Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I will agree to this only if W agrees to STFU about stuff he has no knowledge of.

eta: Perhaps you can answer this, Hank: Did NK's recent nuclear test involve uranium?

Hank read a conservative blog saying that all those elements are pretty much the same -- a bunch of protons, a bunch of neutrons, and so on.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

eta: Perhaps you can answer this, Hank: Did NK's recent nuclear test involve uranium?

and the answer to this question matters how wrt the technology, AND how did you come by this knowledge?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank read a conservative blog saying that all those elements are pretty much the same -- a bunch of protons, a bunch of neutrons, and so on.

what I have read I actually understand, and I understand that I don't know enough to sort the opinion from the fact.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Okay. What does uranium enrichment have to do with that?

It is my understanding that because of their lack of Plutonium, the most likely bomb would constitute a Plutonium core surrounded by cloak of highly enriched Uranium.

Bombs can be made from Plutonium, Uranium or a combination of each. Plutonium does not exist naturally in nature, so it has to be made from Uranium.

In a nuclear power plant Uranium is used but the artificial waste material that is produced in the process is Plutonium. This waste material, Plutonium, can also be used to make power in a breeder reactor, but the only country I know that has a breeder reactor, because they are so dangerous, is Japan.

So if you are going to make a nuclear bomb you have to start with Uranium. The Nuclear power plants we sent to them were not supposed to produce Plutonium as waste, but highly enriched Uranium. This enriched Uranium itself can't be used to start a bomb but can be added to a Plutonium core to make a bomb much more lethal.

In other words, we sent them the TNT in the hope that they would get rid of the detonation cap. They kept the detonation cap and the TNT and now they can make a much bigger bomb.

Bombs can be made solely of Uranium (one of the bombs dropped in Japan) was only Uranium, but these bombs are much larger and harder to deliver. It is also more difficult to make these bombs. So the plants we sent them could be used to produce bomb grade material, it would just be much more difficult to make the bombs as it would be from Plutonium.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Where have you read that U.S. assistance assisted North Korea's efforts to build the bomb?

[Spanky]

One point I left out was that North Korea has a plant that produces Plutonium that was supposed to be destroyed when we sent them the enriched Uranium producing plants. However, they did not destroy that plant (and we could not know this because of the five year ban on inspectors) so now that they have a plant that still produces Plutonium and two plants provided by us that produce enriched Uranium. A perfect situation for builing Plutonium core, enriched Uranium wrapped, nuclear weapons.

The major assumption of the 94 treaty was that if we showed the North Koreans respect they would honor our treaty. Albright met with the North Korean leader and decided he was someone we could deal with. She got snowed. It is that simple.

We gave them a bunch of stuff under that treaty and they did not honor a single letter of it. How can anyone argue with that?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Where have you read that U.S. assistance assisted North Korea's efforts to build the bomb?

CRS Report for Congress

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21391.pdf

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
One point I left out was that North Korea has a plant that produces Plutonium that was supposed to be destroyed when we sent them the enriched Uranium producing plants. However, they did not destroy that plant (and we could not know this because of the five year ban on inspectors) so now that they have a plant that still produces Plutonium and two plants provided by us that produce enriched Uranium. A perfect situation for builing Plutonium core, enriched Uranium wrapped, nuclear weapons.

The major assumption of the 94 treaty was that if we showed the North Koreans respect they would honor our treaty. Albright met with the North Korean leader and decided he was someone we could deal with. She got snowed. It is that simple.

We gave them a bunch of stuff under that treaty and they did not honor a single letter of it. How can anyone argue with that?

Is it your belief that the two light-water reactors that we were to help them build according to the 1994 were in fact (a) built, and (b) helped North Korea build nuclear weapons? Apart from these two plants, how else did we help them build the bomb, if at all?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

______________
Where have you read that U.S. assistance assisted North Korea's efforts to build the bomb?
______________


Originally posted by Spanky
CRS Report for Congress

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21391.pdf

That CRS Report does not say what you think it says. Or maybe you could point me to what it is, specifically, that you're relying on?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is it your belief that the two light-water reactors that we were to help them build according to the 1994 were in fact (a) built, and (b) helped North Korea build nuclear weapons? Apart from these two plants, how else did we help them build the bomb, if at all?

It looks like they bought technology from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. Where do you think they got the resources to pay him for the technology? Prior to our treaty they had practically no hard currency, and any hard currency they did have they had to spend on oil otherwise the entire country would shut down. We sent them oil and hard currency.

There is no question that the Clinton administration screwed up. The question is how much.

There is no question they signed a treaty, gave a bunch of stuff to North Korea, and gave the stuff before we had any verification that they were complying with their end of the treaty. In the end they did not comply at all.

So the Clinton administration screwed up. They thought we could trust the "Dear Leader" and they were totally wrong.

The only issue is how badly they screwed up. How can anyone dispute that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
It looks like they bought technology from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. Where do you think they got the resources to pay him for the technology? Prior to our treaty they had practically no hard currency, and any hard currency they did have they had to spend on oil otherwise the entire country would shut down. We sent them oil and hard currency.

There is no question that the Clinton administration screwed up. The question is how much.

There is no question they signed a treaty, gave a bunch of stuff to North Korea, and gave the stuff before we had any verification that they were complying with their end of the treaty. In the end they did not comply at all.

So the Clinton administration screwed up. They thought we could trust the "Dear Leader" and they were totally wrong.

The only issue is how badly they screwed up. How can anyone dispute that?

