NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose that the US launched a heavy air force attack on North Korea's nuclear arms bases - Pearl Harbour style. Such attacks without warning are completely against international law. But in such an event, it would remove the NK regime's ability to strike at the South using nuclear force. Surely this would justify it?

Suppose that the US launched a heavy air force attack on North Korea's nuclear arms bases - Pearl Harbour style. Such attacks without warning are completely against international law. But in such an event, it would remove the NK regime's ability to strike at the South using nuclear force. Surely this would justify it?


I think it would be better if we somehow coudl put them ALL to sleep for a couple days with gas and drugs in the water and stuff and then went in and dressed them all in fetish wear like bondage gear and rubber catsuits and put them in compromising poses with each other. Maybe grease up their anus's and shove some plugs in there. Take lots of pictures and leave them like that. Also steal all of their weapons, nuclear, biological and stuff and anything with WMD technology info and let them wake up to their new lives. Oh and maybe install some webcams and make a paysite for anyone that wants to see/hear how it all plays out in NK after they wake up.

Thats an action I would be okay with if they didn't get approval from a security coucil and whatnot. Imagine if America became a country that pulled off massive pranks instead. :D

I'd say it is, primarily because North Korea doesn't follow international law at all, and its nuclear program was a violation to begin with. That kind of move might be necessary to prevent a nuclear holocaust or even the threat of it in the region. Israel made a similar move on Iraq in the 1980's that helped interrupt Saddam's nuclear program, so it's been done before on a small scale.

I'd say it is, primarily because North Korea doesn't follow international law at all, and its nuclear program was a violation to begin with. That kind of move might be necessary to prevent a nuclear holocaust or even the threat of it in the region. Israel made a similar move on Iraq in the 1980's that helped interrupt Saddam's nuclear program, so it's been done before on a small scale.
You're making sense! North Korea is a rogue state by every definition of the term. It is also a modern day Soviet Union, but worse. There are gulags and concentration camps for dissidents, where Nazi style gassing methods are used. Even failing to dust one of the regularly inspected portraits of the leader that hangs in every home can mean a rapid disappearance. In city neighbourhoods, residents are woken at 6am every day by speakers broadcasting pro-leader propaganda. Big Brother is watching you.

I think it would. North Korea, IMO, is a threat to the world. At least a bigger threat than Saddam Hussein was.

Suppose that the US launched a heavy air force attack on North Korea's nuclear arms bases - Pearl Harbour style. Such attacks without warning are completely against international law. But in such an event, it would remove the NK regime's ability to strike at the South using nuclear force. Surely this would justify it?
No. Seoul would still be reduced to burning rubble by North Korean artillary, potentially kiling millions.

Even given total surprise and the complete destruction of all North Korean material capable of launching a counterattack against the south korean people, the south koreans would not see it as a fortuitious change of events. They would see it as genocide and an attack against them. South Korea is the superhot battered woman who inexplicably wants to keep going back to the homeless meth-dealer with a mile long felony rap sheet.

While the ideal might be just, in practical terms such an act would be an invitation of great evil, if it were something freely chosen for our convience.

Such an attack would certainly be justified. North Korea has nuclear missile capeable of hitting China, Japan, or South Korea and proven itself unwilling to negotiate with the rest of its region or the world. Also, Noth Korea is a virtual prison for its people, since the communist government won't let anyone out. Its leader, Kim Jong Il is a completely irrational wacko who is a threat to the human race and, I believe, insane. A pre-emptive US attack to remove this threat to international security would be completely justified. Will Bush do it? No, but if he did, neither he nor the United States should feel any regret.

Suppose that the US launched a heavy air force attack on North Korea's nuclear arms bases - Pearl Harbour style. Such attacks without warning are completely against international law. But in such an event, it would remove the NK regime's ability to strike at the South using nuclear force. Surely this would justify it?
No it wouldn't. International Law is international law, no matter what the intentions. North Korea can do whatever it wants, and it is primarily the job of the Koreans to sort it all out. And is it true that the DPRK isn't a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty anyways? In that case, there would be even less justification.
Besides, if you strike anything inside the DPRK, you can expect a total retaliation attack. They've been waiting for 50odd years for this, you can expect Seoul to be flattened.

