BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:46 AM

Cyprus: Detained ship broke Iran arms export ban
         

Menelaos Hadjicostis, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago

NICOSIA, Cyprus – A ship detained off Cyprus has breached a U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports, Cyprus' foreign minister said Tuesday.

But Markos Kyprianou refused to specify what had been found on the Cypriot-flagged Monchegorsk, which U.S. officials suspect was delivering arms to Hamas militants in Gaza.

Kyprianou said Cyprus will decide what to do with the cargo once the search of all containers aboard the ship is completed.

Cyprus inspected the Monchegorsk twice after it arrived Jan. 29 under suspicion of ferrying weapons from Iran to Hamas fighters in Gaza. It remains anchored off the port of Limassol under tight security.

Returning the shipment to Iran has been ruled out, but Kyprianou said possible options include confiscating and storing it in Cyprus or another country.

Last week, Cyprus applied for and received guidance from the U.N. Security Council Sanctions Committee on whether the cargo breached sanctions barring Iran from sending arms abroad.

The committee was established in December 2006 to oversee a Security Council-imposed embargo on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, an export ban on arms and related material, and individual targeted sanctions including travel bans and an assets freeze.

Iran has denied accusations it is trying to build nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity.

Kyprianou said Cyprus would "turn to friends" for help if authorities decide against storing the Monchegorsk's cargo on the island.

Britain's Minister for Europe Caroline Flint, who is visiting Cyprus, said her country is ready to help.

"My understanding is that Cypriot authorities are looking into what the situation is, what is the specifications on these weapons that are there," Flint said after talks with Kyprianou.

"And I think when we have a better report of that, the U.K. and I'm sure other countries will want to help in whatever way we can to make sure that they are disposed of effectively."

The U.S. military stopped the ship last month in the Red Sea, and said it found artillery shells and other arms on board. But it could not legally detain the ship, which continued to Port Said, Egypt, and then to Cyprus.

U.S. officials had said the ship was headed for Syria.

Israel launched a 22-day offensive late last month on Hamas-controlled Gaza to try to end militant rocket fire on Israelis and to halt the smuggling of arms into the Palestinian territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:46 AM

BB:

Mexico is probably TOO close for us to deal with. Our little involvement in 1915 was pretty unsuccessful, if I'm thinking of the same thing you are. It was interesting as we used Wright aircraft for spotting, maybe first military use of aircraft in history, and George Patton as a young product of West Point, experienced some action. Otherwise it was not fruitful. In the end, the United States supplied Juarez on the Q T, and let him do his thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 11:06 PM

"It seems to me this current push to make Iran look imminently dangerous is just another attempt to soften the world up for Israel's upcoming attack on that country."

Press freedom watchdog says Iran curtailing press freedoms February 10, 2009

Washington, 10 February (IranVNC)â€"In a survey released today, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ] accused the Iranian government of curtailing press freedoms and trying to reassert control over the media.

The report, entitled "Attacks on the Press in 2008", also says Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used state subsidies as a "weapon" against newspapers and magazines that are critical of his government.

"Ahmadinejad sought to suppress independent media by manipulating government subsidies, exerting censorship, and using the punitive tools of detention and harassment," the report says.

Noting that Iran’s economy is largely government-based, and that publications heavily rely on ad revenue from state-owned companies, CPJ said that Ahmadinejad’s administration urged government institutions to withhold advertising from critical publications.

The Aftab Yazd daily said it faced a 60 percent drop in state subsidies after it was identified in a 2007 government report as a leading government critic, the survey reports.

The CPJ, a nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, reports that more than 30 Iranian journalists were investigated or jailed during 2008. Many of those were denied basic rights in prisons or subject to secret trials without access to defense attorneys, the group claims.

Those imprisoned included Mohammad Seddiq Kaboudvand, the head of the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan, and Mojtaba Lotfi, a blogger who was sentenced to four years in prison in November on anti-state charges, CPJ reports.

In addition, Iranian authorities continued to crack down on Kurdish, Azeri and Arabic-language publications, along with journalists who tried to cover the government’s treatment of ethnic minorities, the report said.

"Journalists defending women’s rights faced a particularly strong backlash from the government," CPJ reports, adding that at least seven women’s rights writers were summoned to court during 2008.

In anticipation of the June 2009 presidential election, the Iranian government is also stepping up its Internet censorship, the press freedom group reports.

"The government issued regular bulletins to Internet service providers, identifying critical news, politics, women’s rights, and human rights sites to block," the survey said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:02 AM

Washington Post

Living With A Nuclear North Korea
By Selig S. Harrison
Tuesday, February 17, 2009; Page A13

Will North Korea ever give up its nuclear weapons?

To test its intentions, I submitted a detailed proposal to Foreign Ministry nuclear negotiator Li Gun for a "grand bargain" in advance of a visit to Pyongyang last month. North Korea, I suggested, would surrender to the International Atomic Energy Agency the 68 pounds of plutonium it has already declared in denuclearization negotiations. In return, the United States would conclude a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, normalize diplomatic and economic relations, put food and energy aid on a long-term basis, and support large-scale multilateral credits for rehabilitation of North Korea's economic infrastructure.

The North's rebuff was categorical and explicit. Its declared plutonium has "already been weaponized," I was told repeatedly during 10 hours of discussions. Pyongyang is ready to rule out the development of additional nuclear weapons in future negotiations, but when, and whether, it will give up its existing arsenal depends on how relations with Washington evolve.

Sixty-eight pounds of plutonium is enough to make four or five nuclear weapons, depending on the grade of plutonium, the specific weapons design and the desired explosive yield. Li Gun would not define "weaponized," despite repeated questions, but Gen. Ri Chan Bok, a spokesman of the National Defense Commission, implied that it refers to the development of missile warheads.

Faced with this new hard line, the United States should choose between two approaches, benign neglect and limiting the North's arsenal to four or five weapons.

Benign neglect would mean a suspension of ongoing efforts to denuclearize North Korea by providing economic incentives and moving toward normalized relations. But it would also mean avoiding the hostile policies initially pursued by the Bush administration with their implicit goal of "regime change."

The strongest argument for this approach is that the United States has nothing to fear from a nuclear North Korea. Pyongyang developed nuclear weapons for defensive reasons, to counter a feared U.S. preemptive strike, and U.S. nuclear capabilities in the Pacific will deter any potential nuclear threat from the North.

The purpose of this strategy would be to end the present bargaining relationship in which Pyongyang uses its nuclear program to extract U.S. concessions. It would be risky, though, because Pyongyang could well react with provocative moves to make sure that it is not neglected.

Under the second approach, the six-party denuclearization negotiations would be continued with the goal of limiting North Korean nuclear weapons to the four or five warheads so far acknowledged. This would require, first, U.S.-orchestrated arrangements to provide the 200,000 tons of heavy fuel oil that have been promised but not yet delivered to North Korea in return for its disabling the Yongbyon plutonium reactor, and, second, negotiating the terms for dismantling the reactor so that additional plutonium cannot be reprocessed.

The terms outlined to me in Pyongyang for dismantling the reactor are much tougher than those hitherto presented: completing the two light-water reactors started during the Clinton administration and conducting the broadened verification process envisaged by the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea in a statement last July. This could require inspections of U.S. bases in South Korea to verify that the United States has removed its nuclear weapons, as announced in 1991, in parallel with inspections of North Korean nonmilitary nuclear installations. The inspections in North Korea would include taking samples at suspected nuclear waste sites, a key U.S. demand, but the "weaponized" plutonium would not be open to inspection.

While in Pyongyang, I found evidence that the hard-line shift in the North's posture is directly related to Kim Jong Il's health. Informed sources told me that Kim had suffered a stroke in August. While still making "key decisions," he has turned over day-to-day authority in domestic affairs to his brother-in-law, Chang Song Taek, and effective control over national security affairs to the National Defense Commission. I was not permitted to see several key Foreign Ministry officials identified with flexible approaches to the denuclearization negotiations whom I have regularly seen in previous trips.

The bottom line is that there is a continuing policy struggle in Pyongyang between the hard-liners in the National Defense Commission and pragmatists who want normalization with the United States. Continued U.S. engagement with North Korea leading progressively to economic and political normalization would strengthen the pragmatists.

If the United States can deal with major nuclear weapons states such as China and Russia, it can tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea that may or may not actually have the weapons arsenal it claims. Just in case Pyongyang has, in fact, learned to miniaturize nuclear warheads sufficiently to make long-range missiles, the Obama administration should couple a resumption of denuclearization negotiations with a revival of the promising missile limitation negotiations that the Clinton administration was about to conclude when it left office. "If we can have nuclear negotiations," said negotiator Li Gun, "why not missile negotiations?"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:13 AM

Clinton warns against N. Korean missile launch


Story Highlights
Clinton: Missile launch "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward"

U.S. officials say evidence shows N. Korea preparing long-range missile launch

North Korean officials dispute claim, saying state preparing to launch a satellite

Hillary Clinton bypassing Europe, heading for Asia, on first trip as secretary of state


From Jill Dougherty
CNN
   
TOKYO, Japan (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her strongest comments yet about North Korea Tuesday during her tour of Asia.

Speaking at a news conference with Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, the U.S. secretary warned that a possible North Korean missile launch "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward." Clinton said the U.S. is "watching very closely" actions by North Korea.

U.S. officials recently said they obtained evidence that North Korea was gearing up for a launch of a long-range missile.

North Korean officials disputed the claim, saying in the country's official news agency that North Korea was preparing to launch a satellite.

Clinton also said Tuesday that there is a possibility that the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea could improve if North Korea abides by the obligations that it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program.

If that happens, there is "a chance to normalize relations, to enter into a peace treaty rather than an armistice and to expect assistance for the people of North Korea," she said.

Clinton left for Asia Sunday on her first overseas trip as secretary of state and is slated to also travel to China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing global warning. Watch what issues Clinton will focus on during her tour »

Her trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state in a new administration is to Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:14 AM

N. Korea preps for satellite launch amid 'space development' claim

Story Highlights
U.S. satellite captured images of launch preparations, senior official said

North Korea's explanation cryptic: "One will come to know later what will be launched"

Country's right to "space development" rejected by South Korea

   
(CNN) -- Denying recent intelligence suggesting it is preparing to test a long-range missile, North Korea signaled Monday it is gearing up to launch a satellite, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

A senior U.S. official told CNN last week that an American spy satellite had snapped an image of preparations at a North Korean site previously used to launch Taepodong-2 missiles.

