by Edward
Back in his State of the Union address in 2002, President Bush implied that the US could not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of "axis of evil" nations like Korea, Iran, and Iraq. We could not wait for them to get them, we could not stand by as they developed them:
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.
So where do we stand three years later?
Iraq we know has no nuclear weapons. North Korea we know does. Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton asked Defense Intelligence Agency chief Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby whether "North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device?"
Jacoby answered, "My assessment is that they have the capability to do that."
Clinton called Jacoby’s testimony "troubling beyond words."
U.S. intelligence believes a two-stage North Korean Taepo Dong 2 missile could hit Alaska, Hawaii and perhaps parts of the West Coast. North Korea also has shorter-range missiles which, some officials have said, may be able to carry a nuclear warhead as far as Japan.
And then, just to underline the point, on Sunday North Korea tested a short-range missile that landed in the Sea of Japan.
The hopes that the Bush Doctrine (essentially the belief that pre-emptive strikes work to combat terrorism and prevent rogue nations from acquiring WMD) would scare the axis nations away from their nuclear ambitions seems to have been overly optimistic. Look at Iran.
Last year conservative pundit George Will suggested that negotiations with Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons could not succeed without one of two things:
One is a credible threat of force, which America’s Iraq preoccupation makes unlikely. The second, which is also unlikely, is a mix of incentives, positive and negative, that can overcome this fact: Iran’s regime is mad as a hatter, but its desire for nuclear weapons is not irrational….Iran has seen how the pursuit of nuclear weapons allows the ramshackle regime of a tin-pot country like North Korea to rivet the world’s attention. Iran knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired such weapons, he would still be in power — and in Kuwait.
Regarding the first one, a credible threat of force, today the Pentagon "informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan."
And regarding the second, just today, Iran announced its intentions to resume some (ill-defined, but supposedly not including uranium enrichment) "nuclear activities." They don’t seem convinced.
In short, there are no incentives for Iran not to follow in North Korea’s footsteps. But it gets worse. The Bush Doctrine, even as it hopes against hope to discourage rouge nations from developing their own nuclear weapons, argues that the US should continue to develop smaller, more portable (read: more easily hidden) nuclear weapons of its own. As Roger Speed and Michael May (authors of "New Nuclear Weapons Concepts: Strategic and Political Implications,") recently argued:
In the current international environment, the dissuasion argument for new nuclear weapons overlooks the deterrence role of WMD from a regional power’s point of view–particularly of one the United States is hostile toward. The Bush doctrine of preventive war, even without a nuclear threat, provides a strong incentive for such powers to try to obtain WMD to defend themselves by providing a potential deterrent to a U.S. attack, since a conventional deterrent is unlikely to be sufficient against massive U.S. conventional power. [6] If the nuclear posture contemplates using nuclear weapons against such states, they may be further encouraged to build such weapons and to protect them from a U.S. preventive attack. Thus, if the United States maintains a policy of preventive war and were actually to proceed with its plans to deploy new "usable" nuclear weapons, the result may be more proliferation. [emphasis mine]
If anything, implementation of the Bush Doctrine has settled the matter: nuclear weapons represent the path to power.
I thought that enriching uranium for power reactors was permitted even under the NPT. So Iran may not be in violation of anything.
There seems to be confusion on that point, Tim:
The funny thing about the credible threat of force is that not invading Iraq also makes threats incredible though for different reasons.
Regarding the first one, a credible threat of force, today the Pentagon “informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
In addition, the armed forces continue to miss recruiting goals, which is leading recruiters to bend the rules and pursue unqualified candidates.
The Roger Speed quote is kind of silly because it fails to notice that both Iran and North Korea were speeding towards (in the case of Iran) or actually obtaining (in the case of North Korea) nuclear weapons under Clinton. (Note this is not a comment about Clinton, merely saying that identifying Bush as a cause for their ambitions is counterfactual).
merely saying that identifying Bush as a cause for their ambitions is counterfactual)
You need to parse it a bit more finely, but I believe the argument is that the Bush administration accelerated those ambitions, not created them. Which is ironic, as it was originally argued that it would act to curb them.
Well, as a charter member of the blame-america-first crowd, i’ll point out the following:
1. nukes were first developed with 1940s technology. It’s just not all that hard.
2. The NKoreans have at least a colorable argument that the US breached first. TPM had a whole series of posts on this.
3. When the US asserted its right to attack countries which pose a grave threat, as opposed to an imminent threat, the US completely undercut the rationale for non-proliferation. Since the Axis of Evil speech, the Iranians can quite legitimately believe that the US considers Iran a grave threat, to be invaded asap. There is ample evidence to justify the Iranian’s concerns, from posts by the 101st Fighting Keyboarders to articles and op-eds by leading neo-cons.
4. The US’s treatment of Israel is pretty powerful evidence that breaching the NPT has no adverse consequences, unless the US wants it to.
If you’re Iran, why not breach? the world needs your oil and it’s the only security guarantee that the US will respect. Given the US stick, I can’t see that there is any amount or type of carrots to induce the Iranians to back off.
oh, and in terms of staying in a treaty until it is no longer in the national interest, the iranians could always cite to the US withdrawal from the ABM.
Is there some alternate history in which the iranians would not seek nukes? I dunno, possibly. But I don’t see how we get from this history over to that one. To me, the argument is interesting but not terribly relevant.
“identifying Bush as a cause for their ambitions is counterfactual”
Strawful, but an acceptable climbdown from hagiography (not yours personally, but as a general Republican interpretation of Bush’s effectiveness). Can we agree that he is at best ineffective at curbing any real threats (though suitable for manufacturing fake ones), and at worst a serial exacerbator?
Other than war, what has been the Bush plan for dealing with the nuclear ambitions of N. Korea and Iran? The six-nation negotiation? The Bush Doctrine means that hostile countries would be nuts not to develop nuclear weapons since they are at risk of invasion whether or not they have them.
The Bush record re nuclear proliferation for other than N. Korea and Iran? Dropping the ball re loose nukes in the former Soviet Union, and soft-pedaling AQ Khan in Pakistan.
Predictably, the Bush crew will tell us that its Clinton’s fault (which is bull) — which means that you must agree with the nonsensical proposition that there was nothing that Bush could have done over the next four years to prevent the current situation.
The Roger Speed quote is kind of silly because it fails to notice that both Iran and North Korea were speeding towards (in the case of Iran) or actually obtaining (in the case of North Korea) nuclear weapons under Clinton.
False. North Korea, to the best of our knowledge, built no nuclear weapons under Clinton, despite the refusal of a Republican Congress to live up to the deal made with NK. Before Clinton took office, NK had enough plutonium for 1-3 bombs, which it produced under the Reagan/Bush 41 years. When the Bush administration tossed out the Agreed Framework (which both sides had been violating), NK resumed making nuclear weapons. Your response? Blame Clinton!
The Poor Man goes over that nonsense here, although he uses a stronger term for it.
The funny thing about the credible threat of force is that not invading Iraq also makes threats incredible though for different reasons
Yes, if the US ever threatens to arbitrarily invade a country with no nuclear weapons and no prospect of producing them and insists that it will use an ever-changing set of reasons, most of which turn out to be completely made up, as justification, there is a higher probability that the US will be believed than a few years ago.
How this will result in less nuclear proliferation rather than more is left to the reader as an exercise in the writing of fiction.
Priceless as the Poor Man’s commentary on the history of the Agreed Upon Framework is, I must share a sublime comment which explains why the Bush Admin took a policy that had constrained NK’s nuclear weapons program and replaced it with one that accelerated NK’s nuclear weapons program:
“It’s ever-so-much harder to sell people on the idea that they need a multibillion dollar missile defense system that doesn’t work in order to protect them from North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles, if there aren’t any North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles.
