N. Korea over Iran

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#1
IAEA chief: N Korea bigger threat



LONDON, England (CNN) -- North Korea poses more of a nuclear threat than Iran, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN, because the country already has the nuclear material that would go into a weapon.

"We know North Korea has the plutonium that can go into the bomb," Mohammed ElBaradei told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Thursday. "We have not seen any such material in Iran."

North Korea, he said, represents an "imminent threat or an imminent danger," while Iran is merely suspected of having a nuclear program.

"That is why, when people sometimes grumble about our slow pace in Iran, I would like them to compare that situation with North Korea," he said.

"In Iran we are active, we are generating information and we know what's going on, more or less. In Korea, it is an absolutely black hole." (Transcript)

ElBaradei said he could not discount the possibility that North Korea is building a nuclear weapon.

"They have that plutonium ... they have the industrial infrastructure, but more importantly, they said [in early February] they are doing it," he said.

North Korea halted all cooperation with the IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, however, and kicked out agency monitors in December 2002.

When North Korea announced last month it had nuclear weapons it also said it would not take part in another round of six-party disarmament talks because of U.S. hostility toward its government.

The United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of six-party talks since 2003, aimed at persuading the North to abandon its nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards.

Earlier this week, North Korea refused to have any dealings with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who in January labeled the country one of the world's "outposts of tyranny."

Rice is due to visit South Korea on Saturday after a stop in Japan, and will meet President Roh Moo-hyun and other top officials before heading to China for more consultations on the crisis.

In his interview with CNN, ElBaradei said the non-proliferation treaty allowed countries to explore nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

But it posed a problem, he said, because "things have changed since 1970" and know-how and technology have spread.

"A country that can have control of highly enriched uranium or plutonium is not far away from a nuclear weapon," he said.

"We need to make sure that every country in the future has what we call assurance of supply, that they have access to nuclear technology for electricity, for other applications, but try to minimize the risk associated with that by having an international consortium, for example, producing the fuel and then take back the fuel again under international supervision. ... No one country should enrich its own uranium."

A "microcosm of what we should have in the future," he said, is an agreement between Iran and Russia in which protocols were established for transferring nuclear fuel from Russia to Iran's Bushehr power plant and moving the spent fuel back to Russia.

The deal, signed last month, flew in the face of U.S. requests and heavy diplomatic pressure on Moscow.

Iran claims it is trying to "protect their activities," ElBaradei acknowledged, but would not say the country is trying to hide evidence concerning a possible nuclear program.

"They are fulfilling their legal obligations," he said, with a "minor infraction here and there."

And, he said, recent events are leading in the right direction, particularly the United States' support of a European initiative to bring Iran in line through dialogue.

Iran had a tepid response to the U.S. move to drop objections to its membership in the World Trade Organization.

"Basically, the Iranians are saying, 'This is not enough,'" ElBaradei said. But "we need to make sure the process continues ... as long as the parties are talking, we're on the right track."








Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/17/iaea/index.html
 
Dec 2, 2004
239
0
0
37
#3
Yea theres no need for being scared of North Korea or Iran.

It's simple if you follow it, whenever the U.S. and other world powers refuse to negotiate/trade with them then they continue to pursue nuclear warhead production. But when the U.S. does negotiate/trade with them, then they discontinue production.

Nuclear warhead production is a trade negotiation tool, the U.S. has ignored to negotiate trade exchange with N. Korea and Iran for so long, making false promises to North Korea. Becoming a nuclear state would simply give these countries a seat at the WTO table, it has more to with economics than anything.

Nuclear states like Britain, China, Russia have always had the upper hand in trade negotiations, making them even more economically powerful. And what can bring quick power? becoming an armed nuclear state. N. Korea and Iran are smart enough to know that to attack one of these world powers (including U.S.) with any kind of nuclear warhead would be a death wish.
 
Apr 25, 2002
508
0
0
39
wind.prohosting.com
#5
An ICBM launched from N. Korea can not hit the US. Nor from Iran. However Iran would be a much easier fight the N. Korea. and if we were in Iran they would be less apt to using a nuke agenst there own people. N. Korea just doesnt give a fuck. Iran and Syra are next.
 