The photograph shows North Korea assembling telemetry equipment involving sophisticated electronics used to monitor missile launches, the official said, adding there was no direct evidence that a missile was being moved to the launch pad.

North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Monday it will go ahead with its "space development" program, Yonhap said, adding that the report is a possible message to Washington ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Seoul, South Korea, this week. Watch Hillary Clinton board her flight to Asia »

"One will come to know later what will be launched in the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]," KCNA said, according to Yonhap, but it denied a missile test is planned. "Space development is the independent right of the DPRK and the requirement of the developing reality," KCNA said, calling outside reports a "vicious trick" aimed at stopping the nation's sovereign activity, Yonhap reported.

The reclusive North Korean regime made a similar claim after launching a rocket in 1998, saying it succeeded in putting a satellite into orbit, Yonhap said.

U.S. intelligence officials initially said after the August 1998 test that North Korea launched a two-stage Taepodong-1 missile, but later said it was a three-stage missile, and the third stage broke up in an unsuccessful attempt to put a small satellite into orbit.

South Korea rejected the North Korean claim that it has a right to space development, with Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan saying at a parliamentary session, "Whether it is a missile or a satellite, [a launch] would constitute a violation of the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1718," Yonhap reported Monday.

That resolution, adopted in October 2006, imposed sanctions against North Korea -- and demanded it stop nuclear activity and missile testing -- after it launched a Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missile. The missile failed 40 seconds after launch, but the Taepodong-2 is believed to have an intended range of about 2,500 miles (about 4,025 kilometers), making it capable of striking Alaska.

Asked about the matter last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates would only say, "Well, since the first time that they launched the missile it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen. So far, it's very short. I'm not going to get into intelligence reports, but it would be nice if North Korea would focus on getting positive messages across ... to its negotiating partners about verification and moving forward with the denuclearization."

North Korea has been involved on and off in what is known as the six-party talks with the United States, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.

Clinton left for Asia on Sunday on her first overseas trip as secretary of state, and is scheduled to travel to Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing global warning. Her trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state of a new administration is to Europe.

Speaking at the New York-based Asia Society before her departure, Clinton called North Korea's nuclear program "the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia."

She said the Obama administration is prepared to seek a permanent, stable peace with Pyongyang so long as its regime pursues disarmament and does not engage in aggression against South Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,MV
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:39 AM

I think there's going to be more war in the middle east coming up so Iran. A likely cause would be some kind of attack on Israel either genuine or set up by the powers that be.

MV

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:15 PM

Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: February 19 2009 21:18 | Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.


They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

"It's sure certain that if they didn't have it [enough] when the IAEA took these measurements, they will have it in a matter of weeks," Mr Zimmerman said.

Iran's success in reaching such a "breakout capacity" – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a "red line" that for years Israel has said it would not accept.

UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site.

No such sites have been proved to exist, although for decades Iran concealed evidence of its nuclear programme.

A senior UN official added that countries usually waited until they had an enriched uranium stockpile sufficient for several bombs before proceeding to develop fissile material. He conceded that Iran now had enough enriched uranium for one bomb.

"Do they have enough low enriched uranium to produce a significant quantity [enough high enriched uranium for a bomb]?" he said. "In theory this is possible, [although] with the present configuration at Natanz it isn't."

David Albright, the head of the Institute for Science and International Security, said: "If Iran did decide to build nuclear weapons, it's entering an era in which it could do so quickly."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:40 PM

By Mark Heinrich
Mon Sep 15, 8:12 AM ET

VIENNA (Reuters) - ....But Iran seemed some way from refining enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon, if it chose, the report indicated.

Iran had stockpiled 480 kg (1,050 pounds) of low-enriched uranium so far. It would need 15,000 kg (33,000) to convert into high-enriched uranium for fuelling an atom bomb, said U.N. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"That would be a significant quantity, one unit of HEU, and would take on the order of two years," said one official.

In its last report in May, the IAEA said Iran appeared to be withholding information needed to explain intelligence that it had linked projects to process uranium, test high explosives and modify a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead. "

..................................................................


FIVE months 4 days later....


Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: February 19 2009 21:18 | Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.


They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

"It's sure certain that if they didn't have it [enough] when the IAEA took these measurements, they will have it in a matter of weeks," Mr Zimmerman said.

Iran's success in reaching such a "breakout capacity" – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a "red line" that for years Israel has said it would not accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 04:25 PM

updated 8:05 a.m. EST, Fri February 20, 2009

   Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say

Story Highlights
ISIS report says Iran has enough uranium for nuclear weapon

Uranium would need further refinement before turning into weapon

Iran says claims it intends to build nuclear bombs are "baseless"

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iranian scientists have reached "nuclear weapons breakout capability," according to a new report based on findings of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.

The Institute for Science and International Security report concludes Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon.

The type of uranium the International Atomic Energy Agency report says Iran has would have to be further enriched to make it weapons-grade.

The institute drew its conclusions from an IAEA report dated February 19, 2009. An official in the IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the report for CNN, but didn't want to be named.

The IAEA report is posted on the Web site of ISIS, a Washington-based non-profit and non-partisan institution focused on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

It also finds that while Iran has dramatically increased installation of centrifuges that can be used for enriching uranium -- from 4,000 to 5,400 -- its scientists aren't using the new units yet. They remain in "research and development mode."

In the IAEA report, the agency also says no substantive progress has been made in resolving issues about possible "military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program.

Iran has consistently denied the weapons allegations, calling them "baseless" and "fabricated."

Iran says its nuclear program is necessary to provide civilian energy for the country, but other countries have voiced concern that its true purpose is to produce nuclear weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM

http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/02/whoohoo-atoms-of-fissionable-material-everywhere.html


"As I put the tea water on to boil and turned on the tv this morning, I was assaulted by the claim that seems to be everywhere. Maybe you've seen it in the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or heard the same CBS report that I did, or even read it on Kevin Drum.

It's a lie.

Much as I hate to do so, because psychology tells us that repetition will help to fix the erroneous message in our minds, I will quote the most egregious statement of this "news."

     Iran has enriched sufficient uranium to amass a nuclear bomb - a
     third more than previously thought - the United Nations announced yesterday.

Ah yes. And if you live in Boulder, Colorado, or in Connecticut, or New York City, you have enough U-235 under your house (or perhaps block) to amass a nuclear bomb! Or, Kevin, all that sea water lapping up against the California coast has uranium in it too! I have a call in to the IAEA to inspect your homes!

The issue here is concentration. Mining uranium concentrates it from the ore. Purification and conversion to UF6 concentrates it further. The purpose of the enrichment centrifuges is to concentrate the fissionable U-235.

Concentration is not that hard to understand, but in our science-challenged society (yes, we all hated chemistry, where it was discussed in the first week), it seems not to be a consideration. See also this post from earlier this week.

The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence (Download Iran 0902) that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.

It would take a reconfiguration of the Natanz facility that the inspectors would notice to produce bomb-grade uranium (concentration of U-235 of 90%). The inspectors also take environmental samples to verify the concentration of U-235. They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this.

There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM

Seoul: N. Korean missile can hit U.S. bases

Story Highlights
New missiles can travel about 3,000 kilometers

Weapons could reach Alaska or U.S. bases on Guam

Tensions on Korean peninsula running high

   
SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- Stalinist North Korea deployed new medium-range ballistic missiles and expanded special forces training during 2008, South Korea's defense ministry reported.

The missiles can travel about 3,000 kilometers (1,900 miles), possibly putting U.S. military bases in the Pacific Ocean territory of Guam within striking distance, the Ministry of National Defense said in its 2008 Defense White Paper, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Monday.

The paper, published after weeks of delay, calls the North's 1.2 million-strong military an "immediate and grave threat," according to Yonhap.

The report adds that the North has recently bolstered its naval forces, reinforcing submarines and developing new torpedoes, in addition to increasing its special forces training after reviewing U.S. military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tension between Pyongyang and Seoul has increased in recent weeks, with North Korea announcing it would scrap peace agreements with the South, warning of a war on the Korean peninsula and threatening to test a missile capable of hitting the western United States.

U.S. and South Korean officials have said that North Korea appears to be preparing to test-fire its long-range missile, the Taepodong-2. Pyongyang tested one of the missiles in 2006, but it failed 40 seconds after launch.

The missile is thought to have an intended range of about 4,200 miles (6,700 kilometers), which if true, could give it the capability of striking Alaska or Hawaii.

North Korea has been involved in what is known as the six-party talks with the United States, Japan, Russia, South Korea and China, which is an effort to end the nation's nuclear program, which the U.S. says is linked to nuclear weapons.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who returned from Asia on Sunday after her first overseas trip in the post, recently called North Korea's nuclear program "the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM

"They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this."

Which they have been, in the past, and can be in the future.


But what happened to " They can't get the material for at least five years, so we can take our time talking with them?

If the UN was wrong before, why should we think them right in the future? Are you willing to accept a nuclear explosion that will kill all the Palestinians ( as well as Israelis and most Lebanese) as inevitable?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:34 PM

No, I definitely don't consider it inevitable. Or even remotely likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM

And I think the mention of the Palestinians is a key point. While some people like to accuse those who don't see Iran as a threat of not caring about Israel, that makes no sense in the context of a discussion with someone who cares about the Palestinians (leaving aside the wrongheadedness of accusing such people of not caring about Israel, or at least Israelis).

I think it should be obvious that I wouldn't want the Palestinians (or Israelis) to be the target of a nuclear weapon. But Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They have no reason to want to do so. It would not accomplish any of their goals, and it would totally destroy their own country.

Israel, on the other hand, does have reasons for wanting to destroy Iran as a country that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with regional hegemony.

Which is why it is patently obvious to me that the kind of incessant beating of the war drums to incite people to want the US or Israel to attack Iran that we see in the articles being posted here in this thread also has nothing whatever to do with anyone's own self-defense, and is entirely motivated by hegemonic ambitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:51 PM

"But Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They have no reason to want to do so. It would not accomplish any of their goals, and it would totally destroy their own country.

