” Sherman said. “Despite its bluster, the North’s strategy has failed utterly. Instead of gaining acceptance, the country is increasingly isolated.”  [Yonhap]

You can read the rest at the link.

Here is what the wonks over at the Council for Foreign Relations have to say about North Korea nuclear brinkmanship strategy:

North Korea’s food situation and its overall economy appear to be stable despite increased sanctions on the communist regime — an indication that Pyongyang’s policy of simultaneously pursuing nuclear and economic development is working, a U.S. expert said Wednesday.

Scott Snyder, a senior researcher on Korea at the Council Foreign Relations, cited the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) saying in its latest assessment that the North’s food production is estimated at 5.94 million tons in 2014, compared to the 5.93 million tons in 2013-2014.

That represents the highest level since the North’s economic collapse in the mid-1990s.

Experts on North Korea’s agricultural sector have said that the increase in the country’s food production is attributable to agricultural reform measures that center on allowing farmers to keep at least one third of their harvests.

“The FAO assessment of North Korean food production is consistent with anecdotal reports that North Korea has made productivity improvements in recent years and that the North Korean economy is stable if not growing slowly,” Snyder said in an article on the CFR’s website.

“This means that North Korea’s two-pronged policy of simultaneous economic and nuclear development is showing some modest results on the economic side. The problem is that the nuclear priority remains in place and North Korea’s efforts to develop missile and nuclear programs continue to proceed unchecked,” he said.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has made the so-called “Byeongjin” policy one of the country’s biggest goals, pledging to rebuild the moribund economy while forging ahead with its nuclear program.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link, but remember this assessment the next time you hear someone claim North Korea has a food shortage and thus need free money from the international community.

It is looking like the Kim regime is getting closer to being able to miniaturize their nuclear weapons capability to be able to fit on to a delivery system:

South Korea’s defence ministry said Tuesday that North Korea appeared to have achieved a “significant” level of technology to miniaturise a nuclear device to be fitted on the tip of a missile.

The ministry made the warning in a white paper due to be released later Tuesday, although defence officials said the nuclear-armed North has yet to demonstrate its miniaturisation capacity.

“North Korea’s capabilities of miniaturising nuclear weapons appear to have reached a significant level,” the ministry said in a statement.

Pyongyang has conducted three nuclear tests, most recently in February 2013.

The defence ministry said the North had probably secured some 40 kilos (88 pounds) of weapons-grade plutonium by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods, and that it is working on a highly enriched uranium programme.

Pyongyang mothballed the five-megawatt reactor at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex in 2007 under an aid-for-disarmament accord, but began renovating it in mid-2013. The facility is the country’s main source of weapons grade plutonium.  [AFP]

You can read more at the link, but I would have to think they would first be focusing on miniaturizing the nuclear weapon to fit on a warhead that can be delivered via artillery to threaten South Korea with. Developing nuclear warheads for an intercontinental ballistic missile to threaten the US with is a far more complicated endeavor.

Some in the Korean government are concerned that a secret deal for the release of Jeffrey Fowle was reached with cutting USFK as one of the bargaining chips:

There is speculation about secret talks between Washington and Pyongyang, especially given the abrupt release of Jeffrey Fowle, one of three Americans detained in the North.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Roh Kwang-il here struggled to downplay the issue. Roh said Kerry “made the remarks to urge the North to implement denuclearization in a substantive way. As far as I know there is no discussion at present about whether to cut the size of the USFK or maintain its current size.”

He added that the two countries agreed in 2008 to maintain the size of the USFK at the current level of 28,500 troops. “And this has been reaffirmed continuously through the annual Seoul-Washington Security Consultative Meeting.”

Roh ventured that Kerry “may have meant that this is an issue that can be discussed when the North is denuclearized.”

On a visit to Washington, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se tried a similar line. “The reduction of the USFK will be discussed in the distant future when the denuclearization is realized,” he said.

“Despite Pyongyang’s release of Fowle, it’s too soon to conclude that there’s been a sea change in the attitude of the North. And U.S. officials also maintain that there’s no change in the U.S. policy,” he claimed.  [Chosun Ilbo]

You can read more at the link, but everyone knows North Korea is not going to denuclearize and any promises of reducing USFK to get Fowle released was probably a demand from North Korea to try and create a rift between the two allies. It seems like having to answer questions about a rift between the two allies was a small price to pay to get Fowle released if that is what happened.