The attacl might be justified, but attacking a nation would nuclear weapons would be insane. If you missed even one, they could start a nuclear holocaust.

an attack on North Korea would only give Israel an excuse to invade Iran it would also bog America down in another Vietnam

just so you know before Gulf war II there were very successful talks going on about the stability of the region (which North Korea was being most cooperative with)

Such attacks without warning are completely against international law.

LOL! Look out or the 'international court' will write a strongly worded memo!

Too bad we didn't know this during the cold war - there would have been no need for NORAD.

hee - hee

It would never be justified. We can't go attacking governments because "we don't like them". North Korea is all talk and no action. Kim Jong-Il likes to yell, but he's not very powerful. He is presiding over a crippled and small country.

What happens in other countries is none of our business, we are not the police force of the world. It is their job to sort it out. Attacking North Korea would give us another mess to clean up and could easily turn into a quagmire.

However, it should be watched very closely. If Kim decided to attack South Korea it would be our duty to step in and help.

I think it's an excercise in calculating probabilities. What is the probability that he has nukes, will he use them and under what circumstances? What is the probability that we can effectively neutralize them, and what is the physical cost? What is the political cost of such action at home and abroad?

What makes this calculus so difficult, and in the end may precipitate military action against him, is that he is certifiably insane. Calculations that would be used with normal nations aren't possible.

My best guess is that if negotiations fail he will be blasted militarily as soon twitches the wrong way, there will be a first strike by the first coalition that can be put together; China, Japan, South Korea will be enough support to justify this. Were it easier to get substantial world consensus on this matter he probably wouldn't be alive now.

I think reluctant European support will be forthcoming if China agrees to the use of tactical nukes in their region. Support from all nations will be contingent on the precise use of power to decapitate the government, probably targeting Kim Jong-Il personally.

...if China agrees to the use of tactical nukes in their region...
And you think China would do that?

And you think China would do that?

Naturally, it's impossible to know. I suppose there's a chance, but it will depend on what's in it for them. I don't think they are as squeamish as we are about radiation issues, but they are very sensitive to the use of force and change of governments nearby. They would be more concerned by large invasion forces in North Korea than a few bombs.

How they view the hostile takeover and the merging of the Korea's is beyond me, but it's conceivable that long-term stability in the region is worth the risk.

You guys think you own the world...

Name me the only country to ever drop a nuclear bomb on living people...and then tell me who goes terrorising other countries because they dont like whats going on....

Why don't u sort out your own counry and leave everyone else's alone....

You don't like terrorist's and yet you fund Israel's army that has no problems shooting british journalists and anyone else who's in he area....

I Quote " Such an attack would certainly be justified. North Korea has nuclear missile capeable of hitting China, Japan, or South Korea and proven itself unwilling to negotiate with the rest of its region or the world. Also, Noth Korea is a virtual prison for its people, since the communist government won't let anyone out. Its leader, Kim Jong Il is a completely irrational wacko who is a threat to the human race and, I believe, insane. A pre-emptive US attack to remove this threat to international security would be completely justified. Will Bush do it? No, but if he did, neither he nor the United States should feel any regret."

How do u Know....??????

Make a deal with China: stop supporting North Korea and we will allow you to take over Taiwan. Brilliant!

No. Pre-emptive strikes are unjust in all but the most extreme cases(such as NK threatening to nuke SK in X amount of time if Y does not occur). Simply having nuclear weapons is not a case that justifies a surprise-attack.
'
And no, Kim jong-il wont be using those nukes without provocation. He may be insane, but he isn't stupid. He wants to maintain his power, more than anything else. He knows having nukes, and not using them, is the best way of doing this.

You guys think you own the world...

Name me the only country to ever drop a nuclear bomb on living people...and then tell me who goes terrorising other countries because they dont like whats going on....

Why don't u sort out your own counry and leave everyone else's alone....

You don't like terrorist's and yet you fund Israel's army that has no problems shooting british journalists and anyone else who's in he area....

