North Korea: 2012-2016

[Entropy]

LINK

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea claimed it carried out a powerful underground nuclear test Monday - much larger than one conducted in 2006 - in a major provocation in the escalating international standoff over its rogue nuclear and missile programs.

Pyongyang announced the test, and Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed an atomic explosion at 9:54 a.m. (0054 GMT) in northeastern North Korea, estimating the blast's yield at 10 to 20 kilotons - comparable to the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The regime also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles later Monday from the same northeastern site where it launched a rocket last month, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources. The rocket liftoff, widely believed to be a cover for a test of its long-range missile technology, drew censure from the U.N. Security Council.

North Korea, incensed by the condemnation of the April 5 rocket launch, had warned last month that it would restart its rogue nuclear program, conduct an atomic test and carry out long-range missile tests.

As always, the best technical analysis is at armscontrolwonk.

[Jedburgh]

ICG, 13 Nov 06: North Korea's Nuclear Test: The Fallout

...There are no good options for resolving this crisis, but the least bad option remains a negotiated settlement. To achieve this, the U.S. and others will need to present a long-term view of economic change in North Korea while offering what amounts to a guarantee not to overthrow the Pyongyang regime. The undertaking will involve a considerable investment of diplomatic energy and financial resources and should be matched by a ramped-up effort to ensure that North Korea cannot proliferate nuclear weapons or missiles. But it provides the only prospect for peaceful and gradual change on the Korean peninsula.

Sanctions without sustained, direct diplomacy would only mean escalation. The Bush administration has operated under the flawed assumption that direct negotiations with its foe are a concession, when this may be the only way of moving forward. With Washington, Tokyo, Seoul and Pyongyang all locked into policies which are likely to change little until new leaders emerge, however, Beijing’s is the government to watch...

[120mm]

ICG, 13 Nov 06: North Korea's Nuclear Test: The Fallout

I thought direct negotiations were thought more to be a slight to our allies in the region.

Unilateralism, anyone?

[SWJED]

15 July Washington Post - N. Korea Shutters Nuclear Facility by Edward Cody.

After four years of off-and-on negotiations, North Korea said it began closing down its main nuclear reactor Saturday, shortly after receiving a first boatload of fuel oil aid.

The closure, if confirmed by U.N. inspectors, would mark the first concrete step in a carefully orchestrated denuclearization schedule that was agreed on in February, with the ultimate goal of dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons program in exchange for fuel and other economic aid, and increased diplomatic recognition.

More broadly, it constituted the first on-the-ground accomplishment of six-nation negotiations that have been grinding away with little progress since 2003 under Chinese sponsorship. The talks -- including North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, the United States and China -- are likely to resume next week in Beijing to emphasize the parties' resolve to carry out the rest of the February agreement and eventually create a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula...

[Jedburgh]

Presentation from a CNS Event, 12 Mar 08:

Paranoid Potbellied Stalinist Gets Nuclear Weapons: How the U.S. Print Media Covers North Korea

A Backward Country Led by a Paranoid Pygmy

• “The Weird and Scary Saga of how an Isolated, Bankrupt Nation Went Nuclear,” (Newsweek cover story title, 10/23/06)

• “North Korea is a hermit state ruled by a potbellied, fivefoot-three paranoid Stalinist who likes to watch Daffy Duck cartoons.” (Bill Keller in NY Times, 1/11/03)

• “…led by world-class paranoids and fantasists capable of believing their own propaganda… Such a regime may be beyond reasoning or, even worse, deterring in a conventional sense.” (Jim Hoagland in Washington Post, 10/12/06)

The presenter published an article with the same title in the Mar 08 Nonproliferation Review.

Mainstream American print media coverage of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has been deeply flawed, a reality that skews policy debates and confuses public perceptions. Even simple factual descriptions of the parties’ obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework have often been inconsistent and partial, informing readers about North Korea’s obligations more than U.S. obligations, and rarely acknowledging U.S. failures. The media repeated allegations about an illicit North Korean uranium enrichment program based largely on anonymous sources, who made what seem now to have been misleading statements. Journalists rely for comment on administration officials or members of Washington think tanks, while making little effort to gather opinions from academics, those on the left (as opposed to centrist liberals), or experts in Southeast Asia. Journalists also frequently present Kim Jong Il in ways that erase the Korean perspective on U.S.-Korean relations. Accurate, nuanced coverage of events on the Korean Peninsula is vital in producing an informed public and a policy-making process that is judicious, supple, and intelligent. This article concludes with various ways in which the media could better report on North Korea.....

[Jedburgh]

....As always, the best technical analysis is at armscontrolwonk.

The MIIS Center for Nonproliferation Studies' North Korea page is also a useful resource.

[H. Nelson]

I think the recent procurement of centrifuges by NK posses the largest proliferation in the world right now. With everyone focused on Russia, the START treaty, and how to secure 'loose' nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, we may allow uranium to slip out of NK and into hostile regional state actors (or worse, terrorists). Yet we cannot ignore the threat of direct nuclear attack by NK.

When countries do not hold their population as valuable, and the leadership has proven that they have an erratic decision calculus, our form of deterrence fails. Since our national nuclear defense strategy depends on nuclear retaliation against anyone who initiates a nuclear attack, and we can’t guarantee North Korea won’t become a first strike nation, we cannot allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons. If we did, the US may find itself in a situation where it is forced to use nuclear weapons against an inferior country or absorb a nuclear attack without retaliating. Both outcomes would significantly impact our national security objectives. We must declare to the international community that a nuclear North Korea is unacceptable, and commence diplomatic actions immediately FOLLOWING a low impact strike to destroy the centrifuges.

http://onparadox.blogspot.com/

[Ken White]

How's things on the bridge?

I'm sure that your bellicosity is matched by your ardor and at the time of that "low impact strike" (I'm still pondering the dichotomy in that phrase...) you'll present yourself for accession into the Armed forces in some capacity to go help save South Korea. However, your post raises a couple of questions.

Question 1. Our assistance to South Korea 1950-53 (plus the ongoing continuation), our assistance to South Viet Nam, our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were all low impact efforts. How did they work out for us?

Question 2. Assume we announce our non acceptance of a nuclear North Korea. In the event no one else joins us and supports that position, how do we enforce our 'non acceptance?'

[Entropy]

When countries do not hold their population as valuable, and the leadership has proven that they have an erratic decision calculus, our form of deterrence fails.

So stationing troops in South Korea for the last 50+ years and stationing nukes on South Korean soil for most of that time was all for nothing?

we cannot allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.

Since NK already possesses nuclear weapons how exactly are we accomplish that?

[davidbfpo]

An IISS commentary:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...htens-concern/