BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM

N Korea seeks $75 trillion in compensation
Updated Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:43am AEST

Cash-strapped North Korea has demanded the United States pay almost $US65 trillion ($75 trillion) in compensation for six decades of hostility.

The official North Korean news agency, KCNA, says the cost of the damage done by the US since the peninsula was divided in 1945 is estimated at $US64.96 trillion.

The compensation call comes on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the start of the 1950-1953 Korean War.

KCNA said the figure includes $US26.1 trillion arising from US "atrocities" which left more than 5 million North Koreans dead, wounded, kidnapped or missing.

The agency also claims 60 years of US sanctions have caused a loss of $US13.7 trillion by 2005, while property losses were estimated at $US16.7 trillion.

The agency said North Koreans have "the justifiable right" to receive the compensation for their blood.

It said the committee's calculation did not include the damage North Korea had suffered from sanctions after its first nuclear test in 2006.

- AFP

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:53 AM

Abnormal radiation detected near Korean border
         
Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 27 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – Abnormally high radiation levels were detected near the border between the two Koreas days after North Korea claimed to have mastered a complex technology key to manufacturing a hydrogen bomb, Seoul said Monday.

The Science Ministry said its investigation ruled out a nuclear test by North Korea, but failed to determine the source of the radiation. It said there was no evidence of an earthquake, which follows an atomic explosion.

On May 12, North Korea claimed its scientists succeeded in creating a nuclear fusion reaction — a technology necessary to manufacture a hydrogen bomb. In its announcement, the North did not say how it would use the technology, only calling it a "breakthrough toward the development of new energy."

South Korean experts doubted the North actually made such a breakthrough. Scientists around the world have been experimenting with fusion for decades, but it has yet to be developed into a viable energy alternative.

On May 15, however, the atmospheric concentration of xenon — an inert gas released after a nuclear explosion or radioactive leakage from a nuclear power plant — on the South Korean side of their shared border was found to be eight times higher than normal, according to South Korea's Science Ministry.

South Korea subsequently looked for signs of an artificially induced earthquake of a magnitude typically registered during a nuclear test. Experts, however, found no signs of such a quake in North Korea, a ministry statement said.

"We determined that there was no possibility of an underground nuclear test," it said. The ministry said the gas is not harmful.

While any fusion test would have registered seismic activity, according to nuclear expert Whang Joo-ho of South Korea's Kyung Hee University, the presence of xenon could also have come from a leak.

Since the wind was blowing from north to south when the xenon was detected, a Science Ministry official said the gas could not have originated from any nuclear power plants in South Korea.

But the official — speaking on condition of anonymity, citing department policy — said the xenon could have come from Russia or China. Whang agreed, saying a nuclear test or radioactive leakage would be the only reasons that could explain the atmospheric concentration of xenon reported by the ministry.

A Vienna-based United Nations agency, however, said no signs of increased radioactivity were detected last month along the Korean border.

"We have not registered anything that would raise any suspicion," said Kirsten Haupt, a spokeswoman for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, a U.N. agency that looks for signs of nuclear testing worldwide.

Earlier Monday, South Korea's mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported that North Korea may have conducted a small-sized nuclear test, citing the abnormal radioactivity. The paper cited an atomic expert it did not identify.

North Korea — which is believed to have enough weaponized plutonium for at least a half-dozen nuclear weapons — conducted two underground nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, drawing international condemnation and U.N. sanctions.

The news of the detected radiation comes as tension is running high on the Korean peninsula over the deadly sinking of a South Korean warship blamed on a North Korean torpedo attack. North Korea flatly denies the allegation and has warned any punishment would trigger war, as the U.N. Security Council reviews Seoul's request for action over the sinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:52 AM

Gates rules out idea of 'containing' nuclear-armed Iran
            
FOX News Sun Jun 20, 3:58 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday refused to address the notion of having to contain a nuclear armed Iran, saying US efforts were aimed at preventing it from acquiring atomic weapons.

"I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think... our view still is we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons," he said in an interview with Fox News Sunday.

"And our policies and our efforts are all aimed at preventing that from happening," he said.

Asked whether a military strike against Iran was preferable to it acquiring nuclear weapons, Gates said all options remained on the table but added: "I think we have some time to continue working this problem."

Stepped up economic and diplomatic pressure had "a reasonable chance of getting the Iranian regime finally to come to their senses and realize their security is probably more endangered by going forward," he said.

Gates observed that over the past 18 months support for the regime in Tehran has narrowed, as it has turned toward a military dictatorship in the wake of a disputed presidential election.

"So I think adding economic pressures on top of that, and particularly targeted economic pressures, has real potential," he said.

The UN Security Council slapped a fourth set of sanctions June 10 in an effort to rein in its nuclear program, which the United States and other countries believe is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:48 AM

Iran bans 2 UN nuclear inspectors from entering
            
Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 55 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Tehran said Monday it had banned two U.N. nuclear inspectors from entering the country because they had leaked "false" information about Iran's disputed nuclear program

The ban is the latest twist in Iran's deepening tussle with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its allies warn that Iran's program is geared toward making nuclear weapons.

Tehran denies the charge saying its nuclear activities are only for peaceful purposes like power generation.

The IAEA report in question stated that in January Iran announced it had conducted certain experiments to purify uranium, which could theoretically be used to produce a nuclear warhead. Iran then denied the experiments had taken place a few months later.

When the inspectors in May visited the Jaber Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory in Tehran, where the alleged high temperature pyroprocessing experiments were conducted, they said the equipment involved had been removed.

The Associated Press reported the IAEA's concerns in May, citing unnamed diplomats.

Iran, however, maintained in June there were no experiments related to pyroprocessing and no equipment was removed and has called the IAEA report "false with the purpose of influencing public opinion."

The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi said on state TV that the IAEA had been informed of the decision to ban the inspectors, whom he did not identify.

"We announced names of two inspectors to the agency last week. Those two now have no right to enter Iran anymore," he said. "What they reported was untrue and they revealed it before it was officially reviewed."

