China agrees with US that N. Korea must abandon nuclear weapons program..

[Frost]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050218/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

China announced Thursday that it would send a top communist party official to North Korea this week, though it did not give an exact date for the trip by Wang Jiarui, head of the party's international department.

Washington hopes China will use its economic influence on North Korea to persuade it to stop developing nuclear weapons. Beijing is North Korea's last key ally and an indispensable supplier of fuel and trade for its impoverished neighbor.

[TreeManEarthSteward]

in with the beige and out with the blue :D (just a quip of sillyness).

[Beancounter]

IMO, North Korea will not stop its nuclear program. They've seen what the U.S. is willing to do (Iraq), and they're scared about loosing their national soverenty.

If China imposes some kind of limitation on the export of tradel to NK, the NK people will suffer, not the gov't. (and if trade is cut sufficiently, the NK gov't may do something drastic.

[otomik]

North Korea is like your sister turned into a zombie, you keep her locked up and hope things get better, throw her a limb once in a while so she doesn't starve. It's very sad but I don't think there's anything we can do.

[TreeManEarthSteward]

thats how I reckon it otomik (though who am I or any layman or B teamer as Tame calls us :p to know what can or can't be done) :-/ anyway I like your horror style tale Otomik, and we can always throw it a cabbage instead of a limb, then the whole of Korea could go vegan, plus we can always help them search for the key to help guide them to unlocking their cell door in which they are self captive in zombie sister-like state. All they need now is a light to find their feet or to get down and crawl on their knees in darkness :dizzy: just kidding you numpties......

[colorful]

I've recently been wondering - why is it okay for certain countries to harbor nuclear weapons (i.e. United States) and not others (i.e. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc). Who decides? Is there any level of fairness in this, or does it boil down to this: whichever country has the most money/most power can do what they want, the poorer/less powerful countries have to obey the richer ones?

[TreeManEarthSteward]

I guess war see no color ;) and nor does love and therefore all is fair in love and war ???

[neroux]

Is there any level of fairness in this, or does it boil down to this: whichever country has the most money/most power can do what they want, the poorer/less powerful countries have to obey the richer ones?
:yes: :(

no fairness, just money :D

[JLRodgers]

There's a lot of weapons (nuclear, bio) in the USA that are being dismantled, I think for the most part countries are trying to eliminate them from their arsenal for they don't want to use them... but when other countries try to make new ones.. that didn't have them before... it just makes countries think that they are planning on using them, or threaten to use them.

[rainbowmoon]

I've recently been wondering - why is it okay for certain countries to harbor nuclear weapons (i.e. United States) and not others (i.e. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc). Who decides? Is there any level of fairness in this, or does it boil down to this: whichever country has the most money/most power can do what they want, the poorer/less powerful countries have to obey the richer ones?

I think its mostly about power/money/sanity. Without really having testable benchmarks for this, there are some countries that are just viewed as being obviously more stable than others. North Korea is not one of them, whereas the U.S. is. This is half ass, unscientific reasoning, but I think there is some truth to it.

[neroux]

There's a lot of weapons (nuclear, bio) in the USA that are being dismantled, I think for the most part countries are trying to eliminate them from their arsenal for they don't want to use them... but when other countries try to make new ones.. that didn't have them before... it just makes countries think that they are planning on using them, or threaten to use them.
I am not aware of any such disarmament process in the US (and I would actually even doubt it under the current administration). I rather guess they just dismantle old ones and simply replace them with new ones.

Anyway, I agree that military weapons should be banned at all, especially ones which can cause an extreme damage (I avoid the WMD term ;)). However colorful's question hit the nail on the head. How can a nation (like the US) which is harboring such weapons itself demand from other nations to disarm their own? Of course I can fully understand such a kind of request from the US military's perspective (everything for us, nothing for others) but thats not the way to go.

[neroux]

I think its mostly about power/money/sanity. Without really having testable benchmarks for this, there are some countries that are just viewed as being obviously more stable than others. North Korea is not one of them, whereas the U.S. is. This is half ass, unscientific reasoning, but I think there is some truth to it.
I would say you are right. Unfortunately the US is "officially" considered as more stable. That it isnt is the other story.

[otomik]

There's a lot of weapons (nuclear, bio) in the USA that are being dismantled,the USA no longer has biological weapons, all bioweapons research is geared at knowledge of the capabilities so we can counteract bio attacks.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm

In anticipation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, President Nixon terminated the United States offensive biological weapons program by executive order. The United States adopted a policy to never use biological weapons, including toxins, under any circumstances whatsoever. National Security Decisions 35 and 44, issued during November 1969 (microorganisms) and February 1970 (toxins), mandated the cessation of offensive biological research and production, and the destruction of the biological arsenal. Research efforts were directed exclusively to the development of defensive measures such as diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapies for potential biological weapons threats. Stocks of pathogens and the entire biological arsenal were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973 under the auspices of the US Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Departments of Natural Resources of Arkansas, Colorado, and Maryland. Small quantities of some pathogens were retained at Fort Detrick to test the efficacy of investigational preventive measures and therapies.

[Frost]

Its part of a UN nuclear weapons treaty:

http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/

North Korea was part of the treaty then backed out of it , refusing inspections (sound familiar?). Scroll down and click on text to see what the provisions and restrictions of the said treaty are.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-us-nkorea_x.htm

This is the 90 days mentioned in the above article:

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Im guessing North Korea had no "good" reason to take the help it was given for its nuclear energy program and then back out and start a nuclear weapons program.


I've recently been wondering - why is it okay for certain countries to harbor nuclear weapons (i.e. United States) and not others (i.e. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc). Who decides? Is there any level of fairness in this, or does it boil down to this: whichever country has the most money/most power can do what they want, the poorer/less powerful countries have to obey the richer ones?

[otomik]

from the IAEA website

1993: North Korea Intention to Withdraw from NPT, Suspension of Decision. On 12 March, North Korea announces it is withdrawing from the NPT. It cites the treaty’s escape clause on defending supreme national interests. North Korea’s two reasons for withdrawing are: (1) the Team Spirit "nuclear war rehearsal" military exercises, and (2) the IAEA demand for special inspection of two suspect sites. North Korea attaches a statement to its withdrawal notice that is sent to the three NPT depository states and the 154 NPT member states, in which it accuses the IAEA of violating its sovereignty and interfering in its internal affairs, attempting to stifle its socialism, and of being a "lackey" of the United States. According to North Korea, the United States influenced officials of the IAEA Secretariat and Member States at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting on 25 February 1993 to adopt a resolution requiring North Korea to open military sites to inspection that are not nuclear-related. On 11 June, one day before its notice of withdrawal from the NPT was due to take effect, the USA persuaded North Korea to suspend the "effectuation" of its withdrawal and to accept normal IAEA inspection of the seven sites it had declared in the Initial Report to the Agency.
Team Spirit refers to joint US and South Korean military war games.

so they've actually tried to withdrawal before and we bribed them to pretend not to, fool me twice shame on me. The latest withdrawal was declared instant (though the IAEA still waited 90 days to make it official) and the stated reason by North Korea is the suspended Agreed Framework (which North Korea nuked, so they have a reason, just a bat**** crazy "reason").

So they wanted the US to give them oil no strings attached, no deal. give em food but embargo everything else until they're in the stone age. But that's not going to work without China's cooperation. China has been oddly buddy buddy with the DPRK even claiming "The main obstacle to finding a solution was the inconsistent policy of one Member State towards the DPRK."

[colorful]

Thank you Otomik and Frost - you've given me lots of good links to research.

I did a quick browsing of the links and couldn't find anywhere that listed which countries have signed the treaty. Does anyone know if the U.S. is among them?

[Red]

IMO, North Korea will not stop its nuclear program. They've seen what the U.S. is willing to do (Iraq), and they're scared about loosing their national soverenty.

If China imposes some kind of limitation on the export of tradel to NK, the NK people will suffer, not the gov't. (and if trade is cut sufficiently, the NK gov't may do something drastic.

North Korea has been playing China as much, if not more, than the U.S. China has used NK as a buffer between it and the land bases in S. Korea (and Japan). A look at a map tells the story:

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/north-korea/map.htm

China likes having an impotent NK running interference for it. China doesn't like NK drawing attention and making itself a target. NK knows this and is playing a complicated game of blackmail.

[JLRodgers]

Well... unless they've finished the decontamination and disposal of the bio weapons... there was a few years ago great contraversy about the disposal -- it's being done in a place within 100 miles of me. For a while, there were pamphlets available for what to do in the event of a "accident" or terrorist attack (although we are too far for it to be directly effected, but we are potentially close enough to another thing, that could put is in a path)

[otomik]

The US destroyed it's Bio Weapons long ago in 1973, we had much larger stockpiles of Chemical Weapons which we've been making since the first world war, those should all be gone by 2007.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

The NPT is the most widely accepted arms control agreement. As of early 2000 a total of 187 states were Parties to the NPT. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT.
as of late Cuba has been thinking about joining the NPT
Israel has a policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of their nuclear weapons, probably cuz they got them covertly in a shady arrangement with France (back when liberals were pro-israel), they really can't join with that policy in place.

India and Pakistan, well at least things are looking more peaceful with the BJP out of power and Musharraf slowly sliding towards democracy. Nuclear weapons are less of a useful thing and more of a nationalist symbol of power now. North Korea is filled with crazy useless nationalist symbols (Ryugyong Hotel (http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ryugyong_ho_1.html)). with military nationalists out of pakistan and hindu nationalists out of india things will get better.