Now can we please take efforts to keep these idiot tourists out of North Korea to prevent having to deal with these detainee negotiations in the first place?

Will US negotiators fall for the NK freeze tactic:

North Korea expressed its readiness Thursday to discuss initial steps of its nuclear disarmament, raising hopes for the first tangible progress at international talks on Pyongyang’s atomic weapons program since they began more than three years ago

“We are prepared to discuss first-stage measures,” the North’s nuclear envoy Kim Kye Gwan said on arriving in Beijing for the six-nation negotiations set to start later Thursday.

Media reports have suggested the North may agree to freeze its main nuclear reactor and allow international inspectors in exchange for energy aid as a starting step to disarm.

But Kim said any moves by North Korea would be determined by the United States’ attitude.

“We are going to make a judgment based on whether the United States will give up its hostile policy and come out toward peaceful coexistence,” he said, adding that Washington was “well-aware” of what it had to do.

This statement from US chief negotiator Christopher Hill is a little comforting:

On arriving at Beijing airport on Wednesday, the chief U.S. delegate Christopher Hill told reporters, “I want to emphasize the real success is we complete the joint statement of 2005” whereby the North agreed to dismantle the program in return for aid and security guarantees. “So we are not going to finish that this week. We will maybe just make a good first step,” he added.

I have said this before and I will say it again, Kim Jong-il has no intention of giving up his nuclear weapons.  He developed nuclear weapons in order to appease his military eager to join the prestigious nuclear club and to ensure regime survival.  He is using the current six party talks to buy time to perfect his nuclear weapons program.  Once Kim Jong-il has successfully created a half dozen nuclear weapons he will be able to fully implement what fellow K-blogger Richardson at DPRK Studies calls Strategic Disengagement.  Before strategically disengaging, if Kim can get the US to drop its financial sanctions and return the $24 million dollars frozen in a Macau Bank and any other goodies the US is willing to throw in for a nuclear freeze Kim will take it.  Why not when he already possesses the weapons?

That is why I advocate that US negotiators should only accept nothing but verifiable nuclear dismantlement in return for any financial incentives that may be offered.  The only way the Kim regime would accept total dismantlement is if they don’t have as much nuclear material or their nuclear program isn’t as advanced everyone thinks.  Last year’s low yield nuclear test by North Korea suggests that maybe they don’t have much material to build a nuclear program around.  I sure hope someone in the government much smarter than me has figured that one out.

At any rate I’m just getting the feeling that the Bush Administration is eager for the appearance of a foreign policy success and a nuclear freeze by North Korea would appear to be one, when in actuality it would be a defeat if Kim is allowed to keep the weapons he already has.  Kim will in one year have gained everything he wanted if this nuclear freeze deal is signed. Kim will have his nuclear weapons which ensure his regime’s survival, his frozen $24 million will be given back, and North Korea will international energy assistance.  Don’t forget the over one billion dollars worth of assistance Kim is getting this year from South Korea and his fifth column in South Korea has successfully stopped the USFK transformation in that country. Is it 1994 all over again?

First the news agencies were reporting from anonymous souces that the initial intelligence results from the North Korean nuclear test indicated it was not a nuclear test:

U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast’s readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.
“We’re still evaluating the data, and as more data comes in, we hope to develop a clearer picture,” said one official familiar with intelligence reports.

Now the news agencies are reporting once again through unnamed sources that it was a successful nuclear test:

A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows “radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test,” according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official.

The statement, from the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, was sent to Capitol Hill but not released publicly. CNN obtained it from a congressional source.

I have a word of advice for the news agencies, how about they wait for official word from the US government agencies involved with the data analysis instead of publishing incomplete analysis based on unnamed souces as fact. My second concern is all these leaks from sensitive government agencies. If a journalist can get sensitive information from government agencies why couldn’t foreign intelligence agencies just as easily do so as well. Why aren’t these leakers found and prosecuted?

In the US military we constantly receive briefings on the importance of OPSEC and milbloggers even have to register their blogs with their chain of command when deployed because of this. Yet the most damaging OPSEC violations I continue to see are from the same people who started the crack down on milblogs, the Pentagon and other government agencies. This is a classic do as I say, don’t do as I do.