12/26/2002: Korean peninsula

This was presented on the web log of "Corsair the Rational Pirate" which I currently don't have an URL for, so if you were particularly motivated you could find it. Corsair didn't include any further information on the image.

This is a heat and light signature of the Korean peninsula.

Two days ago I took faux credit when U.S. defense head Donald Rumsfeld talked about what the Korean night sky looks like. (South Korea is all vibrantly lit up, while North Korea is entirely dark.) I had previously cut up the "night sky of the world" image to feature Korea, and I thought I was being clever, but anyone who looked at that part of the world would notice the same thing.

It's all a very interesting lesson in what happens when your country is controlled by socialistic megalomaniacal (?) morons.

By many accounts, the Korean people have a fairly workaholic culture -- similar to the Japanese, early Americans or modern immigrant Americans. They view work as a positive, desireable thing. Neither Korea nor Japan enjoy a remarkable wealth in natural resources, and yet both became quite wealthy once their people had the freedom to be productive.

All of which makes North Korea's nuclear proliferation even more incredibly outrageous. Partly because North Korea lets its people suffer without heat or light or even food, when just letting them loose would result in another South Korea - a boon for the world.

But mostly because it means that the battle lines of the world are increasingly between productive and unproductive countries -- and the unproductive countries have stronger political control of their armies and their missiles, and more will to wreak havoc because the peace-loving public doesn't have a say.

socialistic?
Please.
Can you not confuse socialism and stalinist dictatorships? Not that hard. And since i'm feeling nitpickey, the correct term is political will not political control.

What's the large heat signature over the Korea Strait at the bottom right of the picture?

Socialism doesn't imply stalinism nor marxism. Here in Chile we have a Socialist president, yet he managed to sign a free trade agreement with USA and EU (that's pretty capitalistic, if you ask me )

sca111: I believe that's Hiroshima.

Quote:

Originally posted by Leus ..., yet he managed to sign a free trade agreement with USA and EU (that's pretty capitalistic, if you ask me )

Re: 12/26/2002: Korean peninsula

I heard the other day that North Korea was moving a few machine guns around the DMZ, and moving troops into the general area. "Self", I said, "this is brilliant. While GW is fucking off in Iraq, and since he's already said he isn't going to war with N.K., what a simply divine oportunity to take back S.K."

Quzah.

The two word solution to North Korea: Jimmy Carter

Tell us, tw, why would N. Korea have to kick out the IAEA inspectors and disable their surveillance cameras if their intentions were to generate peaceful electricity to support that power grid?

The intended effort is not to generate electricity but to process SPENT nuclear fuel into material for 4 new nuclear bombs. (N Korea already has 2 of them.)

A few months ago you were a fan of globalism and not a fan of unilateral action. So why does Kim Jung Il become your personal hero when China, Europe, Russia, the US, and Japan are all demanding that N Korea cut this shit out?

Bush called N Korea part of the axis of evil 11 months ago; they began their current work 4 years ago.

Thank you for not answering my question whatsoever.

where exactly did you get infomation solidly stating N korea has two working nucler weapons?

I heard Colin Powell say it on national TV.

I'll confirm that...he said it on Meet the Press yesterday.

What are you, his right-hand man or something? C'mon, man, we all know that he could say that the sky was falling and you would confirm it.

Excerpts from yesterday's Meet the Press, featuring Colin Powell:

(POWELL) We now believe they have a couple of nuclear weapons and have had them for years. This new facility, should they do what they’re capable of doing—of producing several more nuclear weapons—it will not feed one more North Korean child, it will not light one more North Korean home. And we hope that through a process of careful diplomacy, pressure, international attention and a willingness to listen to ideas as they come forward, we will find a way through this situation.

Then, later...

I wouldn’t say that. They have a larger army, but they are also pretty much a broken society and a broken country, a broken economy, and so they are, I think, in rather desperate straits. Yes, they have a large army, and, yes, they have had these couple of nuclear weapons for many years.

Which statement is correct, I dunno for sure. Maybe he was overconfident...or slipped up on the second excerpt. Does he say that the weapons work? Nah...my bad, and my apologies for any misrepresentation. But he does say that NK has 2 nuclear weapons.

Out of anyone in that administration, Powell is the one guy I believe. And I personally think he slipped up on that second statement...I wouldn't be surprised if NK already has several nuclear weapons.

The full transcript

Actually I heard it on, um, the network that I never watch:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/29/le.00.html

BLITZER: But this seems so frightening. This is a -- one of the members of the "axis of evil." It's a Stalinist regime, unpredictable. And you are now acknowledging they probably already have two nuclear bombs and they might be able to build a lot more.

POWELL: Don't be quite so breathless. They've had two nuclear weapons, we believe, for some time. It is not something that we have suddenly discovered. We've always attributed this capability to them. Our intelligence community believes they probably had enough material to fabricate two weapons, and they may well have these two weapons.