Israel, on the other hand, does have reasons for wanting to destroy Iran as a country that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with regional hegemony"



I will consider this to be your unsupported opinion, and let the facts speak for reality.

Iran has declared it wants Israel destroyed.
Israel has declared that it wants the UN to hold Iran to the NPT that Iran signed, and benefited from.

What part of "Death to Jews!" do you not understand????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:06 PM

Iran hasn't said it wants Israel destroyed. Their president said he expects the political entity that Iranians consider to be an aggressive apartheid regime to be dismantled at some point in the future. There is a big difference between these two things. Keep in mind that the term "Israel" for many people in that region doesn't have anything to do with the landmass that Israel is sitting on, or even the general population of that country, but refers specifically to the regime that holds power there. To the Iranians, that regime is what they would term the Zionist regime. They want that regime to go away. They don't, however, want the people of Israel to be killed.

In Iran they say "death to" anything they don't like. Including traffic. It's a common expression there that really has nothing whatever to do with an intention to actually kill anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:12 PM

And there is no evidence that Iran is not complying with the NPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM

"They don't, however, want the people of Israel to be killed.

In Iran they say "death to" anything they don't like. Including traffic. It's a common expression there that really has nothing whatever to do with an intention to actually kill anyone."



Right. Hitler said what he meant, too, and people like you said he didn't mean it....

Tell me about the Baha'i that have been killed , tortured, or imprisoned. How many Jews are in Iran, compared to under the Shah? What rights do they have?

Now look at Israel- How many Arab Moslims are living there? Compare to Jordan, the PALESTINIAN ARAB MOSLIM HOMELAND.

WHen will the Arab Moslims leave the Jewish Homeland and go back to their own, as defined in the LAST INTERNATIOANALLY ACCEPTED borders???


When the Palestinians accept the last set of internationally accepted borders (1923), and move out of the West Bank into Jordan ( the Arab Moslim Homeland), there will be peace in the region.

Any violence in Palestine until then is due entirely to the refusal of the Palestinian Moslims to abide by those borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:18 PM

"And there is no evidence that Iran is not complying with the NPT. "



BULLSHIT!!!!!

Just the statements of the UN, the statements of Iran, and the facts of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

Let's look at what the Iranian government would gain if it tried to nuke Israel....






...nothing. It would gain nothing. It would be destroyed and it would accomplish nothing else. There are many things Iran would probably like to do... becoming a major power in the Middle East is probably one of them. But destroying themselves for nothing doesn't accomplish anything they want.

They also feel quite confident that the regime in Israel will be dismantled without any help from them, so they don't really see any need to do anything to remove the regime themselves (thereby destroying themselves in the process).

Hitler only said he was going to kill those he actually intended to kill. Since the Iranians say death to things they clearly have no intention of killing (anything that pisses them off), it is pretty obvious that their use of that term is not similar in any way to Hitler's statement of his intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM

"Let's look at what the Iranian government would gain if it tried to nuke Israel....


...nothing. It would gain nothing. It would be destroyed and it would accomplish nothing else. There are many things Iran would probably like to do... becoming a major power in the Middle East is probably one of them. But destroying themselves for nothing doesn't accomplish anything they want."


And please tell me how the exact SAME thing does not apply to Israel??? BY THESE standards, ISRAEL , which would gain nothing and be destroyed, CANNOT be trying to destroy Iran.

Unless you keep applying a different set of rules to Jews than you do to the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:22 PM

The difference is that Israel would not be destroyed if it attacked Iran. Israel could attack Iran and accomplish its stated goals of regional hegemony without being destroyed itself. Iran could not attack Israel without being destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:38 PM

No. CarolC. If Israel uses nuclear weapons OTHER THAN IN SELF DEFENSE after being attacked by them, that would be the end of the Jewish people.


ANY nation that initiates nuclear warfare will cease to exist. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960's- WHY do you think they did NOT use them in 1974 ( when the Syrian attack ALMOST succeeded?)?

But IMHO Iran does not believe that they will be destroyed, and WILL use nuclear weapons, either directly or by their Hamas or Hezboallah proxies. Your comments do not provide any reason that they would not.- As for "deterence", the countries that are SAFE from nuclear attack are those that DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:41 PM

I do not believe Israel has the destruction of any nation or genus in its agenda.

I actually do not believe any nation really does, despite the "Death to____" rhetoric that occasionally popos up from the fanatic quarters.

Rhetoric like that is too bizarre and other-worldly to take seriously unless and until some sort of evidence of active pursuit materializes, IMHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM

No, Israel would successfully persuade the Western countries that they had to do it pre-emptively because of an existential threat (as they are trying to do now) and the Western countries wouldn't do a thing in response. No non-Western country would do anything in response either, because the US wouldn't allow them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

One question, for all those who talk about nuclear weapons and so and so nuking whoever.

Israel's nuclear programme started in 1958, a good 10 years before the Nuclear NPT was proposed by Ireland at the UN. At that time the established "nuclear" powers, i.e. those who already had nuclear weapons conducted atmospheric tests.

Of the countries that were not signatories of the Nuclear NPT first India developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so it knows it has a bomb that works.

This was followed by Pakistan who developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so Pakistan also knows it has a bomb that works.

Next one down the line was North Korea who withdrew from the nuclear NPT having ignored its terms and conditions and developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so we can assume that North Korea knows it has a bomb that works.

My question to all those who talk about Israel's nuclear arsenal and what they are longing to do with it - When did Israel conduct its test of its nuclear weapon?? Its something that you cannot do in secret and in the 60's and 70's it couldn't be done just by modelling it - So when did Israel conduct the testing of its nuclear weapon??

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:22 PM

Most likely in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979, jointly with South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:59 PM

NKorea says it is preparing satellite launch
         
Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 19 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea said Tuesday it is in full-fledged preparations to shoot a satellite into orbit, its clearest reference yet to an impending launch, which neighbors and the U.S. believe will be an illicit test of a long-range missile.

The statement from the North's space technology agency came amid international concern the communist nation is gearing up to fire its most advanced Taepodong-2 missile, which would violate a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Last week, the country said it has the right to "space development." North Korea has in the past used terms like "space development" or "satellite" to disguise a missile test. When it test-fired a Taepodong-1 ballistic missile over Japan in 1998, it claimed to have put a satellite into orbit.

"Full-fledged preparations are under way to launch the pilot communications satellite Kwangmyongsong No. 2" at the launch site in Hwadae in the country's northeast, the North's agency said in a statement, carried by Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency.

Hwadae is widely believed to be the launch site for the North's longest-range Taepodong-2 missile, which is believed capable of reaching Alaska. Media reports have suggested the missile being readied for launch could be an advanced version of the Taepodong-2 that could reach even farther, to the U.S. west coast.

South Korea, Japan and the United States have warned Pyongyang not to fire a missile, saying the move would trigger international sanctions and jeopardize Washington's willingness to improve relations with the communist nation.

North Korea is banned from any ballistic missile activity under a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted after the North's first-ever nuclear test in 2006.

North Korea's missile program is a major security concern for the region, along with its nuclear weapons development.

The country test-launched a Taepodong-2 missile in 2006, but it plunged into the ocean shortly after liftoff.

That test alarmed the world and gave new energy to the stop-and-go diplomacy over North Korea's nuclear program, though the North is not yet believed to have mastered the miniaturization technology required to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:05 AM

http://rabbibrant.com/2009/02/23/the-jews-of-iran-beyond-the-rhetoric/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:21 AM

Ah the "Vela" incident an unidentified double flash of light detected by a United States Vela satellite on September 22, 1979.

Discounted after extensive investigation for the following reasons:

- Although a double flash was detected there was a discrepancy in bhangmeter readings.

- The satellite was old and two years past it's "sell-by-date" its EMP sensors were no longer functioning.

- United States Air Force WC-135B aircraft flew 25 sorties in the area soon after, but failed to detect any sign of radiation.

- There was no corroborating seismic or hydro-acoustic data.

- A special panel was convened to examine the data recorded by the satellite. The panel's report stated "Based on our experience in related scientific assessments," it was their collective judgement that the signal was spurious.

- The "explosion" (Flash) was picked up by only one of the two Vela satellites which seems to support the panel's assertion. The Vela satellites had previously detected 41 atmospheric tests, each of which was subsequently confirmed by other means. The absence of corroboration of a nuclear origin for the Vela Incident also suggests that the signal was spurious.

- Since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has disclosed most of the information on its nuclear weapons program, and according to the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency report, South Africa could not have constructed such a device until November 1979, two months after the incident.

- The IAEA reported that all South African nuclear devices had been accounted for when it monitored South Africa's abandonment of it's nuclear programme.

- In February 1994 Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, a convicted Soviet spy and commander of South Africa's Simon's Town naval base at the time, talked about the incident upon his release from prison. He said:

"Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test, code-named Operation Phenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up."

He subsequently admitted that no South African naval vessels had been involved, and that he had no first hand knowledge of a test.

- On April 20, 1997, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, quoted South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad as confirming that the flash over the Indian Ocean was indeed from a South African nuclear test. Soon afterwards Pahad reported that he had been misquoted and that he was merely repeating the rumours that had been circulating for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:56 AM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke-test.htm

"In addition to detection satellites, the United States maintains a global network for detecting other atomic explosion phenomena, including sound waves, seismic shock waves traveling through Earth, and hydroacoustic pulses traversing Earth's oceans. Of these, the best data were from the hydroacoustic signals collected on devices called hydrophones. The hydrophone data indicated signals both from a direct path and from a reflection of the Antarctic's Scotia Ridge. Analyses of these signals conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory confirmed that they had been generated at a time and location consistent with the Vela 6911 detection and that their intensity was consistent with a small nuclear explosion on, or slightly under, the ocean's surface.

More evidence came from a Los Alamos researcher using a radio telescope for an unrelated project in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, detected a traveling ionospheric disturbance - a ripple in Earth's upper atmosphere - moving south to north during the early morning hours of September 22, 1979, something researchers had never before witnessed.

But such evidence was discounted by the White House panel.

In 1979, this analysis had been vigorously challenged by the Carter administration. The challenge was driven by a general mistrust in aging satellites and an unwillingness to accept the efficacy of other evidence. Instead, the Carter administration assembled a panel of scientists from academia to review the data. After their review, the panel concluded that, lacking independent collaborative data to support a nuclear origin of the signals, the original interpretation of the satellite data could not be justified. The panel said the flash could have been caused by a combination of natural events, specifically a micrometeorite impact on the detector sunshade, followed by small particles ejected as a result of the impact.

But Los Alamos scientists were not dissuaded. "The whole federal laboratory community came to the conclusion that the data indicated a bomb," Los Alamos scientist Dave Simons said. "But in the administration's view, because the evidence was weak, they took exception to the information and our analysis. ... It was unsettling because we were quite thoroughly convinced of our interpretation," Simons said.

Los Alamos scientists remained convinced that the flash was a nuclear detonation and invested substantial effort in analyzing the signal. Subsequently, Los Alamos researchers published an unclassified paper describing the characteristics of optical signals caused by nuclear explosions.

In February 1980, CBS News was the first to suggest that Israel helped South Africa conduct a nuclear test. CBS received information from "informed sources," but until now, no South African government official was willing to lend the report any credibility.

In 1981 TIROS-N plasma data and related geophysical data measured on 22 September 1979 were analyzed by Los Alamos to determine whether the electron precipitation event detected by TIROS-N at 00:54:49 universal time could have been related to a surface nuclear burst (SNB). The occurrence of such a burst was inferred from light signals detected by two Vela bhangmeters approx. 2 min before the TIROS-N event. The precipitation was found to be unusually large but not unique. It probably resulted from passage of TIROS-N through The precipitating electrons above a pre-existing auroral arc that may have brightened to an unusually high intensity from natural causes approx. 3 min before the Vela signals. On the other hand, no data were found that were inconsistent with the SNB interpretation of the 22 September Vela observations. In fact, a patch of auroral light that suddenly appeared in the sky near Syowa Base, Antarctica a few seconds after the Vela event can be interpreted (though not uniquely) as a consequence of the electromagnetic pulse of an SNB.

In an 20 April 1997 article that appeared in the Israeli Ha'aretz Daily Newspaper, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad confirmed for the first time that a flare over the Indian Ocean detected by an American satellite in September 1979 was from a nuclear test. This statement was confirmed by the American Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, as an accurate account of what Pahad officially acknowledged. The article said that Israel helped South Africa develop its bomb designs in return for 550 tons of raw uranium and other assistance.

With Pahad's revelation, Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists said this controversy can at last reach closure. Original analyses conducted by Los Alamos scientists and others in the US intelligence community said the flash could only be from a nuclear test. Now, their studies had been vindicated."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:20 AM

What were the Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists and others in the US intelligence community reaction to Aziz Pahad's statement that he had been misquoted?

I would also have thought that to conduct a nuclear test you would need some nuclear material. South Africa's stocks were all accounted for and assessments state that they couldn't have conducted such a test until two months after the Vela "Flash" reports. That leaves us with the possibility that if indeed the satellite did detect a nuclear test it was a small Israeli nuke that was tested, using Israeli material to a South African design?? That would also explain why no South African naval vessels were used and confirms that Commodore Dieter Gerhardt hadn't a clue about the test that he stated happened.

Likely? No, it could not have been conducted without extensive monitoring facilities being put in place. Deep in the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean, Israel just simply does not have the logistics to mount such an operation. It would have required the assistance of the South African Navy and there would have been some record of that.

Israel goes nuclear in 1958 and waits until 1979 to conduct a test?? Why?? It would have served Israel's interests to have conducted a "secret" test in a drilled shaft in the Negev in the 1960's - That would have stopped Nasser in his tracks pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:02 PM

CarolC,

Let us suppose you are correct:

"
- Since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has disclosed most of the information on its nuclear weapons program, and according to the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency report, South Africa could not have constructed such a device until November 1979, two months after the incident.

- The IAEA reported that all South African nuclear devices had been accounted for when it monitored South Africa's abandonment of it's nuclear programme."



This is proof that the IAEA is wrong in regards to that test- So how can we trust that they are wrong OR right in regards to Iran having fissionable material? Your arguement rests upon the assumption that the IAEA cannot be depended upon for accurate information.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:27 PM

CarolC,


"- United States Air Force WC-135B aircraft flew 25 sorties in the area soon after, but failed to detect any sign of radiation"


So the Israelis have a nuclear weapon that does not leave any residual radiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:19 PM

I don't see why we need to know exactly when and where Israel conducted its test(s) (at least those of us here in this thread), or even why Israel would have needed to conduct a test of its own. We know Israel has them. I expect that the question of whether or not Israel conducted tests is a bit of a diversionary tactic anyway. Israel was getting a lot of help from nuclear armed countries in the development of their weapons, so it's entirely possible that they could produce working nuclear weapons without ever having to conduct a test of their own (the tests having been done by the countries that developed the weapons that Israel was producing).


Israel's nuclear submarines


Some background...

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/593/5545.php


Sale of heavy water to Israel by the UK...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4743987.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:37 PM

"In December 1960, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion told the Israeli parliament that a nuclear reactor was under construction, but he said it was exclusively for peaceful purposes.

It was the first and last time that an Israeli prime minister made a public statement about Dimona, according to "Israel and the Bomb," an authoritative book by Avner Cohen, an Israeli American scholar.