Salehi also said Iran would remain loyal to its international commitments to the agency and the IAEA inspectors would still be able to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities.

Since 2006, after Iran's nuclear dossier was reported to the U.N. Security Council, Iran limited its cooperation to only its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The U.N. Security Council slapped a fourth set of sanctions on Iran earlier this month over its nuclear program. The move followed Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process which can be used for the production of fuel for power plants as well as material for warheads if enriched to a higher level.

Vienna, meanwhile, Brazil's foreign minister indicated that his country's active support of Iran in its dispute with the West over its nuclear program was being scaled back after the U.N. Security Council's decision earlier this month for new sanctions.

"We will help whenever we can, but of course there is a limit to where we can go," Celso Amorim told reporters on the sidelines of an official visit to Austria.

"If there is renewed interest then we will be able to assist again, if not then we can only wish best of luck" to Iran and its interlocutors in solving their nuclear dispute, he said.

Brazil and Turkey last month brokered an Iranian nuclear fuel-swap deal in hopes that they would at least delay new U.N. sanctions, but the new penalties were imposed nonetheless.

Under the deal — based on elements of an earlier draft — Iran agreed to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enrich uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would get fuel rods made from 20-percent enriched uranium; that level of enrichment is high enough for use in research reactors but too low for nuclear weapons.

Among concerns by opponents of the deal is that Iran has continued to churn out low-enriched material and plans to continue running a pilot program of enriching to higher levels, near 20 percent — a level from which it would be easier to move on to creating weapons-grade uranium.

The U.S. and its allies argue that the sanctions are in response to Iran's refusal to freeze all enrichment activities and not in response to Tehran's fuel swap offer.

______

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM

Iran says it will build more nuclear reactors
            

Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jun 16, 10:11 am ET

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran stepped up its nuclear defiance Wednesday by endorsing plans to boost its uranium enrichment and to build four new facilities for atomic medical research — less than a week after the latest U.N. sanctions.

The series of announcements and sharp comments by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who said the West must come to Iran like a "polite child" in any possible nuclear talks — could encourage calls for more economic pressure against the Islamic Republic.

European Union foreign ministers agreed earlier this week to consider tighter sanctions for Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment. U.S. lawmakers also could press for additional embargoes after last week's U.N. Security Council sanctions — which were backed by Iranian allies Russia and China.

Ahmadinejad said he will soon announce new conditions for talks with the West. But first, he wants to punish world powers for imposing sanctions on Tehran and added Iran will not make "one iota of concessions."

"You showed bad temper, reneged on your promise and again resorted to devilish manners," he said of the powers that imposed sanctions. "We set conditions (for talks) so that, God willing, you'll be punished a bit and sit at the negotiating table like a polite child," he told a crowd during a visit to the central Iranian town of Shahr-e-Kord. His speech was broadcast live on state TV.

The West and other nations are increasingly worried Iran will eventually develop the capacity for nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful energy production and research.

Iran's parliament speaker Ali Larijani said lawmakers back the government's push to enrich uranium at a higher level since earlier this year as a response to "bullying countries."

Iran currently enriches uranium up to 20 percent levels — which is far short the 95 percent plus enriched uranium needed for an atomic weapon, but is a significant advancement from the low-grade uranium at nearly 5 percent level from the early stages of making reactor-ready fuel.

Iran has rebuffed a U.N.-drafted plan to suspend uranium enrichment and swap its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium for fuel rods. An alternative plan backed by Turkey and Brazil includes the uranium-for-rods exchange, but does not mandate a halt to Iran's ability to make its own nuclear fuel.

Iran has justified its decision to go to higher enrichment by saying its needed to create fuel for a research reactor producing medical isotopes.

Iran's nuclear chief said Wednesday there are plans to build four new medical research reactors, including one "more powerful" than the main facility: an aging 5-megawat U.S.-made research reactor operating in Tehran.

Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted by state TV's web site as saying the new research reactor is for radioactive isotopes for medical needs of patients in Iran and abroad.

"Designing the reactor will be completed by the year end and two years will be needed to construct it. ... Our plan is to build four reactors in four corners of the country so that, given the short life of nuclear medicine, all patients will get the products throughout Iran," the website quoted him as saying.

Salehi also said Iran possesses technology to produce fuel rods for such reactors and the first should be ready sometime next spring.

The announcements reflect Iran's confusing response to the U.N. sanctions.

Ahmadinejad has countered with insults and dismissive remarks, but also claims the door is still open for dialogue on the nuclear standoff. The huge obstacle, however, is that the talks must be on Iran's terms.

Ahmadinejad also attacked the U.S., saying Iran needs to save Americans from "their undemocratic and bullying government." He charged there was no freedom in the U.S. and newspapers in America were not authorized to write against the Zionists or hold rallies against the "crimes" committed by their government.

Ahmadinejad was reacting to an invitation by the European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili to discuss the nuclear issue. At the same time, though, EU foreign ministers agreed Monday to recommend additional sanctions over the nuclear issue.

Larijani, the parliament speaker, also warned that Iran will reciprocate if the U.S. or other countries inspect Iranian planes or ships in line with new sanctions.

"We warn the U.S. and some adventurist countries that should they be tempted to inspect consignment of Iranian planes and ships, they should rest assured that we will reciprocate (by inspecting) their ships in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:49 PM

And you post blogs, claiming them as proof

Where did I do this, beardedbruce? Where did I claim them as proof?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM

You are the one saying that a quote from April means a report in May could not say what it did. And you post blogs, claiming them as proof- they are opinion..

When you realize that your opinion is as valuable ( and not more so) as mine, but that the facts are as determined by evidence, not your desire, the threads will be a lot more informative.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:31 PM

beardedbruce, you apparently can't tell the difference between someone posting links to articles that present another side to a story so that people can see all sides, and a statement of fact by said person.