If they start this reactor back up, and if they go beyond what they say they're starting it for -- they say they need the electricity because we cut off the heavy fuel in response to their violation of the agreed framework. But if they go beyond that and start to reprocess the spent fuel that is at the facility, they could have another several nuclear weapons in a matter of, let's say, six months. That would take them from two to six.

We don't like that. We don't believe this is in their best interests. It's certainly not in the best interests of the region or the world. But it is not yet a crisis that requires mobilization or for us to be threatening North Korea. Quite the contrary. We have been saying to North Korea that we have no plans to invade you. We have no hostile intent towards you. You have people who are starving. We are the biggest food provider to the people of North Korea, as part of the world food program.

So we have no ill intent toward North Korea, but we are deeply concerned about some of the actions they have taken over the years to proliferate weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, to sell this kind of technology throughout the world. And I think it was quite right for the president to say that clearly when he gave his State of the Union speech.

Remember his State of the Union speech, where he called them part of the "axis of evil," was 11 months ago. They started this new program four years ago. And so we finally found out about the program and called them on it. We were in the process of negotiations with them. I went and met with the foreign minister of North Korea in Brunei at the end of July.

We sent in Assistant Secretary Kelly to let them know that there were things we could do for their country but they had to stop this kind of activity. And their response has not been an encouraging one.

And for that reason, the president is keeping all of his options on the table. And we're leading with the diplomatic option because it is important for everybody to realize this is a problem not just for the United States but for the region and for the world.

Quote:

Originally posted by juju What are you, his right-hand man or something? C'mon, man, we all know that he could say that the sky was falling and you would confirm it.

If you would listen to me, you wouldn't have to listen to NPR or CBC.

If you miss the CBS news, no big deal see NBC. If you miss both of those, see ABC news. If you miss all of them, read the New York Times. They are all spun the same direction.

If you miss my show though, there's no where else to go. I am equal time.

I'd rather you laughed than have a gun in your mouth. Laughter is much healthier.

Plus dead people cant buy the stuff I promote on the show...

I've seen some crazy posts from you, tw, but that one takes the cake.

Go ahead buddy...keep patting yourself on the back.

I see: we're into Clinton-esque "what is the meaning of the word 'belief'" semantics now.

OK, let me ask a better question -

The UN negotiated the cease-fire that created the demilitarized zone that the North Koreans are being accused of violating. The North Koreans are violating UN treaties and throwing out UN nuclear inspectors and disabling UN cameras. So why shouldn't the administration just let the UN address it?

That is, after all, your position on Iraq... is it not?

You should receive an answer soon...it will ramble on for 8 or 9 paragraphs, and not directly answer your question at all. By the time you're finished reading the reply, you'll forget what you asked in the first place.

Quote:

Originally posted by slang What's that mean Griff?

I know what you mean G, at least on the mediation part. But there are just times where someone that is just asking for it, like tw, comes along...and I can't resist.

And don't you even think about interfering with the Chucklehead twins.

8 paragraphs, Syc. Spot on! Well done!

*bows* Thank you UT, thank you. Hey, we should have a Cellar GTG, where all we do is watch Action News and read the Daily News. And then we will have Dubya worship...I already have a life-sized poster of him surrounded by burning candles in my living room.

Ohhh! he edited it so now it's 10 paragraphs. Oh well, you still claim the prize because it's the first time I read it that counts.

He edited it out of spite.

I think tw has the wrong site. If I wanted to hear unsupported, vitriolic leftist polemics I could go read Indymedia or something.

Not that I believe he's willing to listen to reason, but it should be pretty obvious with no UN inspectors or monitoring equipment in the country, a regime that has made clear in the past its willingness to violate treaty commitments in order to pursue nuclear weapons is not to be trusted with a bunch of plutonium. There's also the fact that(according to Rumsfeld, at least) that the North Korean electrical grid isn't in any shape to even bring the reactor online to produce electricity, which, given the state of the country's infrastructure, seems quite likely.

But the government has lied before, therefore the government is lying this time, and only I have the intelligence and presence of mind to detect this.

(Al Gore raises his hand high in the air to get TW's attention)


I think I know. The evil, war mongering, right wing extremist, cowboy hat wearing, Supreme court manipulating George Jr. shut off the oil to N Korea. So now they cant run their oil powered electric generators to make power.

(Al kicks back in his seat, puts his feet up on the desk in front of him, and lights a Marlboro)

Did I tell you I went to Harvard University? That was before I took the initiative to create the internet.

I asked my questions first.

But if you really need an answer, then sure, why not. These events were triggered by North Korea resuming its nuclear program, in violation of UN and other international treaties, most especially the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in 1998.

This whole North Korea thing is, IMO, just to show us how two faced America is.