“The lack of North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles was, therefore, standing in the way of a vitally important national security initiative, and had to be stopped.”
Felixrayman, I can’t speak to your knowledge, but to the best of my knowledge the CIA reported in 1998 to the United States Congress that the North Koreans had almost certainly developed a nuclear weapon.
The underlying point is that because the US invaded a country on the basis of justifications that the vast majority of the world did not believe, and for reasons that the vast majority of the world does not understand, the only real defense to being invaded by the US is (a) submission, or (b) a nuke. At this point, you would have to be bat-sh*t crazy as a leader of a decently-sized country not to try and get a nuke and delivery capability. If “possible invasion by the US” is taken out the balance, the cost/benefit analysis looks different.
Should be, “only real defense to being invaded by the US appears to be.”
Felixrayman, I can’t speak to your knowledge, but to the best of my knowledge the CIA reported in 1998 to the United States Congress that the North Koreans had almost certainly developed a nuclear weapon.
And more to the point, they were doing nothing to lessen their ability to produce more as soon as they fabricated a pretext to abandon their agreement and remove the plutonium from the expended fuel rods. From the very beginning, it was a “Heads we win, tails you lose” agreement.
I am curious to know, non-snarkily mostly, how we know which CIA intelligence is absolutely factual and which is completely bogus, given recent reports.
Or does everyone do what I do, which is believe what is convenient to my political party and declare the rest to be either government propoganda or typical government incompetence.
Felixrayman, I can’t speak to your knowledge, but to the best of my knowledge the CIA reported in 1998 to the United States Congress that the North Koreans had almost certainly developed a nuclear weapon.
This was the conventional wisdom in Asia (well, Hong Kong) at the time, although that doesn’t make it true.
“[T]hey were doing nothing to lessen their ability to produce more as soon as they fabricated a pretext to abandon their agreement and remove the plutonium from the expended fuel rods.”
How nice for North Korea that it didn’t have to ‘fabricate’ anything, since the Bush Administration has given N Korea all the pretext it needed.
And your answer is what exactly, Edward? These nations have been pursuing nuclear weaponry well prior to the Bush doctrine. All Iran and NK had to do was look at Pakistan and India and their aquisition of atomic bombs in the 1990s.
I dunno E. I think that both countries have credible local reasons to acquire nukes, Iran to counter Israel and perhaps threaten Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia, NK to force China to placate them lest Japan decide to militarize.
. . . to the best of my knowledge the CIA reported in 1998 to the United States Congress that the North Koreans had almost certainly developed a nuclear weapon.
The CIA also reported to the President of the United States in early 2002 that the evidence in favor of considerable stockpiles of Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk.” And yet, here we are.
These nations have been pursuing nuclear weaponry well prior to the Bush doctrine.
Most of life is negotiation, CB. The point is to give them fewer reasons to devote scarce resources to nuclear weapons, not more. At the end of the day, the larger problem is that in the next 10 years, we’ll hear about more countries attempting to get nukes. I read somewhere that Brazil wants one.
Sebastian, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that Edward’s post blamed Bush for causing nuclear proliferation. He seemed to be noting the bankruptcy of the Bush Doctrine as a way of halting or slowing nuclear proliferation.
I may be mistaken, but his argument and yours seem to break down thusly:
(Edward) Invading Iraq did not slow nuclear proliferation, as other near-nuclear states are clearly moving full speed ahead. In addition, the excursion has tied up our military to the extent that ‘projecting force’ is all but impossible.
(Sebastian) Invading Iraq was a deterrent, because we proved we’re willing to go to war. If we hadn’t, it would be even worse.
If I’m misunderstanding something, please correct me. But I can’t help but side with Edward’s reading of the situation.
I think Edward’s point is that Bush’s policies have been exactly counterproductive in terms of reducing threats to national security and national defense.
I think Edward’s point is that Bush’s concept of how to handle international relations – insults, bad faith, pissing on treaties – has made a bad situation worse.
I think Edward’s point is that Bush’s military policies – invade countries which aren’t a threat; undermine the military by overstretching, overstressing, undertraining and underequipping the armed forces; alienate the people you’re supposedly liberating by winking at brutality and corruption; and be a prick about violating human rights laws and treaties while you’re at it – have made us more vulnerable rather than less.
We no longer have a credible diplomatic policy anywhere – thanks to Bush.
We no longer have a credible military policy – thanks to Bush.
I’m not sure there is an “answer” at this point, other than hoping Bush doesn’t start another war somewhere. The damage he’s already done is incalculable. That’s what happens when you put ignorant, arrogant ideologues in charge of things: there are consequences, real ones, and we have to live with them.
“He seemed to be noting the bankruptcy of the Bush Doctrine as a way of halting or slowing nuclear proliferation.”
Funny, the Bush doctine seemed effective at taking out a dictator like Hussein.
It seems to have reigned in Pakistan proliferation. Seem’s to have worked in Libya, too.
I’ve found that the consistent Bush critics are a good indicator of what will happen in the future.
Just remember it’s opposite of whatever they say.
Felixrayman, I can’t speak to your knowledge, but to the best of my knowledge the CIA reported in 1998 to the United States Congress that the North Koreans had almost certainly developed a nuclear weapon.
That’s not what the links I have found read. The links I have found of the 1998 report say that NK had plutonium but not nukes. For example, the 1998 Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions stated:
The 2002 statements by the Bush administration appear to have been exactly what might be expected of the Bush administration – selective use of intelligence to distort the truth for political purposes. According to a (very good) article the Poor Man referenced:
To sum up, we are less safe today because of the incompetence and dishonesty of the Bush administration. “Blame Clinton”, like “hope”, is not a plan.
Funny, the Bush doctine seemed effective at taking out a dictator like Hussein.
Super! Just excellent! Now, if we can just a) continue to take out dictators with b) an increasingly spread-thin and shrinking military, while c) somehow not letting “b” let on that we can’t confront other, much more meaningful threats, and d) not bankrupting ourselves, especially considering e) an expoding deficit, exacerbated by a President and Congress who believe that f) you can cut taxes like mad while fighting a war “on the cheap” (except not so much, apparently) and stil Have It All at home with tons of new domestic spending (coughmedicaredrugbenefitcough), and g) stay ahead of the terrorist recruitment bonanza that our adventures provide . . . if we can do all that, we’ll be pretty damned safe!
“I’ve found that the consistent Bush critics are a good indicator of what will happen in the future.”
Thanks for responding. Well, good, then abolish the CIA. Between this deep analysis, Pat Robertson supplying weather reports to the media, and me examining Tom Delay’s entrails, we’re good to go.
Funny, the Bush doctine seemed effective at taking out a dictator like Hussein.
Yes, invading countries that have no nuclear weapons and no viable programs to produce them is Bush’s, and apparently your, plan at stopping nuclear proliferation.
That is simply absurd.
The rest of your post is merely factually incorrect – you might want to do some research on what has recently become known about Pakistan’s proliferation activities, for example, and the Bush administration’s treatment of the same (in short, they lied).
Just to lighten the tone a bit:
Who’s Next
by (who else) Tom Lehrer
First we got the bomb and that was good,
‘Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s O.K.,
‘Cause the balance of power’s maintained that way!
Who’s next?
France got the bomb, but don’t you grieve,
‘Cause they’re on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears;
They can’t wipe us out for at least five years!
Who’s next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that’s right:
One for the black and one for the white!
Who’s next?
Egypt’s gonna get one, too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel’s getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
“The Lord’s our shepherd,” says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!
Who’s next?
Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb!
Who’s next, who’s next, who’s next?
Who’s next?
I think Edward’s point is that Bush’s policies have been exactly counterproductive in terms of reducing threats to national security and national defense.
Exactly.
I opposed pre-emtive war because I believe war should be a very last resort. It wasn’t with Iraq unless you convolute our needs. The fact that this pre-emptive war has actually accelerated rather than stunted the nuclear arms race is incredible to me. It’s bad enough we have set a new precedent by this pre-emptive invasion…it’s actually made us less safe.
“fact that this pre-emptive war has actually accelerated rather than stunted the nuclear arms race is incredible to me.”
That isn’t a fact, I’m not even sure it is a good supposition.
Even if you don’t accept that North Korea had successfully built nuclear weapons in 1998, they were already seriously threatening to before 9-11, which would put it well before the Iraq invasion. Iran was the same.
Long before 2000, NK and Iran could see that, some day, somebody like Bush would be President. (Remember Goldwater?) States plan long-term and they plan for the worst eventualities. That’s why Israel has nukes, that’s why France has them. It made sense for NK and Iran to get them.
If America really wanted to prevent nuclear proliferation the policy of every administration since Truman would have needed to be different. Generally speaking, it wasn’t a priority. All that can fairly be said against Bush, from the perspective of realpolitik, is that he has been ineffectual where serious threats are concerned, while destroying or intimidating weak antagonists.
The Bush policy is one of kicking the cat to teach the dog a lesson. It scares the shit out of shit tzus like Ghadaffi, but it doesn’t impress rottweillers like Kim.
Which nuclear arms race in particular was accelerated by the war in Iraq, Edward? North Korea’s had enough plutonium to build two or three warheads since 1991 or so, and Iran’s been emplacing the infrastructure for a nuclear program for at least three decades. North Korea’s also had a long-range missile development program since the early ’90s, and Iran’s had limited capability (mirroring that of North Korea but a few years behind) since the mid ’90s. If you’re supposing an increased willingness to deploy, some willful ignorance of the development path is necessary.
Oh, and North Korea’s latest missile test means almost exactly zero in the context of their relevance as a nuclear threat. North Korea’s tested longer-range missiles than that, and has had short-range, high-payload missiles since before 1990. Specifically, they’ve had the capability to throw over half a ton of payload in excess of 400 miles since before 1990.
Wow, the North Korean’s and Iranian’s are brilliant. They’ve developed sophisticated nuclear programs in less than 3 short years. Before that they were just innocent countries trying to get along in a nuclear world.
Aww… how sweet.
felix,
“Yes, invading countries that have no nuclear weapons and no viable programs to produce them is Bush’s, and apparently your, plan at stopping nuclear proliferation.
That is simply absurd.”
Yes, that is absurd. Of course, you are the only one who said it.
Actually, North Korea did process their plutonium and get up to six weapons in less than three years. Going from a possible uranium bomb to six definite plutonium during Bush’s term looks like acceleration to me. And since they just changed their reactors’ fuel rods they’re on their way to another six.
Which nuclear arms race in particular was accelerated by the war in Iraq, Edward?
I’m supposing an increased urgency to get the bomb BEFORE they’re invaded/bombed by the US. Rather than dissaude them (we knew they were already working toward nuclear weapons), the Bush Doctrine has encouraged them to speed up.
Incorrect, Tim. As I noted, NK had 24 kg of Pu back in the early ’90s. Money shots:
–
Post hoc argument. But going along with it for a second, which country[ies] are showing this increased urgency?
There is still time to invade.
Yes, it will be costly. But an Iran that cannot be invaded is an Iran that can stage conventional terrorist attacks against the Great Satan with impunity. What possible reason would there be for Iran not to do this? Why do you think the mullahs and the terror groups they sponsor wouldn’t be regularly attacking targets in the US, once they feel themselves invulnerable to invasion and regime change?
Slart, why did you link to a site that undercuts Bush’s credibility on the N Korea issue? That article points out that policies begun under Clinton were working – until Bush started screwing with them.