Perhaps this lack of ability to discern reality is the reason you are unable to determine whether or not April comes before or after May.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:22 PM

CarolC,

I have posted the aarticles stating that the other side disagrees, and calling for an investigation. You have posted blogs saying that since early reports had no evidence, there could never be any conclusions determined.. I am still waiting on whether April is before or after May.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:19 PM

beardedbruce, you have not posted any proven facts on the subject of the South Korean submarine, either. So maybe you should heed your own words.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 08:18 AM

Iran 'definitely' building nuclear weapon
June 14, 2010 - 4:47am

(AP) J.J. Green, wtop.com

WASHINGTON - Due to concern over potentially harmful international political implications, U.S. officials will only say they "believe" Iran is engaged in a clandestine program that may yield a nuclear weapon.

However, the men and women working undercover to stop Iran from doing so are willing to say much more.

"There is no doubt Iran is definitely building a nuclear weapon," a senior foreign counterproliferation official with a U.S. ally says in an exclusive interview with WTOP.

"Oh yes, in my opinion it is fact. "We see it every day," the official says.

The Obama administration is clearly concerned.

"The nature and scope of Iran's nuclear program causes the U.S. and the international community to question whether Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful," says National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer.

"Iran is pursuing a nuclear program that includes significant capabilities, particularly its uranium enrichment and heavy water reactor capabilities that would provide Iran a nuclear weapons capability," Hammer says, adding that the capabilities "are not inherently capable of supporting Iran's stated objective of a peaceful nuclear power program."

Hammer says the body of evidence against Iran includes belligerent statements from Iranian officials, human intelligence sources and Iran's own military activity.

"Iran is, at a minimum, keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. Iran also continues to advance its ballistic missile programs throughout the region and to increasingly longer ranges," says Hammer.

Recent reports have emerged that Iranian agents are using the port of Dubai to smuggle sophisticated electronics. The foreign counterproliferaton official says, with certainty, the smuggling operations go well beyond Dubai.

"We have seen them try to use UAE (United Arab Emirates), Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, to name a few other countries."

U.S. counterproliferation agents, while toeing a very thin political line, seem to corroborate the official's statement.

"We see a number a number of trans-shipment points around the world. It is correct to say that Iran does not exclusively use Dubai," says Timothy Gildea, a special agent in the Counterproliferation Investigations Unit of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement department.

"They will evolve their transshipment practices. If one area becomes elevated and law enforcement is focusing on that (area), they will move it (their smuggling operation) around as required to get that equipment to their country," Gildea says.

The most damning allegation comes from the broad selection of items that are being smuggled that list Iran as their final destination.

Clark Settles, chief of the Counter Proliferation Investigations unit, says the variety of items leaves little doubt of Iran's true intentions.

"If they were just acquiring items for uranium enrichment and not a lot of the other items that they've attempted to acquire -- from missile guidance, to triggered spark gaps that are used to detonate nuclear weapons -- if they were just trying acquire one thing and not the other, then argument would hold some water," says Settles.

Counterproliferation experts say Iranian agents' smuggling operations include parties who aren't aware they are doing anything illegal.

But Settles says most of those arrested are very clear about what's going on.

"In an undercover capacity, we act in every role - as the shippers, the freight forwarders, the buyers, the sellers - to really delve into these networks to prove that they are not innocent individuals that are being duped by the Iranians or by somebody else."

"They know exactly what they're doing. They're doing it for profit or they work for those governments or those terrorist groups."

Scores of people arrested on smuggling charges were trying to move dual-use components, which can be used for both peaceful and military purposes. These components are legal to buy and ship to places. Iran is not one of those places.

Mahmoud Yadegari, an Iranian-Canadian citizen who is on trial in Canada for procuring nuclear dual-use components from a U.S. company and attempting to re-export them to Iran, claims he was not deceived into doing it.

Yadegari allegedly purchased pressure transducers, which can be used in gas centrifuge plants - a key link in the process of weaponizing nuclear material.

In 2007, an official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program suggested the Iranians had suspended its program.

One of the key judgments of the report stated:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

But the senior foreign counterproliferation official who spoke with WTOP says, "We really have not seen any change in Iranian procurement efforts over the last 5 years."

Settles, with ICE, indicates U.S. law enforcement hasn't seen much of a change either.

"We've played it in out in (U.S.) court and we've caught a significant number of people. When you put the two together, it still appears they have intentions of moving their nuclear weapons program forward," he says.

Another round of sanctions has had little effect on Iran's resolve.

"From right and from left, they adopt sanctions, but for us, they are annoying flies, like a used tissue," said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the sanctions were announced.

The Obama administration has said that "all options are on the table" in order to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.

When asked on The Politics Program with Mark Plotkin whether Israel is planning to stop Iran from developing a bomb, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Michael Oren reiterated the Obama administration's stance.

As intelligence officials struggle to define what Iran is up to, so does a former U.N. weapons inspector.

"I think the evidence that I have seen - and there is no doubt a lot that I have not seen - indicates that (Iran is) taking all the critical steps along the way that they need to get to a weapon, but I do not know whether they have decided to go all the way or stop just short of having deployable weapons," says David Kay.

However, Kay says it may not matter.

"We will soon have to start treating them and reassuring allies as if they had decided to go all the way."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 06:31 AM

feel free to post your opinion articles- just be carefull what you claim to be proven fact, as opposed to belief or possibility.

"North Korea Threatens `All-Out Military Strike' on South's Loudspeakers

By Jungmin Hong - Jun 12, 2010

North Korea warned of an "all-out military strike" to destroy South Korean loudspeakers and other propaganda tools along their fortified border, according to the North's state-run Korean Central News Agency.

South Korea's preparation for psychological warfare, is a "direct declaration of a war" against the North, the general staff of the communist state's military said today in a statement on KCNA. The North's military retaliation may turn Seoul into "a sea of flame," the statement said.

The South has already installed loudspeakers in 11 places along the border and is attempting to set up electronic displays, according to the statement.

South Korea hasn't detected any abnormal activities near the border area with the North, Yonhap News said following the KCNA report today, citing South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Tensions have risen on the Korean peninsula since an international panel concluded on May 20 that the North was behind a torpedo attack that sank the Cheonan warship, killing 46 of the South's sailors. South Korea's president Lee Myung Bak has taken the case to the United Nations Security Council, backed by the U.S. and Japan, to seek a resolution condemning North Korea.