GW: "Oooooh evil Iraq has 'weapons of mass destruction'! We must keeeeel them."

GW: "Ooooooh North Korea is in the axis of evil because they are friendly with Iraq!"

North Korea: "Yeah dumb ass, we have nuke capability too. Come bomb us, chicken shit."

GW: -=voice of Killer the buzzard=- "Nope. Nope. Nope. Must be friendly. Must not bomb them."

WTF? Hello? Am I the only one here that sees how stupid this is? China has nukes. India. Pakistan. We're not bombing them. We bring up time and again how "evil Iraq" gassed and did all this shit to their own people. Do we ever mention that we helped them do it? Oh fuck no! Because then we'd look as supid as we really are.

But to on, just blindly let your governemnt do whatever they feel like. Support them all the way. Be sure and tell your congressman how happy you are with all the new "Homeland Security" bills they pass that rape you of your freedom also. They like that kind of support.

We just have to be the fucking police of the world. How stupid would it look if all of this sudden Canada decided that France couldn't export wine any more, because they didn't like that they had a few tanks? They lobby the world and slap them with trade embargos.

It's the same damn thing. We just decide what we want the rest of the world to do and are shocked shitless if they don't immediately bend over and grab their ankles.

I mean really, how dare another sovern nation dictate their own policies?

Quzah.

tw, unlike yourself, I answered your question directly with one sentence.

January 2002: President George W. Bush says North Korea, Iran and Iraq form an "axis of evil" threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction. North Korea says the remarks amount to a declaration of war.

April 2002: Bush issues a memorandum stating that he will not certify North Korea's compliance with the Agreed Framework. However he allows continued U.S. funding of oil shipments.

August 2002: KEDO holds a ceremony to mark the pouring of concrete foundations for the first LWR.

October 3-5, 2002: James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, confronts Pyongyang with U.S. evidence of a covert uranium enrichment programme. North Korea responds by saying it is "entitled to possess not only nuclear weapons but other types of weapons more powerful than them in defense of its sovereignty in face of the U.S. threat."

October 16, 2002: The United States announces that North Korea admitted during Kelly's visit to having a covert programme to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

October 25, 2002: North Korea's Foreign Ministry says it will address U.S. concerns about its nuclear programme if the United States signs a non-aggression treaty, guarantees Pyongyang's sovereignty and pledges not to interfere in its economic development.

November 14, 2002: The United States and its allies hold a KEDO meeting in New York and decide to cut off fuel oil shipments to North Korea, beginning in December.

November 29, 2002: The IAEA calls on North Korea to open its atomic weapons programme to inspections, says it "deplored" Pyongyang's assertion it had a right to possess the weapons.

December 4, 2002: North Korea rejects the IAEA call to open its weapons programme to inspections, saying the U.N. nuclear watchdog was abetting U.S. policy toward the North.

December 21, 2002: The IAEA says North Korea has disabled surveillance devices the agency had placed at the five-megawatt Yongbyon research reactor.

December 22, 2002: North Korea says it has begun removing IAEA monitoring equipment from Yongbyon, drawing condemnation from the United States, South Korea, Japan and France.

(Copied without permission from CNN who copied it with permission from Reuters. Original CNN link below contains many timeline points before Jan 2002.)

http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiap...timeline.reut/

To quit negotiation is a fine tactic when you're in a position with time to spare, and where time will cause your opponent's position to deteriorate.

Stopping the oil trade (tied to the nuclear treaty), continuing the food aid, and not giving the tyrant the time of day seems to be the ideal choice.

The nuclear threat is not a bargaining chip to be dealt when a nation sees fit. Especially since they haven't fired off a test nuke. Normally a country blows up a patch of nothing to show everyone that they aren't lying, that they do have a nuke, and that their words actually do bear a greater level of seriousness.

That's more likely why Powell used the "believe" language, by the way. Until they explode one, even the North Koreans don't know if they really have a nuclear bomb.

Well, tw is starting to make at least a small bit of sense. He's right in that at least a large part of North Korea's motivation in kicking out IAEA inspectors was to force concessions from the US and South Korea. Of course, the threat they used was the creation of more nuclear weapons, which they're more than likely to follow through on, since they've already taken the diplomatic heat for doing so. And why do you think this should be considered a mitigating factor? I'd say threatening the rest of the world every time you want to sit down at the negotiating table is not a good way to encourage goodwill towards yourself.

Notice what has happened with the Korean dispute. It was suppose to be about their secret uranium processing. But do to bad politics, the dispute shifted, instead, to nuclear rods that contain plutonium. What should have been addressed up front has instead become a secondary issue.

Refering to Undertoad's timeline:

The North Korean Government

I originally put this link in the Manifestos, but I'll put it here too b/c it's...appropriate.

bumped for Queen

thanks.