This paragraph, for example:
“Pyongyang is cooperating with Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, whose leading members are South Korea, the United States and Japan. KEDO has reached an agreement on the provision of the light-water nuclear reactors by 2003, and, in return, North Korea has frozen its nuclear program. South Korea, which has promised to bear the lion’s share of the reactor project cost estimated at US$4.5 billion, is asking the United States to put up at least a symbolic amount. The US administration, however, has said it can make no contribution to the construction cost as Congress has not appropriated the necessary budget. An official in Seoul, however, said that South Korea cannot drop its demand simply because of domestic problems in the United States. The US Congress has been delaying approval of the cost for the reactor project. South Korean officials said the U.S. refusal to share the reactor cost would make it difficult for them to obtain approval from the National Assembly for the South Korean share.” (emphasis added)
So, once again, a negotiated agreement that was working is being undermined by bad faith actions by the US. When Bush says “negotiations aren’t working,” he leaves out the part about how they’re not working because we’re reneging on our part of them.
I see where you’re heading Slarti. How do we know that the Bush Doctrine hasn’t actually slowed what was already an urgency in Iran and N.K., no?
If so, following that line of thinking, one would have to believe that North Korea would be further along with it’s nuclear weapons program if we hadn’t invaded Iraq…that’s rather incomprehesible, no?
I think Clinton put it best when she noted that North Korea’s ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device didn’t exist when Bush became President and now it does.
It does? Your bolded comments don’t seem to support that thesis. But to answer the “why” question without agreeing with what’s attached to it, because it contains some interesting data. Is it your policy to only cite articles that don’t contain anything that might reflect poorly on your ideological compatriots?
No. Just because I question the supportability of something you said doesn’t mean I’m asserting its opposite.
I’d question the veracity and relevance of this, too. Assuming that NK does in fact have a warhead packaged up in an RV (which assumes, as far as I’m aware, facts not currently in evidence), waiting to be bolted to the top of a Taepo Dong, a major prerequisite for that having been accomplished was already completed over a decade ago.
In other words, NK has had the material to make at least two or three warheads for nearly a decade and a half, now. Which is more plausible: that they just sat on it for a decade, and assembled it into a nuclear weapon because Bush pissed them off, or that they’ve been working to the end of a working nuclear warhead continuously?
Well Slarti, I guess I disagree that unprocessed spent fuel rods make a nuclear power. That would put South Korea and Japan in the same boat.
Let’s get down to the bottom of it Slarti. Has Bush been a success or a failure at living up to his promise in the 2002 SOTU? In other words, has the United States of America permitted the world’s most dangerous regimes to get closer to threatening us with the world’s most destructive weapons or not? All indications are he’s failed. But remember, it was a bar set by him, no one else. He promised he wouldn’t just stand by, but because he invaded Iraq, the threat of force that might have been ours is now significantly diminished.
And then today there’s this in the “icing on the cake” part of this fiasco, from an editorial in the Washington Post titled “The Proliferation Crisis”:
The naive trust for those innoccent dictators… how touching.
The naive trust for those innoccent dictators… how touching.
Is that meant for this thread?
“In other words, has the United States of America permitted the world’s most dangerous regimes to get closer to threatening us with the world’s most destructive weapons or not? All indications are he’s failed. But remember, it was a bar set by him, no one else. He promised he wouldn’t just stand by, but because he invaded Iraq, the threat of force that might have been ours is now significantly diminished.”
This is very odd coming from you Edward. The situation with North Korea has not changed materially since 1998. You wouldn’t have been talking about invading North Korea in 1998. You weren’t talking about doing so in 2000. You didn’t in 2001. You didn’t in 2002. “Because he invaded Iraq” has very little to do with anything on North Korea.
The credible threat of force regarding those seeking nuclear weapons was shown to be mostly hollow for an entire decade by the games the US allowed North Korea to play on the way up to getting a nuclear weapon. Your timelines don’t make sense. If you could go from you nuclear project being off or low-key, to having a nuclear weapon in 2 years (which is precisely what you posit for North Korea to have one a year ago if you don’t believe they had one in 1998) the much more technologically sophisticated Iran would already be nuclear. Basically for your North Korea scenario to make sense, they would have had to develop the entire nuclear program, and then just waited for a ‘provocation’ so they could fuel it with the plutonium. This is possible, but considering the North Korean definition of ‘provocation’ and the fact that they accused Clinton of such all the time, this has little to do with Bush and nothing to do with Iraq. None of your North Korea scenarios are dependent on Bush if you look at the actual sequence of events.
I’m pretty sure I haven’t said anything at all resembling this.
The situation with North Korea has not changed materially since 1998.
This is true only if you define “not changed materially” as building an estimated 6 bombs and having the capability to mount them on two-stage missles.
I have no way of knowing, Edward, and whether I think he’s successful or not is completely irrelevant to my point.
Further comment: there’s no disputing that they did. Not only did they, but they did with a modicum of effort.
So, now I’ve said it. Where do you think the plutonium would have come from, if they hadn’t processed the fuel rods?
Let’s just look at the six (or three, which I think is a bit more likely) bombs claim, shall we?
Q: Do we have any evidence at all that NK has WMDs?
A: Other than their say-so, I haven’t seen any.
Oh, and Taepo Dong has been in the DTT for well over a decade, IIRC. No Dong, even longer.
I have no way of knowing, Edward, and whether I think he’s successful or not is completely irrelevant to my point.
But the point of the thread is the assertion that he has failed.
This is very odd coming from you Edward. The situation with North Korea has not changed materially since 1998.
Possessing nuclear weapons is materially different than not posessing nuclear weapons. Before Bush threw out the Agreed Framework NK did not, as far as we know, possess nuclear weapons. Afterwards, as far as we know, NK did possess nuclear weapons. See the difference?
I do not think it is a small one.
I can understand how an administration that can not discern the difference between those two situations might completely foul up foreign policy though, as the current administration has.
Yes, that is absurd. Of course, you are the only one who said it.
In response to “He seemed to be noting the bankruptcy of the Bush Doctrine as a way of halting or slowing nuclear proliferation.”, you commented, “Funny, the Bush doctine seemed effective at taking out a dictator like Hussein.”
Disregarding the possibility that you were making a comment completely irrelevant to the one you were responding to, you implied that you believed removing Hussein was involved with stopping nuclear proliferation.
Again, an absurdity.
Has Bush been a success or a failure at living up to his promise in the 2002 SOTU?
A failure.
In other words, NK has had the material to make at least two or three warheads for nearly a decade and a half, now. Which is more plausible: that they just sat on it for a decade, and assembled it into a nuclear weapon because Bush pissed them off, or that they’ve been working to the end of a working nuclear warhead continuously?
The latter.
This would be nice if correct, but it is wrong. The same CIA reports that you rely on now to say that NK has nukes now said that they had them in 1998.
This would be nice if correct, but it is wrong. The same CIA reports that you rely on now to say that NK has nukes now said that they had them in 1998.
You still haven’t read the article I linked to, apparently, and now are making assumptions about what evidence I am using, while not acknowledging that your own earlier statements about the 1998 CIA reports were false.
Sebastian, the story I’ve seen has NK with enough refined Pu for a weapon or three in mid-2003. What are you looking at?
But that’s just plutonium. The uranium program seems to be somewhat farther away, though.
This is very odd coming from you Edward. The situation with North Korea has not changed materially since 1998. You wouldn’t have been talking about invading North Korea in 1998. You weren’t talking about doing so in 2000. You didn’t in 2001. You didn’t in 2002. “Because he invaded Iraq” has very little to do with anything on North Korea.
That would all be peachy if the point were “What Edward was talking about from 1998 to 2002.”
But it isn’t.
The point is, “What can the Bush administration credibly talk about today with regards to stopping nuclear proliferation?’ And the answer, apparently, does not include “the threat of force.” We all know what a fan you are of diplomacy and treaties, Sebastian, so . . . you’re George W. Bush, what’s your move here?