The North says the allegations are fabricated and has threatened to retaliate over any punitive action taken against it.

South Korea will resume anti-North broadcasts across the border after the United Nations Security Council makes a determination about the sinking, Yonhap News reported yesterday, citing South Korea's defense minister. "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:55 AM

http://www.counterpunch.org/amin06092010.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:33 AM

Here's more information on the South Korean ship...

http://www.alternet.org/world/147096/did_a_north_korean_torpedo_really_sink_that_south_korean_military_vesselt_?page=1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 06:13 PM

Since it is a possibility that it was a false flag operation, people should be able to see the side presented by those who believe it is. But perhaps you think that only those who present the side that you prefer should be heard from.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM

Valid viewpoints, but lacking in evidence.

LOTS of things are POSSIBLE, the point is to determine from the evidence what happened.

No one on Mudcat has EVER disproved the fact that LGM used hyper-gravitic charges to bring down the Twin Towers. So I guess it MUST be true...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 10:00 PM

http://mostlywater.org/north_korean_ship_sinking_another_false_flag


This page has a link to a pdf of a letter sent to Hilary Clinton by one of the investigators...

http://letsrollforums.com/korean-ship-sinking-definitly-t21375.html?t=21375

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 03:29 PM

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites


Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 10:51 AM

CarolC,

"The 'overwhelming evidence' is a torpedo propeller that 'had been corroding at least for several months,' reported the Korea Times."


When was this reported, and from what real source ( information, not the article)? Please provide clicky if you can- this is not in accord with the May 20th report.



"In April, the director of South Korea's national intelligence, Won See-hoon, told a parliamentary committee that there was no evidence linking the sinking of the Cheonan to North Korea. The defence minister agreed. The head of South Korea's military marine operations said, 'No North Korean warships have been detected [in] the waters where the accident took place.' The reference to 'accident' suggests the warship struck a reef and broke in two" "

I believe that April is before May 20th. Please correct me if I am wrong. You do not allow that additional information, not previously known, might be found? And that there would not be an interest in playing down speculation without evidence back in April, to cool things off?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:58 PM

I understand from Certain Sources I Cannot Disclose that the US has another 28,000 troops on 24-hour standby for deployment to Korea. That's all I can say about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 06:56 PM

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=578

"On 20 May, South Korea announced that it had 'overwhelming evidence' that one of its warships, the Cheonan, had been sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine in March with the loss of 46 sailors. The United States maintains 28,000 troops in South Korea, where popular sentiment has long backed a détente with Pyongyang.

On 26 May, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Seoul and demanded that the 'international community must respond' to 'North Korea's outrage'. She flew on to Japan, where the new 'threat' from North Korea conveniently eclipsed the briefly independent foreign policy of Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, elected last year with popular opposition to America's permanent military occupation of Japan. The 'overwhelming evidence' is a torpedo propeller that 'had been corroding at least for several months,' reported the Korea Times. In April, the director of South Korea's national intelligence, Won See-hoon, told a parliamentary committee that there was no evidence linking the sinking of the Cheonan to North Korea. The defence minister agreed. The head of South Korea's military marine operations said, 'No North Korean warships have been detected [in] the waters where the accident took place.' The reference to 'accident' suggests the warship struck a reef and broke in two"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 03:37 PM

AP:Sanctions unlikely to stop Iranian nuclear drive
Jun 9 02:18 PM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA (AP) - Washington calls the latest U.N. sanctions on Iran a diplomatic victory, a show of unity by the world's big powers and a powerful way to prevent the country from making nuclear weapons.
Iran says the sanctions are an unfair attempt to keep it from developing a peaceful civilian energy program.

Whatever Iran's ultimate goal, it is clear that, like three previous sets of sanctions, the new measures are unlikely to crimp a nearly mature nuclear program that can be turned to both peaceful purposes and making atomic weapons.

The new sanctions authorize countries to inspect cargo to and from Iran; strengthen an arms embargo by banning transfers of more types of conventional arms and missiles; expand restrictions on Iran's access to nuclear technology; add more institutions to a financial sanctions watch list and urge "vigilance" in doing business with any organization linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

But because many aspects of a civilian nuclear program can also serve military purposes, Iran already has most of what it would need to make a weapon. And the cost of getting China and Russia to approve the new sanctions was the removal of provisions that would have really hurt Iran, such as an embargo on Iranian oil or a ban on gasoline sales.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its newest tally last month said Iran was now running nearly 4,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges and had amassed nearly 2.5 tons of low-enriched uranium that can be used for fuel, once Iran's first reactor goes on line, which is planned for some time this year.

That's also enough for two nuclear bombs if enriched to weapons-grade levels. Iran recently began enriching to higher levels for what it says will be research reactor fuel.

The process is turning out less than weapons-grade uranium. If Iran should decide to pursue a weapon, however, it would take less work to turn such higher-enriched feedstock into fissile warhead material.

It will be hard to keep Iran from obtaining more nuclear technology. Many of the companies and entities mentioned in the new sanctions list have already been subject to sanctions and Iran has found ways in the past to circumvent the penalties or create cover companies to procure items on its behalf

"I don't think anybody thinks these particular sanctions are going to trigger Iran to give up its nuclear program," said Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Secret Iranian nuclear activities were first revealed eight years ago when an Iranian dissident group provided evidence of a nascent government program of uranium enrichment—the technology that can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.

Iran resisted years of calls to permanently stop enriching, prompting a December 2006 U.N. Security Council resolution that called for member nations to prevent the supply, sale or transfer of all materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear activities.

It was too late. Building on black market components and know-how, Iran already had most of what it needed to maintain—and expand—its enrichment capacities. And clandestine deliveries of equipment continued despite the sanctions—as reflected in dozens of convictions worldwide of people found guilty of nuclear smuggling to Iran.

Subsequent U.N. resolutions in March 2007 and March 2008 repeated demands that Iran come clean on unexplained aspects of its nuclear program that hardened suspicions it might interested in nuclear arms.

But Iran refused—and continued expanding enrichment.

"Sanctions won't stop Iran from continuing its nuclear, missile and space program. It may create some obstacles but Iran can find ways to go around it," said Abbas Pazooki, an Iranian commentator.

Iran says that despite its oil reserves it needs nuclear energy to guarantee its future economic sustainability.

After the U.N. vote, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee accused the United States, Britain and their allies of abusing the Security Council to attack Iran.

"No amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our nation's determination to pursue and defend its legal and inalienable rights," Khazaee said.

Western intelligence reports say it is clear that Iran is interested in at least achieving the ability to produce a bomb, even if it has no specific plans to produce it at the moment. The reports from the U.S., Israel, France, Britain and other nations assert that Iran has experimented with most other key aspects of warhead production and delivery.

Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress recently that if and when Iran decides to build its first bomb, it could amass enough highly enriched uranium to do so in as little as 12 months.

An International Atomic Energy Agency document meant to be read by only a handful of the agency's top officials and leaked to The Associated Press last year expanded on some of that intelligence. It cited Iran experts at the U.N. nuclear monitor as believing that Tehran already has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead.

It was the clearest indication yet that those officials share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities and missile technology—even if they have not made those views public. And because the agency is generally seen as impartial, the findings added to concerns about Iran's nuclear goals

In that document, IAEA officials assessed that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."

_ That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead—a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."

_ That Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.

Iran did not comment on the report.

Whatever their efficacy, the latest sanctions may serve Iran's leadership in their drive to rally domestic support by depicting international opposition to its nuclear drive as an attack on the country.

"If you think that by making fuss and propaganda you can force us to withdraw you are wrong," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a home crowd last month. "The Iranian nation will not withdraw one inch from its stance."

In Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency officials say that Iran recently served notice that it would further cut back on cooperation with the U.N. nuclear monitor if new sanctions were adopted.

That would reduce the outside world's already narrow window on Iran's nuclear program.

___

Associated Press Vienna Bureau Chief George Jahn has reported on Iran's nuclear program since 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:19 PM

Disillusioning isn't it, Rapaire? ;-) And here I thought that the bad guys always wore the black hats!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:59 PM

Golly, you mean a country might fib about something?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:14 PM

The Israelis are already absolute masters of ruining someone's day in any case, BB. With or without nukes. They have proven that many times over by now.

You are talking like a lawyer, holding up the figleaf of this legal technicality or that one to justify the unjustifiable, but the figleaf has nothing to do with the practical reality, which is that Israel is an unofficial nuclear power, and a major one, and that Israel has been allowed (in fact, enabled) to become that by the USA and the UK, because they share common strategic objectives with Israel. Their common strategic objectives are to control the entire Middle East and Caspian regions, control the marketing of Middle Eastern and Caspian oil, and thus have the power to shut Russia and China out of access to those oil-producing areas.

The various Muslim countries that are suffering the consequences (the collateral damage) are just bit players in this scheme...small pieces to be sacrificed in a very large chess game that involves the real nuclear powers: The USA, China, France, Russia, Israel, and the UK. It also involves Pakistan...but they are another wretched piece to be sacrificed...and it involves India, of course, which will side with anyone who sides against Pakistan and China.

The fearmongering about Iran in the western media is the same propaganda effort as the previous fearmongering against Iraq. It's a trumped-up excuse for war so that the mighty can take a supposed "pre-emptive" action against someone who really presents no significant threat to them, but who is still standing in the way of them achieving total domination over that region.

Yeah, sure anyone who attacks Israel will rue the day. Duh! Tell me something else that's blatantly obvious. Likewise, anyone who attacks the USA, Russia, China or any other major nuclear power will rue the day. EVERYONE will rue such a day. I see no reason why Israel needs people like you to make such dark promises and veiled threats for them.....the whole world already knows how ruthless Israel is, and does not need cheerleaders like yourself to be convinced that they are bloody well dangerous to their neighbours and quite willing to exterminate them at the drop of a hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

Sorry, Rapaire.

Israel has never stated if they have nuclear weapons or not.

The best estimates are 20 to 400, 200 to 500 KT devices.

Enough to ruin the day of anyone who attacks them.



Israel will not allow those who seek to destroy them profit from the attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:14 PM

LH,

1. Israel had nukes BEFORE the NPT- If they signed, it would be as a nuclear power.

2. If there is a nuke used on Israel, there will be NO oil from the Middle East. It will take decades to put out the fires, and much longer to drill in a radioactive environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:59 PM

Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons. They said so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:55 PM

Uh-huh...but it's a political game. Don't you get it that a few major powers control what goes on politically in this world and what goes on in our mass media, BB? And that they manipulate and control feeble organizations like the U.N. for their own purposes? They do this to control strategic resources in the world...namely oil. Iran has a great deal of oil, and it's under Iranian control at present. It is the intention of Britain and America to change that situation. It is the oil they are concerned about, in my opinion, and the nuclear issue is being used as an excuse to pressure Iran...the same tactics used previously on Saddam Hussein. They who have all the WMDs are pretending they're in danger from the guy who has none.

Meanwhile, Israel has a few hundred nukes, and the USA and the UK don't say a thing about it, don't bother Israel at all for it, because Israel is their ally, and is planning to profit directly from participating in their great strategic game against Iran and the rest of the nations in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:53 PM

My own view is that the frustration in the middle east, will lead to one side dropping the 'Big' bomb on the other ... this cannot be avoided. Israel thinks it is above the law and has the USA on its side while the rest are just pig sick with such arrogance. Who Dares Wins but we all lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:24 PM

LH,


"But Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for purposes of using its nuclear reactors to generate electrical power. They are not committing an illegality by enriching that uranium. "


Not according to the NPT that IRAN is a signatory to.

They have NOT maintained the required monitoring that the IAEC must perform in order to be in compliance with their treaty obligations.

EVEN the UN IAEC has declared them to be in violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:12 PM

Yes, no doubt regarding the asbestos, BB. That's what big corporations do, they flout the law...and pay off the lawmakers to look the other way.

But Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for purposes of using its nuclear reactors to generate electrical power. They are not committing an illegality by enriching that uranium.

The USA, however, has committed the open and blatant illegality of fighting 2 undeclared wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has committed further illegalities in covert operations in Iran and elsewhere. It is the USA itself which is guilty of the sort of things it constantly accuses its next target(s) of being guilty of. (the good old imperial recipe for starting a war...)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:25 PM

LH,

"As for Iran, they have every right to enrich uranium if they want to, and it's frankly no one's business if they do."

Not according to the NPT that IRAN is a signatory to.

Of course, it is like Canada still exporting asbestos ( to keep those 1000 miners employed) in violation of international law- as long as no-one does anything to stop it, it will continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM

What puzzles me is...why would the North Koreans torpedo and sink a South Korean ship in the first place, when it yields them no significant military or other gain to do so, but only imperils the entire nation?

Why? And if so, whose decision was it....one military officer's on the spot? Or his high command?

And again, why would they do it? What for? What possible good would it do them? Would they endanger their whole country just because they felt like shooting at a South Korean ship because they don't like the South Koreans?

Such things usually happen for a definite reason. It would be pertinent to first investigate what that reason might have been before engaging in further pointless warfare that kills a great many more people on both sides.


****

As for Iran, they have every right to enrich uranium if they want to, and it's frankly no one's business if they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM

DPRK is doing again what has worked for them in the past: tell the world they are blameless and the evil puppet ROK government is acting as its master, the United States, pulls its strings. This is good for internal consumption but doesn't play well in the real world.

The USS George Washington is sailing into the disputed area. This is a BIG aircraft carrier with its accompanying flotilla.

The US currently has no nukes in Korea -- they were removed in, I believe, 1991. It was a funny sitiuation: for example, we has 138 nuclear warheads for the Davy Crockett weapon but no launchers. I suppose we were supposed to throw them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM

North Korean envoy warns war could erupt soon

By Stephanie Nebehay Stephanie Nebehay – 47 mins ago

GENEVA (Reuters) – A North Korean envoy said on Thursday that war could erupt at any time on the divided Korean peninsula because of tension with Seoul over the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

"The present situation of the Korean peninsula is so grave that a war may break out any moment," Ri Jang Gon, North Korea's deputy ambassador in Geneva, told the United Nations-sponsored Conference on Disarmament.

North Korea's troops were on "full alert and readiness to promptly react to any retaliation," including the scenario of all-out war, he told the forum.

Ri, departing from his prepared remarks, said that only the conclusion of a peace treaty between the two countries would lead to the "successful denuclearization" of the peninsula. The 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice but no formal peace treaty.

Communist North Korea, hit with U.N. sanctions after testing nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009, is still under international pressure to dismantle its nuclear programme.

Ri repeated Pyongyang's assertion that North Korea had nothing to do with the sinking of the Cheonan warship which killed 46 sailors -- the deadliest military incident since the Korean War.

South Korea has accused North Korea of firing a torpedo at the vessel and said it will bring the case to the U.N. Security Council. A report by international investigators last month also accused North Korea of torpedoing the vessel.

Ri accused South Korea of trying to create a shocking incident in order to ignite a campaign against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea's official name.

South Korean ambassador Im Han-taek took the floor at the Geneva forum to voice regret at Ri's remarks, adding: "We believe it is only for propaganda purposes."

U.S. disarmament ambassador Laura Kennedy also rejected Ri's accusations that Washington had backed Seoul in "groundlessly" blaming the sinking on a North Korean submarine.

"I agree that the situation on the Korean peninsula is very grave but I disagree with the statement made and reject those allegations against my country," Kennedy said.

"The investigation carried out was scrupulous and painstaking and we certainly accept without doubt the results which clearly indicated where the blame lay," she added.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM

Syria conducted nuclear experiments: IAEA document

May 31 05:45 PM US/Eastern

Syria has told the UN atomic watchdog about past nuclear experiments, but is still refusing to cooperate over allegations that it was building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korea's help, a new report revealed Monday.
In a restricted four-page report obtained by AFP, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Syria "provided the Agency with information concerning previously unreported uranium conversion and irradiation activities" at a small research reactor in Damascus.

Syria insists the scale of the experiment was small, "involving tens of grammes of nuclear material" and took place in 2004.

A senior diplomat familiar with the IAEA investigation said it was too early to determine whether the experiments were purely of a small scientific nature, as Syria claimed, or part of wider, more extensive research.

At the same time, the IAEA complained that Syria had not cooperated with its investigation into allegations that Damascus had been building an undeclared reactor at a remote desert site called Dair Alzour until it was bombed by Israeli planes in September 2007.

The IAEA has been investigating the allegations since 2008 and has already said that the building bore some of the characteristics of a nuclear facility.

UN inspectors also detected "significant" traces of man-made uranium at that site, as yet unexplained by Damascus.

It has also requested access to three other locations allegedly functionally related to Dair Alzour, but so far to no avail.

"As a consequence, the Agency has not been able to make progress towards resolving the outstanding issues related to those sites," the watchdog said.

"Furthermore, with time, some of the necessary information may deteriorate or be lost entirely."

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano urged Syria "to cooperate with the Agency on these issues in a timely manner."

The report is scheduled to be discussed at a meeting of the IAEA's 35-member board of governors at a meeting next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:29 PM

IAEA: Iran has over 2 tons enriched uranium -2 bombs' worth
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
06/01/2010 02:26

VIENNA — Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday in a report that heightened Western concerns about the country preparing to produce a nuclear weapon.

Two tons of uranium would suffice for two nuclear warheads, although Iran says it does not want weapons and is only pursuing civilian nuclear energy.

