Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Map of Korea WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Pavilion at Gyeongbok palace, Seoul
Korea-related tasks:


Contents

[edit] 40.659181° 129.659181°

This location (linked to at "Delivery systems") is in the sea. See Google Maps. It does not house "an approximately 50m-long assembly building"...

Maybe its an underwater launch facility? Send in 007.


I think my recent addition of Kim Duk Hong's testimony makes the prior point moot. Regaurdless of any concessions made, North Korea never had any intent on stopping its nuclear weapons program. TDC 04:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

The first sentence in the second paragraph currently reads, "Early attempts plutonium produced by heavy water reactor plants, with a plant at Yongbyon completed". Did something "go missing" during an editing session? I'd try to fix it, but I can't tell for sure what the original meaning was. User:Wfeidt

[edit] The use of Time

When quoting a "time", you should quote the local time and then the time in UTC or GMT. You the second quote (the one in brackets) shouldn't be U.S. Eastern Time. Mattrix18 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tests

I recently saw a report that stated North Korea has dug up a huge hole and then filled it back up again, activities consistent with a nuclear test. Granted, my source on this was the daily show, but usually they are truthful as well as satirical. I agree this should be included they also built an observation station a few miles away too.Coviecarbine 04:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nuke Test Successful? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear 68.126.209.50 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nukes?

In February 2005, they officially announced that they "have manufactured nukes for self-defense"

They actually said nukes? This strikes me as one hell of a slang word... --Josquius 16:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • LOL indeed, but in my opinin it may have to do with the game StarCraft...the South Koreans are extremely professional at the game created by Blizzard Entertainment, and one of the three races is Human with a devastating technology labelled 'build nukes' from the add-on of the command center, the weapon is basically a 'futuristic' nuclear bomb that has a range of 9x9 blocks on the map and will wipe out any unit within range or leave buildings with 1/4 hitpoints. But it could also be that they just want to sound 'hip' and up-to-date.
  • lol, just kidding. But ya, you can tell how silly they sound in their 'official statements'. I cannot believe that there exists a country where the conditions of the book 1984 are met in every possible way...and then some more. The average North Koreans have been brain washed in thinking their leader is like a god...sigh....and even if the dictator is overthrown somehow, a unified korea would be very weird...it's impossible to imagine what would actually happen....anyways, DOWN WITH KIM JONG IL!!!!! 142.58.181.84 21:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apparently so: [1].
While I'm here, I was wondering why "crisis" is included in the first paragraph. Why is it a crisis that NK has nukes? The U.S. has nukes, and far more than anyone else. Is that a crisis? Some people would probably say so, but that's beside the point. Anyway. - Vague | Rant 00:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


  • But what if they're researching ghost technology in parallel with there "build nuke" efforts? They could infiltrate our perimeter undetected! Damn them and their cloaking!
 <Nuclear Launch - Detected>

--Liquid Entropy


A crisis is "an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty"[2]. As the United States is willing to use nuclear weapons on North Korea, and tension being high as is between the two nations, I'd say that this is an unstable situation of extreme danger. -drivinghighway61 05:13, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


cri·sis (krī'sĭs) n., pl. -ses (-sēz).

  1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point.
  2. An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.
  3. A sudden change in the course of a disease or fever, toward either improvement or deterioration.
  4. An emotionally stressful event or traumatic change in a person's life.
  5. A point in a story or drama when a conflict reaches its highest tension and must be resolved.

So yes, this is a crisis, even without the hyperbole about the US using nuclear weapons, which I don't think many people think is a serious threat.

On the other hand, this is far from being a new situation, since North Korea extracted enough plutonium for somewhere between 3 and 18 nuclear weapons prior to 1994 (range depends on estimates of extraction, and amount required for the design of weapon), and therefore almost certainly already has nuclear weapons. In addition, Seoul is within range of North Korea's conventional artilliery, so anyone who wants to know why military action against North Korea is not an option has more than one possible answer.

In short, we can't stop them extracting plutonium because we are 15 years too late, and we can't bribe them to do so because they will take the bribe and do it anyway. Economic sanctions seem to be the only way of getting them to even talk, and they are not noticably loosening the grip of the regime.

What to do?