I Quote " Such an attack would certainly be justified. North Korea has nuclear missile capeable of hitting China, Japan, or South Korea and proven itself unwilling to negotiate with the rest of its region or the world. Also, Noth Korea is a virtual prison for its people, since the communist government won't let anyone out. Its leader, Kim Jong Il is a completely irrational wacko who is a threat to the human race and, I believe, insane. A pre-emptive US attack to remove this threat to international security would be completely justified. Will Bush do it? No, but if he did, neither he nor the United States should feel any regret."

How do u Know....??????

And how do you know? What if you're wrong...

Sabbatis,

North Korea is China's cat's paw. They are Chinese way of countering the encirclement of China by US. Nukes or not, NK artillery can pulverise SK capital in case of any escalation.

There is no way SK will risk that.

We will have to probably hope that the dear leader does not do a Castro and dies soon. The regime would collapse and the Koreas can reunify.

Sabbatis,

North Korea is China's cat's paw. They are Chinese way of countering the encirclement of China by US. Nukes or not, NK artillery can pulverise SK capital in case of any escalation.

There is no way SK will risk that.

We will have to probably hope that the dear leader does not do a Castro and dies soon. The regime would collapse and the Koreas can reunify.

Not as much as it was in the 1970s. China should be increasingly annoyed at North Korea's belligerent movements, because our goal is to rise peacefully. Having a little brother that keeps punching the nuclear button isn't one of those strategies that would help achieve that aim.

Even if Kim dies, it's not likely anything will change. They will not implode. External pressure must be applied.

Sabbatis,

North Korea is China's cat's paw. They are Chinese way of countering the encirclement of China by US. Nukes or not, NK artillery can pulverise SK capital in case of any escalation.

There is no way SK will risk that.

We will have to probably hope that the dear leader does not do a Castro and dies soon. The regime would collapse and the Koreas can reunify.

True, Aryavartha. Beijing's top priority has been to preserve the North Korean state as a buffer between China and the U.S. sphere of influence. Their relatively ineffective efforts in nuclear diplomacy demonstrate that. China could probably end this charade with a phone call if they wished.

The ability to rain 500,000 artillery projectiles per hour on South Korea is a very effective deterrent to aggression, and were it not for that this might be over already. A decapitating nuclear strike could prevent the order from being given, or the dug-in artillery itself could be largely neutralized by the use of mini nuclear weapons. There are 4,000 or so tubes aimed directly at Seoul, but they do not bracket the entire city - the removal of a few thousand could make the losses manageable.

There are tremendous risks in doing so, and frankly I think it's an unlikely scenario. I agree that time is on our side, and that the lengthy diplomatic process that's in motion now can only help us and hurt Kim Jong-il. I suppose that the only risk is that he becomes impatient and precipitates the need for action.

We are still a long way from needing to take action. The next step is to consider what our response will be to the necessary nuclear testing. What "red line" will we draw? This will be telling as to what our actions will be if/when he posesses nukes.

My answer to the thread's question: No. Not only would it violate international law and the UN charter but it also spark the beginning of a possible WW3 against China.

Beijing's top priority has been to preserve the North Korean state as a buffer between China and the U.S. sphere of influence. Their relatively ineffective efforts in nuclear diplomacy demonstrate that. China could probably end this charade with a phone call if they wished.


No Sabbatis, it goes beyond that.

In this age, the big powers do not threaten the other powers by themselves (well apart from the US ;) ). They use their puppet to do that, so that they themselves cannot be publicly blamed for being belligerent/mad/lunatic etc. This is a game between the US and China more than between the US and North Korea.


The ability to rain 500,000 artillery projectiles per hour on South Korea is a very effective deterrent to aggression, and were it not for that this might be over already. A decapitating nuclear strike could prevent the order from being given, or the dug-in artillery itself could be largely neutralized by the use of mini nuclear weapons. There are 4,000 or so tubes aimed directly at Seoul, but they do not bracket the entire city - the removal of a few thousand could make the losses manageable.


On the contrary, it was this threat that made the Chinese give nukes to North Korea. Well they did not give directly, but they used their other proxy Pakistan to give them. Deniability all the way. But the give away is the fact that the Pakistani C-130 planes carrying nukes to North Korea landed in China en route.

We are still a long way from needing to take action. The next step is to consider what our response will be to the necessary nuclear testing. What "red line" will we draw? This will be telling as to what our actions will be if/when he posesses nukes.