On enrichment, the report said Iran had now enriched 2,427 kilograms to just over three percent level. That means shipping out 1,200 kilograms (as proposed by the IAEA late in 2009) now would still leave Iran with more than enough material to make a nuclear weapon. That makes the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil unattractive to the U.S and its allies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 08:20 PM

China will try to restrain DPRK and may even veto US Security Council action. However, a veto would not prevent ROK from acting (as it already has) unilaterally -- and the US would be dragged into any shooting war. The US has in the past prevented ROK from acting against DPRK and indeed talked ROK out of a nuclear weapons program (all US nukes were removed from the Korean pennisula by 1991) by pointing out that ROK was covered by US nukes deliverable by missile and bomber. What the US (and China, Russia, and Japan) fear is a unilateral action by either side in Korea. ROK will probably not attack DPRK, but the same cannot be said of DPRK. A dying regime may want to take whoever it can with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 08:08 PM

China May Shield North Korea as Lee, U.S. Seek Action on Ship
By Bloomberg News

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is likely to resist pressure to acknowledge that North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship when he flies to Seoul tomorrow to meet South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and Japan's Yukio Hatoyama.

China hasn't followed South Korea, Japan and the U.S. in blaming North Korea for the March 26 sinking of the Cheonan, which killed 46 sailors. Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun yesterday repeated a call for "restraint" by both sides and said China had no "firsthand information" on the sinking.

China wants to avoid a conflict on the Korean peninsula, and is concerned that taking South Korea's side may provoke North Korea into further escalations and even lead to war, said Shen Dingli, vice dean of the Institute of International Affairs at Shanghai's Fudan University.

"North Korea is dying, and we can make things worse," Shen said. "We have assumed North Korea is not a rational actor."

China has a big stake in stability in Northeast Asia. Japan and South Korea are China's third- and fourth-biggest trading partners after the European Union and the U.S., with combined two-way trade reaching $485.1 billion in 2009, Chinese customs figures show.

China's two-way trade with North Korea, at $2.7 billion last year, is less than 1 percent of that total, even though the two countries share a 1,415-kilometer (880-mile) border and an alliance going back to China's 1950 entry into the Korean War.

"If our region falls into chaos it will undermine the interests of all parties concerned," Zhang said yesterday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=awElM7vM4Vq4&pid=20601087

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 10 - 04:04 PM

Succinct and accurate Rap.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 12:41 PM

I have deliberately avoided this thread, but I will post some thoughts and then go away again.

In 1966, Kim Il Song announced and began what has since become known (among those who know of it) as the "DMZ War" or the "The Second Korean Conflict." Highlights of this include the Blue House Raid, the capture of USS Pueblo, and the shoot-down of the US EC-121 "spy plane" (oh, go look them up!). Between 1967 and the end of 1969 the DPRK attacked forces of both the Republic of Korea and the US, causing death among both the military and the civilian populations.

Kim Il Song did this "in support of his Socialist brethren" in Vietnam and elsewhere: i.e., the US was focused on Vietnam and he felt it a good time to start a "People's Uprising" in South Korea (it backfired mightily on him). I recommend reading Daniel P. Bolger's "Scenes From An Unfinished War" (Leavenworth Papers No. 19) for a good history of this period.

With the US tied up in Afghanistan, why wouldn't the same thinking apply now? In 1968-69, the US had about 56,000 troops in ROK, now the US has about 28,000 troops there. However, the ROK Army was well-equipped and trained then and is even moreso now.

Military estimates believe that the DPRK could fight a war for about 30 days on the supplies it has; the ROK could last six or more months. The US forces could hold the attack route north of Seoul and the Chorwan Valley until the ROK Army could move.

EVEN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS used by the DPRK, perhaps especially so, it would make no difference in the outcome. Russia is no longer the USSR and is very unlikely to get involved on either side; China would lose its trade relationship with its largest trading partner, the US, if it joined with the DPRK -- and these days China is into making money and not exporting "revolution". Should nuclear weapons be used in a Korean fight the world would be appalled and DPRK might well face the prospect of an invasion BY China and Russia from the North because of the destabilization it caused.

I think that if Kim Jong Il did order an attack on the South he would be assassinated by his senior military commanders who actually KNOW the score and do not live in a dream world of iPods and gold-plated pistols.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:11 AM

Or China?

US warns over Beijing's 'assertiveness'
By Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: May 25 2010 17:50 | Last updated: May 25 2010 23:59

The commander of US forces in the Pacific has warned that China's military is more aggressively asserting its territorial claims in regional waters.

Admiral Robert Willard told the Financial Times: "There has been an assertiveness that has been growing over time, particularly in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea."

EDITOR'S CHOICE
China and US seek to strike conciliatory note - May-24US to press China on business - May-20China to hit US chicken with new tariffs - Apr-28Timeline: China-US trade spats - May-18Insight: Other states can fill gap between US and China - Apr-27Opinion: China revaluation will not cure imbalance - Apr-11He said China's extensive claims to islands and waters in the region were "generating increasing concern broadly across the region and require address".

The admiral's remarks follow complaints by Japan in recent weeks about aggressive behaviour from a Chinese coastguard vessel in contested waters and a Chinese military helicopter in international waters.

Some of China's neighbours have been watching the People's Liberation Army's modernisation and efforts at expanding the navy's reach with unease, and defence experts see this expansion as one factor behind a developing arms race in south-east Asia.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a97c53a-681a-11df-a52f-00144feab49a.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:14 PM

NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking
            
Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 58 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea, accused of waging the deadliest attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War, flatly denied sinking a warship Thursday and warned that retaliation would mean "all-out war."

Evidence presented Thursday to prove North Korea fired a torpedo that sank a South Korean ship was fabricated by Seoul, North Korean naval spokesman Col. Pak In Ho told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

He warned that any move to sanction or strike North Korea would be met with force.

"If (South Korea) tries to deal any retaliation or punishment, or if they try sanctions or a strike on us .... we will answer to this with all-out war," he told APTN.

An international team of civilian and military investigators declared earlier in Seoul that a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo at the Cheonan on March 26, ripping the 1,200-ton ship in two.

Fifty-eight sailors were rescued, but 46 died — South Korea's worst military disaster since a truce ended the three-year Korean War in 1953.

President Lee Myung-bak vowed to take "resolute countermeasures" and called an emergency security meeting for Friday.