Spanky you are effectively responding to PPNYC when you do this. Of course Ty doesn't know any of what he talks about. He is quoting blogs as gospel. It's the same reem job they tried to pull on evolution, when he simply could not explain huge portions of the chain, but knew it was all true.

When you respond to his ilk, you screw up and delay the day this board can begin taking steps to becoming of interest again.

Tough-love, sorry, but you are trusting "Dear Leader" and it hurts us all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That CRS Report does not say what you think it says. Or maybe you could point me to what it is, specifically, that you're relying on?

Didn't say what? You are getting caught up in the details because you want to ignore what happened.

Answer me this:

1) Did the North Koreans honor any part of the Clinton treaty?

2) Did we honor most of our end without confirming that they were honoring their?

3) Did we give them five years of not having inspectors so we couldn't verify if they were honoring their end of the treaty?

4) The Clinton administration continued to honor our end of the treaty even though the North Koreans were breaking it and it wasn't until the Bush administration that we cut things off.

5) The resources we sent to the North Koreans were used to help in their nuclear production. The degree to which our resources helped their program is debatable, but there is no doubt that the resources assisted North Korea at a time when they were focusing most of their resources on building a nuclear bomb?

One through four a true. No question about it. Number five is most likely true but even it is not, Clinton, Albright and Richardson screwed up big time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It looks like they bought technology from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. Where do you think they got the resources to pay him for the technology?

North Korea has other sources of hard currency, like counterfeiting.

Prior to our treaty they had practically no hard currency, and any hard currency they did have they had to spend on oil otherwise the entire country would shut down. We sent them oil and hard currency.

Where did you read that we sent them hard currency? Where did you read that they sold the oil? Here's one description of the deal that I found:

• Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to halt activities at its plutonium producing nuclear reactors in Pyongyang in exchange for a relaxation of economic sanctions, a gradual move toward normalization of diplomatic relations, fuel oil deliveries, and construction of a light-water reactor to replace the graphite-moderated reactor shut down at Pyongyang.

If your theory is that Clinton helped the North Koreans to obtain weapons-grade plutonium by sending them fuel oil, that's, um, interesting.

There is no question that the Clinton administration screwed up. The question is how much.

There is no question they signed a treaty, gave a bunch of stuff to North Korea, and gave the stuff before we had any verification that they were complying with their end of the treaty. In the end they did not comply at all.

So the Clinton administration screwed up. They thought we could trust the "Dear Leader" and they were totally wrong.

The only issue is how badly they screwed up. How can anyone dispute that?

North Korea stopped its plutonium activities for years because of this deal. And we never built the replacement reactors. It appears that they continued enriching uranium, but that was not nearly the threat that the plutonium was, as you maybe now see from the CRS thing you found.

The Clinton agreement bought time in the hopes that North Korea's government would collapse -- or something -- before it built the bomb. Because it got the plutonium stuff put on hold, it worked, for a while, until Bush blew up the deal (p.i.). Then the North Koreans started with the plutonium again, and now -- whether or not they set off the bomb this week -- we know they have enough plutonium to make one. And Bush persuaded the North Koreans -- as described here -- that they needed the bomb, pronto.

If sending North Korea fuel oil really had some downside, you could say that the years Clinton bought weren't worth. But you certainly can't fault Clinton for not doing more if you're going to try to defend Bush's bellicose inactivity for the last five years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Didn't say what? You are getting caught up in the details because you want to ignore what happened.

Answer me this:

1) Did the North Koreans honor any part of the Clinton treaty?

2) Did we honor most of our end without confirming that they were honoring their?

3) Did we give them five years of not having inspectors so we couldn't verify if they were honoring their end of the treaty?

4) The Clinton administration continued to honor our end of the treaty even though the North Koreans were breaking it and it wasn't until the Bush administration that we cut things off.

5) The resources we sent to the North Koreans were used to help in their nuclear production. The degree to which our resources helped their program is debatable, but there is no doubt that the resources assisted North Korea at a time when they were focusing most of their resources on building a nuclear bomb?

One through four a true. No question about it. Number five is most likely true but even it is not, Clinton, Albright and Richardson screwed up big time.

I would put you on ignore, except that would be too ironic given what harm Clinton's ignoring al queda and afghanistan did to our country and the harm you responding to Ty does to this board.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Didn't say what? You are getting caught up in the details because you want to ignore what happened.

"Caught up in the details?" You claimed that the CRS report you linked to somehow says that U.S. assistance helped North Korean build the bomb. It. Does. Not. If you think it does, go read it again.

Answer me this:

1) Did the North Koreans honor any part of the Clinton treaty?

Yes.

2) Did we honor most of our end without confirming that they were honoring their?

Unclear to me. We never normalized relations or built the light-water reactors we promised them -- I'm still waiting for you to admit that you were flat-out wrong about that -- so I'm not sure which side of the "most" line we were on.

3) Did we give them five years of not having inspectors so we couldn't verify if they were honoring their end of the treaty?

Was that in the treaty? We can verify some things without inspectors on the ground. The uranium program was easier for them to hide than the plutonium.

4) The Clinton administration continued to honor our end of the treaty even though the North Koreans were breaking it and it wasn't until the Bush administration that we cut things off.

It wasn't until the Bush Administration action you describe that North Korea started in with the plutonium again. Guess what they can build a bomb out of now? That would be plutonium.

5) The resources we sent to the North Koreans were used to help in their nuclear production. The degree to which our resources helped their program is debatable, but there is no doubt that the resources assisted North Korea at a time when they were focusing most of their resources on building a nuclear bomb?

"Assisted" in the sense that they used the fuel oil to heat the buildings? Where did you read this? In that CRS report?