Mark my words. There won't be any real "tests". The models they have, have already been tested.

On the contrary, it was this threat that made the Chinese give nukes to North Korea. Well they did not give directly, but they used their other proxy Pakistan to give them. Deniability all the way. But the give away is the fact that the Pakistani C-130 planes carrying nukes to North Korea landed in China en route.

I wish people wouldn't use this as proof of China helping north korea get nuclear weapons. Its possible, but its equally possible that pakistan asked for refueling in china. Possibly gave them a bribe, or a nudge not to ask what was inside, as a favor.

International law doesn't exist. There are no enforcers, rendering any application of those laws next to useless.

And how do you know? What if you're wrong...

Got to love when people use circle logic huh? :D. Its like you wish they could hear themselves talking to realize they are just as stupid as the people they are bashing.

International law doesn't exist. There are no enforcers, rendering any application of those laws next to useless.

The law does exist, and there are enforcers. Thats like saying american law doesnt exist, because some people get away with crime.

International law doesn't exist.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Law

If we could disable their nukes without much or any threat to the surrounding areas it would be worth it. I do not think that any nation would be too irrational if we did invade North Korea(or at least to the degree that diplomacy, alliances and possibly even threats could not subdue them). After North Korea has lost its nuclear capability the only thing that is to be done is to
a) ignore the area(assuming we struck using missiles and bombardment instead of force)
b) invade the area and reform it into a working nation
c) invade the area and give it to some other nation(maybe reunite the Koreas or something)
d) nuke it until nothing lives within its borders

I do not care about anything other than results. The international community will not do squat if the united states does anything less than attempt to take over the world and eliminating dangerous nations is important.

If we could disable their nukes without much or any threat to the surrounding areas it would be worth it. I do not think that any nation would be too irrational if we did invade South Korea(or at least to the degree that diplomacy, alliances and possibly even threats could not subdue them). After South Korea has lost its nuclear capability the only thing that is to be done is to
a) ignore the area(assuming we struck using missiles and bombardment instead of force)
b) invade the area and reform it into a working nation
c) invade the area and give it to some other nation(maybe reunite the Koreas or something)
d) nuke it until nothing lives within its borders

I do not care about anything other than results. The international community will not do squat if the united states does anything less than attempt to take over the world and eliminating dangerous nations is important.hey pal... psst... it's North Korea that's got nukes... :D

The law does exist, and there are enforcers. Thats like saying american law doesnt exist, because some people get away with crime.

Ultimately in the American system, you can haul people into court if they get caught. There are police officers, judges, the works. There is a way to enforce the law against offenders.

On the world scale, if the the United States or some other powerful nation does something, who's gonna do something about it? The fact is nobody has the authority or power to do so, and actions take on a vigilante nature.

I wish people wouldn't use this as proof of China helping north korea get nuclear weapons. Its possible, but its equally possible that pakistan asked for refueling in china. Possibly gave them a bribe, or a nudge not to ask what was inside, as a favor.

My theory is that since it was under Chinse instructions that the nukes were even delivered to NK, they really did not have to "know" what was inside the C-130 planes.

My theory is that since it was under Chinse instructions that the nukes were even delivered to NK, they really did not have to "know" what was inside the C-130 planes.

And what do you have to prove that it was under chinese instruction? Anything substantial?

No. No it wouldn't. Attacking the PRK because they have nukes is like killing your neighbour because he owns a gun. Sure, because he has that gun, he *might* randomly shoot you, but no one is justified in killing the gun owner. It's illegal, it's immoral, and it's retarded. No civilized nation or person does business that way.

A strike on the PRK is only justified if they attack, or make moves to attack(like we spy them fueling missles or something) us or an ally.

Besides, I've said it before and I'll say it again - the PRK is not a dumb nation. They want nukes because they have seen the US's willingness to invade and occupy nations that just look at it wrong, and so they want a detterant. But again, they are not stupid. They would NEVER launch a first strike, or let that weapon *accidentally* slip into the hands of terrorists. They know, as we do, that should that ever happen, the PRK would be turned into a sheet of glass faster than you can say retaliatory strike. The nukes exist to deter an invasion, nothing more. I think what a lot of Americans forget is that the PRK is not a supervillan wringing his gloved hands and waiting for the first opportunity to kill Americans. They just want to survive, which is not an unreasonable demand.

Right now, the PRK is the drunk guy who crashed the party at the Nuclear Club. No one really wanted him there, and maybe he's offending the sensibilities of the other guests, but he's not going to harm anyone, and simply being a party crasher is not a capital offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Law
"The value and authority of international law is entirely dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments to other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own.

As a philosophical, political, and constitutional matter, sovereign states derive their autonomy through inherent legitimacy rather than a decree by the international community. Though states may therefore choose to voluntarily enter into commitments under international law, sometimes they will accept legislative process outside their own consent. It follows that they will follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments under international law"

How kind of you to provide the link that clearly states that "international law" is entierly subjective and voluntary.

And what do you have to prove that it was under chinese instruction? Anything substantial?

Well, I cannot "prove" anything since not much of this is open source anyway.

My theory is that Paki nukes are Chinese derived and hence the supply of nukes to North Korea by the Paki establishment was under Chinese instructions. This theory fits the observed behavior of these countries.

We know that the transfer of nukes for missiles took place between Pak and NK. India even interdicted a ship from NK carrying missile parts. The Ghauri missiles of Pakistan are just green painted Nodong missiles of NK.

It is inconceivable that NK and Pak, both Chinese proxies at that time, could have done this without Chinese knowledge and blessings. I am sure that you would agree on that part atleast. I am extending that to Chinese instructions since they were the "owner" of the nukes anyway.

A.Q.Khan became the fall guy.

No. No it wouldn't. Attacking the PRK because they have nukes is like killing your neighbour because he owns a gun. Sure, because he has that gun, he *might* randomly shoot you, but no one is justified in killing the gun owner. It's illegal, it's immoral, and it's retarded. No civilized nation or person does business that way.
How lame. North Korea is not some redneck good ole boy with a rifle. It is more like a bankrupt wife-beating drunk with a garage filled with amonia-nitrate....



Right now, the PRK is the drunk guy who crashed the party at the Nuclear Club. No one really wanted him there, and maybe he's offending the sensibilities of the other guests, but he's not going to harm anyone, and simply being a party crasher is not a capital offense.
I bet you think Hitler, Hussein and Stalin were all just 'misunderstood' too.

"The value and authority of international law is entirely dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments to other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own.

As a philosophical, political, and constitutional matter, sovereign states derive their autonomy through inherent legitimacy rather than a decree by the international community. Though states may therefore choose to voluntarily enter into commitments under international law, sometimes they will accept legislative process outside their own consent. It follows that they will follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments under international law"

How kind of you to provide the link that clearly states that "international law" is entierly subjective and voluntary.But it exists no less. Otherwise there would be no need for the International Court of Law, etc...

hey pal... psst... it's North Korea that's got nukes... :D
Oops, little typo or something. :D I do now officially feel stupid for making such an obvious mistake. Oh well, everyone makes them and I will edit my previous post.

Oh yeah, I am still cool. :cool:

How lame. North Korea is not some redneck good ole boy with a rifle. It is more like a bankrupt wife-beating drunk with a garage filled with amonia-nitrate....



I bet you think Hitler, Hussein and Stalin were all just 'misunderstood' too.

...wow.

You didn't even read my post did you? Because if you did my writing skills are either not as good as I thought, or you chose to ignore it.

But in the spirit of the internet I will respond. First, let's take a look at what you said to my analogy about the guy who owns the gun. Now you didn't even rebutt. You got bogged down in the analogy and missed the arguement - I don't care if it's ammonium nitrate(a fertilizer btw) or a gun, just owning one cannot be reason to attack someone. Not in a civilized society. Violent action on someone is only justified if someone commits or is committing a crime, not just because they have something that *might* be used in one. I have a letter opener on my desk, which I might be able to use to stab you. But you shooting me is not justifiable, because I DIDN'T use the letter opener, or make an action with it to threatan you. Even if I was a wife beating drunk, it doesn't matter. You have no good reason to attack me, as I wasn't attacking or threataning you. The same goes on the larger scale of international relations.

And nice ad hominim btw. You have no idea of my opinions on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Saddam Hussein. Nothing in my post remotely suggested that I support them, or believe they were as you put it "misunderstood." The intentions of the PRK are however being misunderstood by you. I will not restate my reasoning behind that assertion, as my last post was clear enough. PS - it was in that third paragraph.

Well, I cannot "prove" anything since not much of this is open source anyway.

My theory is that Paki nukes are Chinese derived and hence the supply of nukes to North Korea by the Paki establishment was under Chinese instructions. This theory fits the observed behavior of these countries.

We know that the transfer of nukes for missiles took place between Pak and NK. India even interdicted a ship from NK carrying missile parts. The Ghauri missiles of Pakistan are just green painted Nodong missiles of NK.

It is inconceivable that NK and Pak, both Chinese proxies at that time, could have done this without Chinese knowledge and blessings. I am sure that you would agree on that part atleast. I am extending that to Chinese instructions since they were the "owner" of the nukes anyway.

A.Q.Khan became the fall guy.

I've been under the assumption, based on mainstream reporting, that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. Possibly I have missed some news, and certainly the media can mislead, either deliberately or by lack of facts, but I am not aware that Pakistan or China have armed NK with nuclear weapons. The transfer of missiles and nuclear technology is frightening enough, but the 'gift' of tested weapons to NK is incredible, if true.

I am not aware that NK has fully functional and tested nuclear weapons, mounted and ready. I'll suddenly feel less safe if that is true, my son has been thinking of working in South Korea. Could you provide some sources? It looks like I need to do more reading.

Chellis and Sabbatis,

I can give you open source info on the missile and nuke proliferation between the triad of China, Pakistan and North Korea.

Missile proliferation to Pakistan by North Korea and China.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/pakistan/missile2000.htm
Ghauri: In April 1998, Pakistan tested the Ghauri (Hatf-5), its version of the North Korean Nodong. The nuclear-capable surface-to-surface missile uses liquid fuel and can carry a 700 kilogram payload 1,000-1,500 kilometers.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/missile/index.html
Designation-------------Foreign derivation ------------- Range (km)

Shaheen Hatf-3------------- PRC M-11 ------------ 300
Shaheen-I Hatf-4 ----------- PRC M-9 ------------- 800
Shaheen-II Hatf-6 ---------- PRC M-18 ------------- 2,000
Ghauri Hatf-5 ------------- DPRK ND-1(No-dong) ------1,350-1,500
Ghauri-III Abdali ----------- DPRK TD-1(TeapeDong) ---2,500
Tipu DPRK ------------- TD-2 ---------------- 4,000

Nuke proliferation to Pakistan by China.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, NRDC Nuclear Notebook, Vol. 59, No.2, pp. 74-77, March/April 2003. "Pakistan's nuclear weapons are based on a Chinese implosion design that uses a core of highly enriched uranium".

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html
According to a preliminary analysis conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory, material released into the atmosphere during an underground nuclear test by Pakistan in May 1998 contained low levels of weapons-grade plutonium. The significance of the Los Alamos finding was that Pakistan had either imported or produced plutonium undetected by the US intelligence community

They did not have their Plutonium lab running until after 1998 - after their nuke tests.see here http://www.ceip.org/files/events/Paktranscript.asp
Pakistan has only just begun acquiring plutonium for nuclear weapons. They have a plutonium production reactor that’s unsafeguarded called Khushab that China helped build. That began operation in 1998


In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report [here http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif00.pdf ], China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.

In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.

According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads.

China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chasma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative program with France, but Pakistan's failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear program caused France to terminate assistance.

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=18&issue_id=651&article_id=4640
THE SINO-PAK BOMB?

The Nukes for missiles trade between NK and Pakistan
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Pakistan%20and%20North%20Korea.pdf

"In 1999, Indian officials..seized the North Korean ship Ku Wol San at Kandla, Gujarat. ..carrying missile components and metal casings to Pakistan … 22 technical manuals for Scud-type ballistic missiles"

In 1996, Taiwanese officials seized 15 tons of ammonium perchlorate - an oxidizing agent used on most modern solid propellants - on a freighter bound from North Korea to Pakistan's Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Committee


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RL31900.pdf
CRS Report for Congress
Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Trade Between North Korea and Pakistan
Pakistan has sought technical assistance in its ballistic missile programs from North Korea and China for over a decade.
North Korea attempted to obtain materials from China, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, and Europe, but Pakistan provided most of the assistance related
to the rotors. A Pakistani official involved in Khan’s investigation reportedly said North Korea ordered P-1 centrifuge components from 1997 to 2000.24
Revelations that Libya received a nuclear weapons design from a foreign source raise concerns about whether North Korea also received such a nuclear weapons design.27 According to media reports, the packet of information that Libya received on the nuclear weapon included Chinese text and step-by-step instructions for assembling a vintage-1960s HEU implosion device.28 The Chinese markings are significant because of long-standing rumors that China provided Pakistan with a nuclear weapons design. For North Korea, receiving a proven design for an HEU implosion device would be a significant advantage for its nuclear weapons program, since it has not overtly tested a nuclear device.29
28 “Warhead Blueprints Link Libya Project to Pakistan Figure,” New York Times, February 4, 2004; and “Libyan Arms Designs Traced Back to China,” Washington Post, February 15, 2004. The implicit assumption is that Pakistan provided a nuclear weapon design it received from China in the 1980s to Libya.
6 Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 63, April 2, 2003, pp. 16113-16114. The U.S. imposed sanctions on Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) in 1993 for receipt of M-11 missiles from China; in 1998 for missile-related cooperation with Changgwang Sinyong Corporation and again in 2003.

The origin of the missiles that were given to Pakistan.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml
Beijing's indirect assistance includes allowing Pakistani C-130 cargo flights over China to Pyongyang that carry key equipment for nuclear weapons production. The flights return to Pakistan with North Korean No Dong missile parts.

Missiles for Nukes

Pakistan also benefited from the trade in weaponry. The missiles-for-nukes trade gave Pakistan an operational means to deliver its atomic bombs.

Pakistan has since successfully test-fired and deployed its own version of the No Dong missile, called the Ghauri. The North Korean-designed missile has a range of nearly 900 miles and can cover virtually all of India, Pakistan's rival in Southwest Asia.

The ultimate irony here is that the North Korean No Dong and Tae Po Dong missiles are based on technology given to Pyongyang by China. In 1994, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Chinese-made CSS-2 missile technology had found its way into North Korean hands.

It is clear, to me atleast, that Chinese proliferated nukes to the Pakis and missiles to dear leader. It is clear that the transfer of nukes for missiles between Pakis and dear leader took place with the knowledge and blessings of the Chinese.

So why not the instructions ? Proxies do as the master tells.

Regarding if the N.Koreans have an actual working bomb or not, I believe they do. The C-130 planes did carry actual nuke parts as per some reports. It can also be mated with missiles, since the same design of nukes and missiles is used by Pakis and they have mated it successfully.

But they won't be launching it without the codes which, I hope, is in Chinese hands. Of course, due to the very nature of the above theory, I do not have any open source info for the last part.

I still say my plan (post #3) was the best. preemptive pranks!

I don't think the US is that stupid. It would start another war, we're already in two, South Korea would be devastated even if it were saved, the US has no idea where and how many factories they have, and China might join the fight on North Korea's side. The US has too much to lose.

[QUOTE=Kroisistan]

Besides, I've said it before and I'll say it again - the PRK is not a dumb nation. They want nukes because they have seen the US's willingness to invade and occupy nations that just look at it wrong, and so they want a detterant. But again, they are not stupid. They would NEVER launch a first strike, or let that weapon *accidentally* slip into the hands of terrorists. They know, as we do, that should that ever happen, the PRK would be turned into a sheet of glass faster than you can say retaliatory strike. The nukes exist to deter an invasion, nothing more. I think what a lot of Americans forget is that the PRK is not a supervillan wringing his gloved hands and waiting for the first opportunity to kill Americans. They just want to survive, which is not an unreasonable demand.

QUOTE]

You're making this sound like NK is the good region. I think North Korea isn't nuking the US is because their target is not the US. I think they are waiting for America to leave South Korea, and then either blackmail SK, or nuke them. Either way, their not as good as you make them sound.