“Before Bush threw out the Agreed Framework NK did not, as far as we know, possess nuclear weapons.”
That’s rich. Truly rich. Are you referring to the framework that they weren’t following?
“Sebastian, so . . . you’re George W. Bush, what’s your move here?”
Hmmm… invade Afghanistan and take out their regime. So it is not a threat.
Invade Iraq… take out their regime. So it is not a threat.
Isolate Iran and apply pressure. As their neighbors become more stable apply more pressure.
Embrace countries willing to work with you like Pakistan.
Isolate North Korea from the rest of the world and keep adding pressure.
Pray that there is someone sane in China who will help.
This would be nice if correct, but it is wrong. The same CIA reports that you rely on now to say that NK has nukes now said that they had them in 1998.
Simple factual summary so that we van argue from facts. As of 1998, the plutonium in N. Korea, which in generated in the fuel rods of their old style reactors which the plan was to replace with reactors that don’t breed plutonium, was believed to be in the spent fuel rods. Those rods, per agreement, were under lock and key and 24 hour surveliance by the IAEA. That was the plan in the 90s, for better or worse.
The estimate that they have bombs now is based on the assumption that since the agreements fell apart in 2002, the North Koreans have processed the rods to remove the plutonium for manufacturing bombs. Once the plutonium is extracted, bomb manufacture is not that difficult. That probably did not occur prior to 2002.
Edward’s point is what has Bush done to make the situation better, rather than worse? Nothing.
dmbeaster: … Once the plutonium is extracted, bomb manufacture is not that difficult.
A minor quibble: a bomb using plutonium has to be the “implosion-type”, so it is quite a bit more difficult to construct than a uranium-235 (“gun-type”) bomb. Of course, it can be done but it takes considerable high-tech stuff, though the designs are now well-known.
To be sure, it would have been better if the plutonium had not been extracted and the spent fuel rods surrendered as envisioned in the framework.
Reprocessing the fuel rods was a major step. That North Korea was in posession of the fuel rods was a danger, since it enabled that step.
[when I say “high-tech,” yes, I know it was done in the 1940s, but some of the components are still difficult to fabricate today.]
Note, ral, that on the globalsecurity.org page I linked upthread there’s mention of high-explosive testing, alluding to NK getting that piece of the puzzle squared away. Yes, nontrivial, but I think it’s less difficult than, say, enriching uranium.
bold begone.
yikes. sorry.
I confused the timeline between when the CIA knew about the nuclear weapons and when they made that knowledge public in Congress. It wasn’t until the Walpole testimony of March 11, 2002: “The Intelligence Community judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons.” that such was made public in Congress. In 1998 it was publically revealed that NK had successful missile capability for nuclear weapons.
So, it appears that the CIA believed NK had nuclear weapons by the mid-1990s. That would be before Iraq. Even if you don’t believe it happened then, Walpole’s testimony about NK having nuclear weapons was still well before Iraq.
But I was wrong about when the public information was revealed.
Furthermore I let myself get riled up on an unrelated thread and then get heavy handed over here. I apologize for that.
ral:
I agree that the plutonium bomb is trickier to make than the uranium bomb, but it is still pretty simple stuff. Also, implosion is no longer the only way to assemble the critical mass — I have heard that fancier forms of shaped charges are also used (parabolic, etc.).
The shaped charge solution used in the 40s was difficult partly because the technology of shaped charges was pratically non-existent at that time. It is now highly evolved, so not nearly the obstacle it was for the Manhattan project.
I suspect, dmbeaster, that it’s the more exotic implosion configurations that need less critical mass. I really, really doubt that NK has the know-how (otherwise known as knowledge base) to do anything out of the ordinary, so I’m thinking they’ve got fewer devices, actual or purported, than the maximum claimed.
OTOH they can crank out enough fuel for a new one every year and a half or so, at the rate they’re going.
I agree, although I thought the fuel was abit faster.