Could the word 'nuke' have been introduced in the process of translation? Any Korean speakers out there willing to find the original statement written in Korean and find out if this colloquialism was present in that source? Who made the translation? Was an English statement actually issued by North Korean government, or was this done by a Korean Journalist, or a Western Journalist, or someone else? --Bletch 19:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


the conditions of 1984?!............ what are you talking about. it may be a currupt dictatorship but it is not even close to the horrors described in 1984. also to point out something else the U.S government long ago violated all the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. but then again america is not a threat we never invaded anyone unless they struck first..... wait never mind iraq.L337wm2007 18:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't give you a source for this argument (yet), but it occurs to me that there is a danger of a non-democratic, poor state possessing nuclear weapons: namely, that it might sell those weapons to, or have them stolen by, militant groups. The risk of corruption or incompetence amongst Kim Jong-il's staff are too great for my personal comfort. Wozocoxonoy 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viewing

In early May 2005 American intelligence officials have obtained satellite imagery showing preparations being made for what may be a nuclear test in the northeast part of the country, with holes being dug and then filled. Construction of a large reviewing stand, an overlooked part of the 1998 missile test, is also noted several miles from the site. Is a viewing platform 'several miles' from the site of the planned test really suitable for viewing a test of a nuclear weapon?

Uh, if someone let off an atomic bomb, I'd like to be pretty far away from the blast. I suppose it depends on the scale of the test and the nature of the test. Some research on American testing and other previous nuclear tests might shed some light on the issue. Of course, now this issue is virtually moot, since North Korea has publicly announced their intention to do a nuclear test. the_paccagnellan 12:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] change title to neutral one (remove phrase WMOD)

Today the phrase "Weapons of mass destruction" is quite a charged one, and just using it in the title makes it sound like a report by the Bush adminstration. Shouldn't we go for something with less loaded, perhaps something like 'Weapon programs of North Korea'. Although I guess if the article is about Western response to North Korea's weapons programs WMOD would make sense.

Any suggestions? Or am I to be attacked by wikicrats for doing this incorrectly. I hope not :p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.3.246.34 (talk • contribs) .

I think it's fine the way it is.... all the other country's articles are named X and weapons of mass destruction (see United States and weapons of mass destruction), so we're not singling out N. Korea. Sortan 17:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The one-sidedness is still there. Doesn't matter if it is the adopted naming scheme. WMD is a U.S. worldview of state weaponry. And really, it is the U.S. political stance on other states' weaponries. Whether or not the U.S. article is named to fit means zilch.
There is nothing universal about the term, or the vague category it creates. And, honestly, do I need to mention it intentionally draws upon Bush Administration/Iraq War/Axis of Evil? You can't use realpolitik without meaning to color your words with Henry Kissinger. This is how politicized terms work. --Oogje 18:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Give me a break. The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is politically loaded in many contexts, but if there is one thing that everyone can agree on, it is that nuclear weapons qualify as such.

Sign your comments. The "WMD" in the title is politically loaded, and comes off as one-sided at first. However, since all other articles are named the same way, it's not as one-sided. The titles bug me, but I think they're fine for now. However, would there be a better way to title the article and all others in a more neutral sense? --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the title of Weapon of Mass Destruction is a fair term to use. WMD signifies the difference between the use of a conventional weapon and say a nuclear weapon. The term has also been in use before the Bush Administration, they used the term during their attempt to justify action in Iraq, but it does not mean they invented the term. --SeattleCroat 6:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


What would people think of the title "North Korean Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons" ? Djma12 22:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of its political connotations, WMD is a literal and correct term to use. Though the recent test in October was considered a 'failure' by the DPRK (the power/energy released by the nuke was not as much as expected), there is still potential in the DPRK's nukes to literally commit mass destruction.

[edit] tidying up

This is my first time looking at this article. It's looking pretty good but it seems to me like it still needs some editing and tidying up. What do people think about putting the tidy-up tag on the article?

These are a just few things I noticed:

As it stands, the opening section suddenly jumps from a discussion of how the North Korean attitude has been shaped by the Korean War and what they regard as occupying US force, to bilateral vs. six-party talks. In other words, the prose doesn't seem to flow and link up very neatly at the moment.

Please do not add a (messy) tag. Those are only for embarrassingly messy articles.--Patrick 14:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't quite sure how they worked. This seems like a topic that could make a good featured article so would be great to improve and add some images too.

[edit] Six Party Talks

Since the article makes a few mentions of this, it seems like it could do with some clarification about how these were intitiated, when, where etc. What was their original goal and has this changed?

[edit] References

Generally seems to need better referencing. For instance, there's mention in the article of a leaked document showing that the U.S. Government was willing to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. As far as I can see, this doesn't seemed to be referenced anywhere yet (unless it's one of the external links - if so, this should be made clear).

Just a few thoughts! Great work so far everyone! --Alexxx1 08:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Propaganda section

I think we need a propaganda section, for lack of a better word. The media have gone absolutely apeshit saying NK can strike the US, etc etc yada yada, and all the other white lies. The fact is that they do not have a nuclear program, no warheads, and nothing to carry them except for two Taepodong-2 missles, both of which crashed shortly after takeoff and are capable of reaching the tips of ALASKA! Whilst Alaska is technically the US, anyone with knowledge of the world knows its not exactly where the US is. Here is a map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Ak-locator.png - yes, these pointless and harmless (so far) missiles can technically reach US soil, but to reach mainland US... pffft. I think we need a section that wraps up the FACTS in a BRIEF way. This is a good read too - http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm Timeshift 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are talking about, but I am not sure I agree, first of all, that NK has no nuclear program, and secondly, that the media is blowing up the level of the threat. From the information I received from mainstream media, I have gotten the same impression as you have about the capability, or lack of capability, of NK's ballistic missiles. I'm no more scared than you are that the NK will be able to hit the continental US with any sort of weapon. However, I do believe they have a nuclear program, because numerous reports from different sources confirm this. In addition, unlike Iraq and Iran, the North Korean government actually claims to have these weapons and are proud of it. The actual capability of their bomb(s) if they exist may be difficult to determine, but if they go ahead with this planned nuclear test, then everyone will know. Sadly, it is my belief that the UN will do nothing about it, except possible sanctions, which will do nothing because everyone knows the country is starving and humanitarian aid is all that prevents many thousands of deaths. the_paccagnellan 12:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows the country is starving. Communism tends to lead to that. - Wmgries

Uuhh as a resident of Alaska and a citizen of the United States I strongly disagree with your assessment of Alaska's importantance within the structure of the United States, as well as the effects of a nuclear strike to that region of the US. A nuclear strike on any part of US soil would be a event of dire consequences. For example a strike on Alaska would severally cripple oil supplies in both the US and global markets. Your statement that Alaska is also not part of the mainland US is also incorrect. We are not a part 48 contiguous states, but since we are connected to the North American Continent we are by definition a part of the mainland. However, even if we were an "island" as you contend that would have no bearing on the effects of a nuclear strike. Hawaii is an island, but a nuclear strike there would be extremely devastating. You might want to be more well researched before you make such arguments. To say that media is overstating the damage a nuclear armed North Korea is capable of, shows that you're naive in both the capabilities of nuclear arms and how interconnected the modern world has become.

I agree, it was a dumb statement. - Wmgries

[edit] Paranoia

Has anyone considered the paranoid viewpoint of the communist government in North Korea? Is it possible they are seeking to develop nuclear missiles in an effort head off the threat of invasion? Of course we know we would never invade another country :-)) --192.156.102.7 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Considered it? It's the only motive. They've clearly stated they do not have a first-strike policy, unlike the United States and are simply acting in self defence due to the situation outlined at the top of this discussion page in relation to the fact that the Korean War has never been cessated officially.
The media whitewash has begun, in Australia news articles are popping up dropping Kim Jong in with Sadam Husein by name association. The US/AU/UK alliance will jump in and pwn NK because they have 'WMD's and everyone will forget that, like all the other invaded countries, they had every right to develop weapons in an effort of self defence. You don't see the US/AU/UK disposing of their WMD's.
We live in a bipartisan world. We have the 'allies' and the 'axis' again. When a world is at war it is united, leaders become entrenched, economies become strong, it's exactly what any leader would want. So this constant witch hunt for 'rogue states' with 'wmd's will forever continue. Heaven forbid if the US/AU/UK have a disagreement and one of them be classified a rogue state and are turned on, like from a societal point of view the French have been turned on my the Americans because they wouldn't take part in the arbitrary invasion of a third world country. The outright labelling of them as cowards is amusing given that the French have won hundreds of wars throughout history and the United States has still yet to actually win one conventional war alone. 211.30.71.59 01:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The US doesn't have a first strike policy AFAIK. --WikiSlasher 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Which hundreds of wars has France won alone?

"[T]he only motive"? Yeah right, and Hitler just wanted to unite austria. They "clearly" used a first strike policy when they invaded South Korea. (It's is interesting that you know the Korean War never ended, but forget to mention that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on broken cease fire stipulations, because no treaty had ever been signed.) If you really feel that every country has a right to develop nuclear weapons, i would be interested to see if you think every citizen of a country would be entitled to carry a gun, regardless of any historical affinity to violence. Confounded bridge 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC) confounded bridge

[edit] Missile Assembly building on google?

In the Delivery Systems section, it states: "Satellite navigation tools such as Google Earth reveal an approximately 50m-long assembly building at 40.65918056° N 129.6591806° E (40°39'33.05" N, 129°39'33.05" E), with nearby launch, control and engine test facilities." Those coordinates, however, are in the water! Does anyone have the actual location of this building?Checkguy 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybee it is underwater. :) Dudtz 10/5/06 6:59 PM EST

Sure the co-ords aren't the wrong way around? Scan about. 211.30.71.59 01:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope. The coordinates are off the East coast of N. Korea. They're about 30km from the closest bit of land and that's a pretty big haystack to be looking in. Checkguy 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Those coordinates are off, the exact site of the assembly site is roughy 10 NM due north of the one's given here. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/nodong.htm - IKONOS Sat Imagery. DonMuttoni 10/5/06 6:59 PM EST

[edit] Vandalism

The vandalism on this site is out of hand, someone please clean it up or slap a protection on it

[edit] This Is a Bad Article

Sorry to say this, but for such an important topic, this article is not a good summary.

To start with, it is biased, clearly. This article purports that the NK nuclear missile crisis is almost entirely a US vs. DPRK affair. This is false. As the article correctly notes, the US and DPRK are "technically" still in a state of war. South Korea is as well, if I am not mistaken. Yet, the article focuses on the DPRK's propaganda claim that it is building a nuclear deterrent to counter US "aggression".

The fact is that not a single country on the planet has a vested interest in seeing DPRK conduct a nuclear test and this article glosses over this fact. Japan and South Korea for example would immediately feel threatened that a hostile neighbor has gone nuclear. There is absolutely no shortage of bad blood between the three countries. China realizes that a nuclear test would trigger a new wave of sanctions and penalties against one of its main trading partners. This would raise the risk of a collapse of the DPRK government and the influx of millions of North Koreans into China. China does not want that. Russia would see another neighbor on its east possess nuclear weapons and would surely be concerned.

This article suggests from its opening paragraph that NK withdrew from the NNPT and allegedly produced nuclear weapons because the US did not furnish light water reactors as promised. Conspicuously absent is the accepted notion from US govt officials and independent analysts that the real reason NK produced the weapons is because they wanted to use them as "bargaining chips" in exchange for aid, security guarantees, etc. This article implies that the reason the NK produced weapons is only that the US withheld light water reactors when that is simply not the case. Example: [3]

The issue of money laundering and counterfeiting in DPRK is not addressed at all. This is often mentioned by the US as reasons for not holding bilateral talks.

There is a very incomplete analysis of US nuclear policy and use of nuclear weapons as a first strike in this article as well. Again, the quote by VP Cheney is used to support the flawed argument that the DPRK has built nuclear weapons to counter US aggression.

The fact is that the US is barred, by US law, to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. If NK were to go nuclear, then US law technically "permits" the use of nuclear weapons. Hence, Cheney's comment and the leaked document. That does not mean to say that the US will use nucelar weapons. Not at all actually. During the Cold War, US policy was based on MAD so that although the US "could" use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, it did not.