Soon after taking office in 1961, President Kennedy pressured Israel to allow an inspection. Ben Gurion agreed, and an American team visited the installation that May.

A post-visit U.S. memo said the scientists were "satisfied that nothing was concealed from them and that the reactor is of the scope and peaceful character previously described to the United States."
"

And this is as much PROOF of Israel's peaceful use of nuclear material as Iran's claims that it's ( illegal) programs are for peaceful purposes. IF you claim Israel has nuclear weapons, you are saying that Iran could also be developing them, contrary to their previous claims.

Or do you still apply different standards to Jews than you do to others???

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:53 PM

That information is rather dated. They know now (because Mordechai Vanunu produced pictures of it) that the inspectors were only allowed to view the above ground part of the facility, and that the important activity took place underground. The entrances to the underground areas were concealed from the inspectors.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:55 PM

And only those tricky Jews can do that?

As I said, it has the SAME validity as your cliams of Iranian PEACEFUL nuclear programs.


Nor MORE, OR LESS.

So what do you want to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:02 PM

Well, we didn't sanction Israel for doing that, so it would be a double standard for us to sanction Iran for doing that.

Despite someone's repeated assertion of a double standard penalizing Jews, I would say that there is definitely a double standard that is being applied, and that it advantages Jews (Israel in particular) and disadvantages those who are not Jews or Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:05 PM

"Well, we didn't sanction Israel for doing that, so it would be a double standard for us to sanction Iran for doing that."

Israel IS NOT A SIGNATORY TO THE NPT.

The Iranian violation of the NPT is the reason for the sactions.

Isreael HAS NOT VIOLATED THE NPT.

And it is not "We", but the UN that is sanctioning Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM

There are many countries who are signatories to the NPT that have nuclear weapons.


To the extent that Israel complains about Iran having nuclear weapons, it is applying a double standard as well. Because it has no business complaining about countries that have signed an agreement that it refuses to sign itself.

I should modify what I said in my last post. To the extent that Jews are in agreement with Israeli policies, they are advantaged by the double standard. Those Jews who are not in agreement with Israel's policies are disadvantaged by the double standard along with everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:23 PM

Also, because Israel refuses to acknowledge its nuclear weapons, it does not get pressured by countries like the US to sign on to the NPT, unlike the other nuclear countries that are not currently signatories. But the US knows that Israel has nuclear weapons and it doesn't openly acknowledge this and use that acknowledgment as a basis for pressuring Israel to sign the NPT and so the US is therefore practicing a double standard in that way as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:26 PM

Many???


5, the ones that HAD them WHEN they signed.

Have you ever even looked at the NPT, and tried to understand what it said?

It appears that you do not understand the NPT in the least.

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council).

Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and possess nuclear weapons. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. The signing parties decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions upon meeting in New York City on May 11, 1995. The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.[1]"

"First pillar: non-proliferation
Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968) (The U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970). These five nations are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[4]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM

BRuce:

Do you think Israel should subscribe to the Non-Proliferation Treaty? I can see why it would think it a bad idea, seeing itself as surrounded by fundamentally hostile nations.

But this raises another question. What do you believe are the root causes between Israel and the Arab nations for the recurring hostility in the region over the last sixty years or so?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:29 PM

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.

The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "Achilles' heel" of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.[11] Because the availability of fissile material has long been considered the principal obstacle to, and "pacing element" for, a country's nuclear weapons development effort, it was declared a major emphasis of U.S. policy in 2004 to prevent the further spread of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (a.k.a. "ENR") technology. [12] Countries possessing ENR capabilities, it is feared, have what is in effect the option of using this capability to produce fissile material for weapons use on demand, thus giving them what has been termed a "virtual" nuclear weapons program. The degree to which NPT members have a "right" to ENR technology notwithstanding its potentially grave proliferation implications, therefore, is at the cutting edge of policy and legal debates surrounding the meaning of Article IV and its relation to Articles I, II, and III of the Treaty.

Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; North Korea never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations,[13] and later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device; Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time" to report aspects of its enrichment program;[14][15] and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. In 1991 Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA reported this non-compliance to the Security Council for information only. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.

Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons.[16

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

The failure of the Arab nations to acknowledge the right for Israel to exist in 1948.


Since the Arab nations did NOT agree to the borders of the 1948 partition, the LAST set of Internationally recognized borders are the 1923 ones, between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine.

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:49 PM

CarolC,

non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS)


NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). VIOLATED BY IRAN

NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III). VIOLATED BY IRAN

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

Note it is the responsiibility of the signatory state to "demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons."

FAILURE to demonstrate this is reason for the sanctions against Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:08 PM

Well, France certainly violated its commitment to the NPT in assisting Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. While Iran says it is not trying to produce a nuclear weapon. It says, quite rightly, that the NPT gives Iran the right to develop nuclear technology for the purpose of producing energy, and it is entitled to enrich uranium for this purpose. The concentration levels that they are able to achieve with their centrifuges is proof that they are not capable of producing weapons grade uranium. Iran is the only NPT country whose right to nuclear energy is being challenged, while France has not been sanctioned for its violation of the NPT. More of the double standard at work.