Jun 27, 2003
2,457
10
0
38
#6
KleanKut said:
An ICBM launched from N. Korea can not hit the US. Nor from Iran. However Iran would be a much easier fight the N. Korea. and if we were in Iran they would be less apt to using a nuke agenst there own people. N. Korea just doesnt give a fuck. Iran and Syra are next.
That's true.. I was born there and I dunno if any military folks on this board been there but the FIRST thing you see when you fly into Osan air base is fucking missiles pointed north. My family is from the north so now they live right by the border in South Korea and the North has hella artillery pointed right at Seoul. Within the first 30 minutes of any kind of American invasion thousands, if not millions, of Koreans would be wasted. Also, North Korea has a large army that are willing to fight to the death so hella Americans would be lost as well. While North Korea can't launch a missile at the United States, they're damn capable of giving nukes to other organizations who have the means to deliver that weapon. North Korea has trained hella Middle Eastern terrorists in the past and they wouldn't have a problem delivering a surprise to America's backdoor. Fucking bush is stupid when it comes to foreign relations. He came into office and basically fucked up America's relationship with both North and South Korea; not to mention that the GIs stationed in South Korea are fucking assholes. They ran over two little girls with tanks, kept driving, and then the man responsible was let off with absolutely no criminal charges. The military's fucking SOFA pisses me off.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#7
KleanKut said:
An ICBM launched from N. Korea can not hit the US. Nor from Iran. However Iran would be a much easier fight the N. Korea. and if we were in Iran they would be less apt to using a nuke agenst there own people. N. Korea just doesnt give a fuck. Iran and Syra are next.

With that being said how far is Iraq from Iran? Can Iraqi ICBM's hit america? If not how are these countries a threat to america and why do they hold the "axis of evil" title?


:hgk:
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#8
Well you see HERESY, it’s all very simple. Iraq couldn’t, at the time, fire a missile that could reach the U.S BUT they COULD, within the next 50 years, have the capability to do so.

You see, HERESY, America are like the “Time Cops.” By analyzing data with supercomputers, we can accurately determine which countries are more likely to have the technology to fire long range missiles and waging war on America, thus we used a preemptive “arrest” on Iraq for future crimes they may or may not commit.
:cool:
 
Apr 25, 2002
508
0
0
39
wind.prohosting.com
#9
HERESY said:
With that being said how far is Iraq from Iran? Can Iraqi ICBM's hit america? If not how are these countries a threat to america and why do they hold the "axis of evil" title?


:hgk:
The WMDs would only be a threat to US intrests in asia, and europe and other arab countries. We are here to overthrow saddam and bring democracy to Iraq. The WMDs could have exsisted (however this point can be argued to the end of time) and we are glad he didnt have any in iraq ot use agenst us in the invasion.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#11
Jae iLL said:
not to mention that the GIs stationed in South Korea are fucking assholes. They ran over two little girls with tanks, kept driving, and then the man responsible was let off with absolutely no criminal charges. The military's fucking SOFA pisses me off.

I heard they are responsible for a lot of rapes too, or maybe its in Okinawa.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#14
I disagree that North Korea having nukes is a bigger threat than Iran having them. Sure Korea has the capabilities to use them, but they won't unless we or the south attack them (seriously that's not gunna happen). Iran on the other hand is a much more dangerous state to have nukes even if they don't have the capability to deliver them to the U.S. by missile.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#17
ColdBlooded said:
By their own? They've already got em dude.
I meant the state of Israel is more threatened by others in their region having nukes (Syria, Lebanon, Iran) because those states will use them, not just use them as levarage in negotiating. The others may not be as threatened by Israel having nukes, since the situation already exists and they aren't getting blown up.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#18
KleanKut said:
The WMDs would only be a threat to US intrests in asia, and europe and other arab countries.

Wait a second so what you're telling me is the threat has nothing to do with america itself but with places of interest? If an attack on america (not it's interest) is/was not imminent why attack?


We are here to overthrow saddam and bring democracy to Iraq.
LMAO! Does that make you sleep better at night? Ok you're in Iraq and you get to see whats going on. However you see what you WANT to see....lets call it "selective sight". So you feel it's right to overthrow saddam and bring democracy? What about Sudan? What about China? Why not overthrow the butchers in sudan (far worse than saddam) and overthrow the non democratic chinese government? Since when was it ok to invade a country and spread your "democracy" like a plague?


You think democracy in Iraq is a good thing but what about the problems in america? :rolleyes: