NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



NBC Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The Underground North Korean Nuke Factory

NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS

February 19, 2009: South Korean intelligence efforts in the north appear to have uncovered information about a secret North Korean underground factory that is producing nuclear weapons using enriched Uranium. North Korean first admitted it had such a program, when the U.S. made the accusation in 2002, but then insisted that it had no such program. Nevertheless, the U.S. insisted that a uranium weapons program violated the 1994 agreement in which North Korea agreed to shut down their plutonium fueled nuclear weapons program in return for billions of dollars worth of aid. In response to that, North Korea resumed its plutonium program, and detonated (more or less) a plutonium bomb in 2006. South Korea and the U.S. both still believe North Korea has kept its uranium bomb program going as well, but were unsure as to where the North Korean were hiding it. Now it is believed the underground plant is in the same area as the above ground plutonium plant in Youngbyon.

North Korea has long been installing military installations in large underground bunkers, often dug into the sides of mountains. North Korea has lots of mountains for this. North Korea has become so good at this, that they sell their expertise to other countries. Iran is a current client. Meanwhile, the U.S. is still interested in negotiating with North Korea about shutting down the uranium program, but currently North Korea denies that such an operation even exists.

If North Korea decides to test a uranium based bomb, it would probably be an underground test, like the 2006 plutonium bomb. But there is no way to prevent some radioactive gases from such a test from escaping into the atmosphere. The U.S. has special aircraft that can fly off the coast of North Korea and pick up samples of these gases, and analyze them to determine if the bomb was fueled by uranium or plutonium.

The earliest nuclear weapons used uranium, but soon switched to the more efficient plutonium. But enriched uranium is easier to produce for nations new to nuclear weapons manufacturing.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article BALKANS: France and Turkey Make Nice


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Chris    N. Korean agreement   2/19/2009 10:29:43 AM
The 1994 N. Korean agreement came to fruition during the Clinton Administration, and was considered a lousy deal by many conservatives.  So when the GW Bush administration came into power, they immediately stopped keeping up the US end of the bargain.  Then they pretended to be "shocked" to discover that the N Koreans had restarted thier programs (Duh!).  The deal since negotiated is no better than the original - hardly a foreign policy win.
 
But the N. Koreans are definitely amongst the best at tunneling (if not the best), because they know we're always looking from above, and have gotten quite good at hiding that activity.  No doubt, lots of slave labor helps a good deal.  And a healthy dose of paranoia.
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Damage limitation   2/19/2009 1:34:41 PM
The second deal is basically a damage limitation exercise.
 Source:
"http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20031031.goldstein.koreapriorities.html"

"By the high standard of verifiable, full denuclearization that the US has publicly insisted is necessary, such an agreement under which the DPRK might secretly maintain a deterrent is unacceptable. But if one believes that the top priority for the US should be an agreement that reduces the risk of nuclear terrorism that will increase if the inventory of dangerous materials in North Korea grows, then the focus should be on minimizing the North?s production capacity. An agreement that leaves the DPRK with a covert, perhaps only latent, nuclear capability can still constrain the North to carefully husband rather than market its scarce uranium or plutonium and any weapons components it may secretly possess. Even as negotiators should seek the sort of fully effective denuclearization that has been publicly vetted (especially since the more stringent the deal that is struck, the tighter the constraints against which the North will have to operate), an agreement that falls short of perfection should not be rejected if it enhances efforts to limit the catastrophic, if not likely, danger of nuclear terrorism."
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/19/2009 6:04:31 PM

The 1994 N. Korean agreement came to fruition during the Clinton Administration, and was considered a lousy deal by many conservatives.  So when the GW Bush administration came into power, they immediately stopped keeping up the US end of the bargain.  Then they pretended to be "shocked" to discover that the N Koreans had restarted their programs (Duh!).  The deal since negotiated is no better than the original - hardly a foreign policy win.

The 1994 agreement was strictly a political propaganda piece by the DPRK to produce a 'diplomatic victory' for the benefit of the Clinton administration during the run up to the 1994 presidential election.  Unlike the later 6 Party Talks under GWBush the agreement was strictly between the DPRK and the US.  As the 1994 agreement lacked provisions for verification, monitoring, enforcement, and a schedule for implementation it could be argue that no one has, or even could, have violated it.  The agreements (there are more than one) that the 6 Party Talks produced are incrementally better (as in better than the nothing in the 1994 accords), primarily because the involvement of China in the talks has gotten even them disgusted with the DPRK behavior.
 
As for the various reasons that the DPRK gave for violating the 1994 agreement, the failure to build the LWR to supply power to replace the electric output from their plutonium breeder is my favorite.  The start of construction was repeatedly delayed over financing because the DPRK insisted that all payments had to be handled through them, and was only settled in their favor when they threatened to withdraw from the agreement.  Then less than a year after construction started the contractor shutdown and left the site because of non-payment after the DPRK essentially stole the money supplied by the US for the payroll, and then demanded more money besides.  Then the DPRK used the stopped project as an excuse to void the agreement.  Now that's chutzpah!
 
Quote    Reply

scooterfan    and this would be, Satire?   2/19/2009 10:54:12 PM
or Oh my god, government policy?  I'm with the gang on dissemenation blog with this one.  Although, a smoking hole in the ground isn't always a bad thing.  New topic, are the S. Koreans stirring the pot for a bit of the old stimulas?
 
Quote    Reply

Some Guy       2/19/2009 11:22:22 PM
Chris says "The 1994 N. Korean agreement came to fruition during the Clinton Administration, and was considered a lousy deal by many conservatives.  So when the GW Bush administration came into power, they immediately stopped keeping up the US end of the bargain.  Then they pretended to be "shocked" to discover that the N Koreans had restarted thier programs (Duh!).  The deal since negotiated is no better than the original - hardly a foreign policy win."
 
Chris, are you sure that you aren't Mike McCurry?  That is a remarkable piece of Clintonian spin.  Clinton knew damned well that the 1994 agreements weren't doing a thing to restrain N Korea's nuclear ambitions but chose to ignore the clear N Korean violations because it would be inconvenient and embarrassing to note them and then do nothing about them. So, they ignored the problem while claiming they fixed it -- which is a Clinton trademark.
 
BTW, I kind of agree with the other commenter that the agreements were so vaccuous as to make violations difficult but I use the term "violation" in the colloquial sense of being contrary to the publicly stated purpose of the agreements. 
 
Bush simply recognized what was obvious: The 1990s agreements were bribes to a brutal regime in exchange for nothing.
 
Admitting that there is a problem is a first step to fixing the problem.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy