Tag: nuclear weapons

If the report is true this just goes to show that when ever the collapse or final showdown with North Korea ever does come, it is going to even deadlier and messier then anyone wants to deal with now; that is why everyone’s foreign policy with North Korea is to just keep pushing the can down the road:

North Korea’s nuclear weapons capability may be larger and advancing more rapidly than either the United States or China had estimated, according to Chinese experts cited in a US news report.

A report by the Wall Street Journal says Chinese specialists on North Korea who met with US officials in February told them “that North Korea may already have 20 warheads, as well as the capability of producing enough weapons-grade uranium to double its arsenal by next year.”

US officials have warned over the past year about the North’s progress in “miniaturizing” its nuclear arsenal to fit atop a missile, as well as its gains in three separate long-range rocket programs. One such rocket is an intercontinental missile designed to carry a payload more than 5,000 miles, theoretically putting it within range of California.

Sigfried Hecker, a Stanford professor who attended the meeting in February, confirmed the contents of the presentation. Pyongyang allowed Mr. Hecker to visit in 2010, when he reported seeing a large uranium-enrichment facility.

“Some eight, nine, or 10 years ago, they had the bomb but not much of a nuclear arsenal,” the Journal quoted Hecker as saying. “I had hoped they wouldn’t go in this direction, but that’s what happened in the past five years.”  [Christian Science Monitor]

You can read the rest at the link.

That is what some people are wondering:

Today, North Korea faces the prospect of another significant food shortage and a purported loss of income from China, its largest trading partner and closest among precious few allies.

But are things so bad right now that Pyongyang will be willing to discuss its nuclear weapons program?

“North Korea says its nuclear program means its life,” said Kang Sung Kyu, professor of North Korea Studies at Korea University in Sejong-shi.

Kang is skeptical that North Korea is serious about negotiations, or that any agreements would stand — a valid concern, given how previous deals have fallen apart as Pyongyang repeatedly reneged on key points in the past.

It’s also unclear what role China might play in North Korea’s decision-making.  (……….)

Paik and Kang remain skeptical that talks at this point would accomplish much; Pyongyang agreed to abandon its nuclear program in 2007 after much negotiation, only to resume testing two years later.

However, it does appear that China and the other members of the “six-party talks,” a group of countries that negotiated several now-tattered accords in the 2000s, are ready to talk to North Korea once again.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry recently posted a photo of Russia’s deputy foreign minister and China’s representative for Korean affairs with the following caption: “The two sides exchanged views on the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and on the restarting of the six-party talks.”

China has not provided details on what those views entail.

South Korea, Japan, the U.S., China and Russia have reached “a certain degree of consensus” on how to restart the talks that fell apart in 2008, said Hwang Joon-kook, South Korea’s ambassador to the talks — again without providing details, according to Reuters.   [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but supposedly the US government is having talks with North Korea right now in regards to holding talks.  As I have been saying for years now the North Koreans will never give up their nuclear program.  What the North Koreans want in any nuclear talks is to be recognized as a nuclear power like Pakistan has become and with it the dropping of sanctions.  What would the US get out of such a deal?  The North Koreans would probably gives some vague promises of not building more nukes, but the big thing is that they would keep quiet for a few years like they have after past deals so the usual suspects can declare peace in our time and the outgoing administration can leave office without problems from North Korea.  Then later when a new US President takes office the North Koreans will start the cycle of provocations and negotiations all over again and by then North Korea will have a stronger hand with better nukes and missiles to make threats with.

I hope this deal works out, but considering North Korea is one of Iran’s best friends they would be well versed how to maintain a secret nuclear program and then back out of deal by blaming the other side:

Even two of the most skeptical experts on the negotiations — Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and members of a group call United Against Nuclear Iran — said they were impressed with the depth of detail.

Mr. Samore, who was Mr. Obama’s top adviser on weapons of mass destruction in his first term as president, said in an email that there is “much detail to be negotiated but I think it’s enough to be called a political framework.” Just a day ago, that appeared in doubt.

Mr. Heinonen, the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said “it appears to be a fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters.” But he cautioned that “Iran maintains enrichment capacity, which will be beyond its near-term needs.”

According to European officials, roughly 5,000 centrifuges will remain spinning enriched uranium at the main nuclear site at Natanz, about half the number currently running. The giant underground enrichment site at Fordo — which Israeli and some American officials fear is impervious to bombing — will be partly converted to advanced nuclear research and the production of medical isotopes. Foreign scientists will be present. There will be no fissile material present that could be used to make a bomb.

A major reactor at Arak, which officials feared could produce plutonium, would operate on a limited basis that would not provide enough fuel for a bomb.

In return, the European Union and the United States would begin to lift sanctions, as Iran complied. At a news conference after the announcement, Mr. Zarif said that essentially all sanctions would be lifted after the final agreement is signed.  [New York Times]

You can read the rest at the link, but North Korea first started negotiating in regards to their nuclear program back in 1994.  Now 21 years later they have nuclear weapons.  The Iranians if they choose to follow the same path will probably have nuclear weapons even sooner than that.  I think a lot of the decision on whether to covertly build nukes will depend on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East in the coming years.  Despite the media reports I think Iran wants nuclear weapons more for regime survival than to attack Israel with.  In the coming years if Iran feels like they are getting surrounded by hostile ISIS affiliates and Sunni governments they may then feel compelled to move forward with a covert nuclear weapons program.  This deal will allow them to keep that possibility open in the long term while still complying with the agreement to get sanctions dropped in the near term.

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?