President GW Bush has moved US nuclear policy away from MAD. (Full disclosure: I am an American.) The US formerly relied on MAD as a deterrent because it assumed its enemies were rational. According to current US policy, terrorists and rogue states are not rational and therefore MAD cannot necessarily work as a sole deterrent. The US has always had a policy of pre-emptive strikes (Many people forget this. Take for example, President Reagan's strikes against Libya and Grenada. This is not a "Bush thing".) What Bush believes, rightly or wrongly, is that nuclear weapons in the hands of more or less irrational people like dictators on the brink of economic collapse or terrorists who have already demonstrated that they want to kill, is a problem too big to confront. It must be stopped beforehand. [4]


I wish that the preceding few paragraphs were signed. They make a strong argument, however, saying that "The US [sic] has always had a policy of pre-emptive strikes" is basing "always" on what is actually only about the last fifty years. It is ignoring, for example, Pearl Harbor(WWII), The USS Maine (Spanish-American War), Fort Sumter (Civil War), and more recently, I think there were a couple of buildings that some crazies flew jumbo jets into in New York or somewhere on the East Coast, but I could be wrong. The important thing to remember is that Bush, in his characteristic astoundingly deft logic, considers his attack on Iraq part of his counterattack to the World Trade Center attacks and part of his campaign to prevent another major terrorist attack, fact that Saddam wasn't even friends with Al-Qaeda be damned. It is truer to say that the U.S. has always had a policy of offering up a few hundred or thousand of its citizens to die unprotected in an attack it knows is coming so that it can mobilize the survivors for a war of retaliation. I promise that if you start looking at the history of American Wars, you'll see this happening more often than it doesn't, and every time it happens, there is always "doubt," over how much the government was forewarned of the attack, never an explicit confirmation that it was or wasn't. If you are the sort of person who looks at history as a series of patterns indicative of things to come (which I'm not saying it necessarily is; that's just one way to read it), this implies scary, scary things about North Korea. Especially if you look into pre-WWII U.S. activities in the Pacific and see just how far we pushed Japan into feeling like its only hope was a single devastating attack that would incapacitate us, and how Bush isn't the most reliable guy to trust to avoid the tragedies and Great Errors of history. By they way, has anybody seen Bin Laden lately? I could have sworn that I heard he was responsible for the whole whatever it's called attack wherever it was. --Your Friendly Neighborhood American-who-is-still-awake, Techgeist 09:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


The article contradicts itself. It opens with the statement that NK has nuclear weapons but later states when referring to US claims that NK had a nuclear weapons program:


=It is worth noting that the added claim — "they acknowledged they had a secret nuclear weapons programme involving enriched uranium," — was never =substantiated.


Sounds substantiated to me considering that NK is going to conduct a nuclear test.


The article is poorly referenced. It is entirely POV with a definite bias towards NK. Unsubstantiated statements like, "However, the United States never built the promised light water reactors and in late 2002, North Korea was forced to go back to using their old reactors," imply that the US "forced" NK to build nuclear weapons. Not only is this POV, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the country was building nuclear weapons all along not in response to US actions.

I could go on.

Sorry, I am not some ultra-patriotic American and I know that Bush has seriously damaged my country's reputation, but I also know that it is fashionable to bash the US these days and this article is doing just that. Wikipedia is growing to become a first choice means of information. As such, it is vital that articles written here do not have an agenda and provide both sides to controversial issues. Right now, this article reads like the DPRK is the kid in the playground getting bullied by the US. State both sides of the issue. Why did the US withold the light water reactors from NK? The below is copied verbatim from the wikipedia article on the Agreed Framework. Note how it explains both sides of the issue as to why the Framework collapsed. And it is referenced.

Not trying to be a jerk here. This is an important topic and needs to be treated as such. co94 Oct 7, 2006

=There was increasing disagreement between North Korea and U.S. on the scope and implementation of the treaty. When by 1999 economic sanctions had =not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between U.S. and North Korea had not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear =research unless the U.S. kept up its end of the bargain. U.S. has repeatedly stated that further implementation would be stalled as long as suspicions =remained that the North Korean nuclear weapons research program continued covertly. =Construction of the first LWR reactor began in August 2002. Construction of both reactors is well behind schedule. The initial plan was for both reactors =to be operational by 2003, but the construction had been halted indefinitely in late 2002. =In October 2002, a U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly visted North Korea to confront the North Koreans with the U.S. =assessment that they had a uranium enrichment program [12]. Both parties' reports of the meeting differ. The U.S. delegation believed the North Koreans =had admitted the existence of a highly enriched uranium program [13]. The North Koreans stated Kelly made his assertions in an arrogant manner, but =failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos, and they responded denying North Korea planned to produce nuclear weapons using enriched =uranium. They went on to state that as an independent sovereign state North Korea was entitled to possess nuclear weapons for defense, although they =did not possess such a weapon at that point in time [14] [15] [16]. Relations between the two countries, which had seemed hopeful two years earlier, =quickly deteriorated into open hostility.

[edit] NPOV

The North Korean perspective section is by definition excusenary and npov. --mitrebox 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

=There is no section that counters the "North Korean perspective". This makes the article POV. Dont' know what the word excusenary means. co94 Oct 8, 2006

To make excuses for without trying to find any actual cause or responsibility--mitrebox 06:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two sides to a controversy. There is a section that explains the NK side. There is not a section that explains the side of the US, Japan, China, :::rest of the planet, etc. This article is definitely POV. Looked in three different dictionaries. "Excusenary" is not a word in any of them.
Yes it is not a word. If I repeat it enough I'm bound to see it used in an argument between pundits.--mitrebox 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Work on POV

I have made a few changes that will hopefully make the article a little more neutral. First, I have placed North Korea's withdraw from the Agreed Framework within historical context. However, I have left in the North Korean rationale for doing so. Secondly, I have removed the section about a "leaked document" with the United States threatening nuclear attack. Until citation from a reasonable source can be provided, such an inflammatory statement does not belong in a peer-reviewed article. Finally, to claim that the United States is stalling on diplomacy because it does not agree to bilateral talks is incomplete. North Korea, for its part, has refused to speak in any context other than bilateral talks with the United States. Both sides need to be presented.

Djma12 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Missile Test

Yeah, they just did one, figured I'd say something about it. Check out the news on basically any page on the Internet.

This news article [5] reports that North Korea has successfully conducted a 'nuclear test'. No mention of a missile, though. Iramoo Bearbrass 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
USGS Quake Information looks like it's underground. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge

Seems like much of this article should be merged with the 2006 North Korean nuclear test article. There is quite a bit of overlap but information here (such as the chronology of events) that would best be presented together.

I still think this article should be merged with the nuclear test article. Much of the information in this article belongs in the nuclear test article. Plus, this article isnt that good. The first sentence says that NK claims to possess nuclear weapons. Later it says that NK conducted a nculear test. No sense. The chronolgy listed in this article seems very thorough (but unreferenced). It looks like it should be in the same article.

And the analogy of Gettysburg and the Civil War is ludicrous.

  • This article contains information about the whole program. The other article is mostly about a single test (with some background info that was derived from this article). They are better as separate articles, in the same way that Trinity test and Manhattan Project are two different articles. --Fastfission 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Nuclear Security

I have removed the following paragraph:

"Security of the nuclear defense was formally lost. http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/584/5495.html And so the reality of the USA today revelation in 2003 is to begin to see the outcome of failed security. In 2003 the Congress authorized news coverage of low enriched uranium as useful in nuclear weapons triggering. As low as a neutron security system lost, allows. Highly efficient triggering systems allow very low amounts of fuel to be utilized. The world has altered and common nuclear watchdog websites do not warn of this change."

I have removed this, not because its not relevant or b/c its not cited, but b/c it has poor grammar and makes little coherent sense. If someone can clarify what they are trying to say, this could probably go back in.

Djma12 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Someone vandalised the whole text to haha so I've reverted to the last change. Can someone please update with the newer information? And can someone slap a protection on this?

=== name-bias : the link that is on wikinews , at the repeatedly(?!) reported control of a N-korean vessel (don't think it will be controlled on 2 consecutive days) is named North Korea Nucleair Programme. well I was interested. But it links to the WMD page without further reference. I think this is purely bias and propaganda. Most country's have a nucleair program. None of them with the intend to (defensivly) use wmd. The linking system promoting fear and political views shouldn't be. If i knew how to do that i would undo this link. put wmd under disambiguous, link to a list of country's with nucleair research facilities and labs, courses. And from there to a page : accused of wmd agression by the usa. seems fairer... moreso because there is not actually a page about the nucleair program. 80.56.39.16 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline doesn't extend back far enough

The first date on the timeline is 1989 which is when, according to the article, the US first spotted N. Korea's nuclear weapons, but the Yongbyon nuclear center was under construction since the early 1980s. Just look at the wikipedia article on Yongbyon to see that. Not only that, but apparently they had research water reactors for two decades prior to that courtesy of the Soviet Union. All of this should be included in the article. here is the url of a site with some information: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.67.6 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/r/Talk%7ENorth_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction_99e8.html"