Suppose that the US launched a heavy air force attack on North Korea's nuclear arms bases - Pearl Harbour style. Such attacks without warning are completely against international law. But in such an event, it would remove the NK regime's ability to strike at the South using nuclear force. Surely this would justify it?

This scenario assumes that we know where those nukes are. Given the size and terrain of NoKo, that would be hard to determine. And this scenario neglects the NoKo artillery aimed at Seoul. They don't need nukes to destroy SoKo.
There is a sort of Achilles Heel to NoKo-it's called China. Most of their defenses are oriented to a Maginot Line sort of defense toward SoKo. They have repeatedly threatened to turn Seoul into a sea of fire. I think it is safe to assume they can and will.
But the conventional wisdom is that if China wanted NoKo gone, it would be gone. The fact of the matter is that NoKo serves a purpose for China. The firepower of NoKo is pointed in 1 direction-SoKo. It's China's call though as to what they want to do and when. They could cut through NoKo at will, but the time for that to happen hasn't occurred yet.

There's just one more creepy thing about NoKo - I have had friends who have been on the Z (at different times-they don't know each other). They all swear that NoKo snipers take shots at them HOURLY. Dirt kicks up constantly when they are on patrol. Just wanted to add that in.

North Korea developed nukes for one reason and one reason only. Bargining chips for more handouts from america or south korea.

Youre living in the second age of appeasement, the first one being the time just before world war 2 when countries turned a blind eye to Germanys arming.

Look at the promises Iran is getting from the EU, free energy and a non aggression pact for them just not making bombs. Its international blackmail.

Look at the promises Iran is getting from the EU, free energy and a non aggression pact for them just not making bombs. Its international blackmail.

Naah, not really. Its more of a case of "If you can have it, so can I" mentality from the nuclear have nots coupled with the "No you can't, I wanna be the only one" mentality from the nuclear haves.

IMO, nuclear weapons are sort of the endgame kind of device, wherein if you touch one off, everybody else starts showing how many phallic devices they have and that their not afraid to use it anymore. If you have one, you're a big guy on the block and people have to treat you as such. That means you can't really threaten them very much anymore with force normally.

Its like a political bargaining chip. If you have one, the other party rushes to have one so they can equalize the bargaining. Pakistan and India for example, or further back, the US and the USSR. First one side got nukes and become the big dog, allowing them to dictate terms pretty much to their own liking until the other side got theirs, equalizing the table.

It seems logical that the nuclear haves don't want other nations to become nuclear capable because that would further equalize their collective bargaining strengths.

On topic, it doesn't seem that a pre-emptive strike on NK would not be worth it. First, that would mean writing off Seoul as well as much of the DMZ border line and the troops stationed there. Short of a full scale blanket bombardment with thermonuclear arms (bad idea for reasons too obvious to be worth stating), you would not be able to stifle the artillery NK already has aimed at SK.

Furthermore, an unprovoked attack such as this would possibly embroil China as well, which has an interest in seeing a strong NK to serve as a buffer between them and the US. It might not be the one step just before WW3, but it will most likely be the catalyst.

Suppose that the US launched a heavy air force attack on North Korea's nuclear arms bases - Pearl Harbour style. Such attacks without warning are completely against international law. But in such an event, it would remove the NK regime's ability to strike at the South using nuclear force. Surely this would justify it?
The simple answer is no. The complex answer is NO!!!!

-.- If we were to do something like that then we would be the evil ones, worse then we are now after attackign iraq without much reason. A country is not good or evil just because it is that country, it is good or evil depending on its actions and people who are so patriotic to admit that this country hasn't done many things wrong could never understand

Heck, if I was the ruler of a country the US didn't like and the US had a war monger in power then I too would get nuclear weapons to defend myself with, we wouldn't have this problem if we didn't start unjust wars

-.- If we were to do something like that then we would be the evil ones, worse then we are now after attackign iraq without much reason. A country is not good or evil just because it is that country, it is good or evil depending on its actions and people who are so patriotic to admit that this country hasn't done many things wrong could never understand

Heck, if I was the ruler of a country the US didn't like and the US had a war monger in power then I too would get nuclear weapons to defend myself with, we wouldn't have this problem if we didn't start unjust wars

Not trying to dog you out but-DON'T HUFF AND POST!