The White House called the sinking an unacceptable "act of aggression" that violated international law and the 1953 truce. U.S. troops in and around South Korea remained on the same level of alert, said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. State Department officials reacted cautiously Thursday, refusing to call the attack an act of war or state-sponsored terror. The Obama administration's tempered response was an indication of how few options President Barack Obama has and how volatile the situation is.

"There's no interest in seeing the Korean peninsula explode," said P.J. Crowley, U.S. State Department spokesman.

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama declared his support for South Korea, calling North Korea's actions "inexcusable."

However, South Korea's options for retaliation are limited.

The armistice prevents Seoul from waging a unilateral military attack, and South Korea would not risk any retaliation that could lead to war, said North Korea expert Yoo Ho-yeol at Korea University in Seoul.

"That could lead to a completely uncontrollable situation," he said, noting that Seoul and its 10 million residents are within striking range of North Korea's forward-deployed artillery.

South Korea and the U.S., which has 28,500 troops on the peninsula, could hold another round of joint military exercises in a show of force, said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group think tank.

He also said the military will likely improve its early warning surveillance abilities and anti-submarine warfare capabilities to prevent such surprise attacks in the future.

Analysts said Seoul could move to punish North Korea financially, and Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan also has said Seoul would consider taking it to the U.N. Security Council. However, the matter did not arise Thursday during a Security Council meeting on Sudan, several ambassadors said afterward.

The impoverished country is already suffering from U.N. sanctions tightened last year in the wake of widely condemned nuclear and missile tests.

Any new Security Council action would require backing from permanent seat holder China, but analyst Koh Yu-hwan at Seoul's Dongguk University said Beijing, North Korea's traditional ally and backer during the Korean War, was unlikely to accept the Cheonan investigation report.

China responded mildly to the report, with Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai calling the sinking "unfortunate" and reiterating the need to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula.

North Korea is accused of waging a slew of attacks on South Korea over the years, including the 1987 downing of a South Korean airliner that killed all 115 people on board. It has never owned up to the attacks, and Seoul has never retaliated militarily.

Since the signing of a nonaggression pact in 1991, clashes between the North and South have focused on the waters off their west coast.

North Korea disputes the maritime border drawn unilaterally by U.N. forces at the close of the Korean War, and the area where the Cheonan sank has been the site of several deadly naval clashes, most recently in November.

Pak, the North Korean naval official, said his country had no reason to sink the Cheonan.

"Our Korean People's Army was not founded for the purpose of attacking others. We have no intention of striking others first," he told APTN. "Why would we attack a ship like the Cheonan, which has no relation with us? We have no need to strike it, and doing so would have no meaning for us."

Investigators from the five-nation team said detailed scientific analysis of the wreckage, as well as fragments recovered from the waters where the Cheonan went down, point to North Korean involvement.

Torpedo fragments found on the seabed "perfectly match" the schematics of a North Korean-made torpedo Pyongyang has tried to sell abroad, chief investigator Yoon Duk-yong said. A serial number on one piece is consistent with markings from a North Korean torpedo that Seoul obtained years earlier, he said.

"The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine," he said. "There is no other plausible explanation."

Pak, the North Korean military official, dismissed it as faked evidence.

"If there were indications that the sinking was our doing, then the whole thing is an act — theatrics by the South Koreans to implicate us," he said.

The colonel spoke to APTN outside another foreign warship: the USS Pueblo, seized by North Korea in a high-seas hijacking in 1968. The American captain and crew were held for 11 months before being freed.

Towed to Pyongyang in 1999, the ship is popular tourist sight, a floating museum moored along the Taedong River that showcases North Korea's naval exploits.

Pak, a 55-year veteran whose uniform was bedecked with medals, said he was among those who helped capture the USS Pueblo more than four decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:49 PM

Big powers agree on draft Iran sanctions, U.S. says
            

Arshad Mohammed And Phil Stewart – 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Major powers, including China and Russia, have agreed on a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran over its nuclear program, the United States said on Tuesday.

The announcement was a tacit rebuff to a deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey and made public on Monday in which Iran agreed to send some uranium abroad. U.S. officials regard that deal as a maneuver by Iran to delay more U.N. sanctions.

"This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran in the last few days as any that we could provide," Clinton added, repeating that Washington has many questions about the fuel swap deal.

The deal had revived the idea of a nuclear fuel swap devised by the United Nations last year with the aim of keeping Tehran's nuclear activities in check.

But Tehran made clear it did not intend to suspend domestic uranium enrichment that Western governments have said appears aimed at giving it the means to make nuclear weapons.

Western nations have reacted skeptically to the deal, although China -- the major power most reluctant to impose more sanctions on Iran -- welcomed it and urged talks with Tehran.

Clinton told lawmakers in Washington: "We have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of both Russia and China." She gave no details of the draft, but said it would be circulated to the full Security Council later on Tuesday.

She said the agreement was reached among the five permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- and Germany, which have been engaged in talks on ways to address any nuclear threat from Tehran.

The Security Council will hold a closed-door session on Tuesday afternoon to receive the draft, diplomats said, and the United States is looking to get the maximum backing in the 15-member council.

NOT TIME FOR SANCTIONS?

In a sign of the difficulties Washington faces, the foreign minister of non-permanent council member Turkey told Reuters in Istanbul that it was not the time to be discussing sanctions.

"Everybody should understand... that yesterday Iran showed great flexibility which was not expected before, and this flexibility is an opportunity for a new phase of diplomacy," the minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said in an interview.

Council members Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon have made clear they would have trouble supporting sanctions against Iran. Washington and its European allies say they will work hard to convince Turkey and Brazil to back the resolution.

Lebanon, diplomats say, will likely abstain from a vote on the resolution because the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah is in the government.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover under which to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying its nuclear program is solely to generate electricity.

Western powers have said the fuel swap offer will not be enough to ease their worries and Israel, which regards Iranian nuclear capability as a direct threat, dismissed it.

Iran said it had agreed to transfer 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey within a month and in return receive, within a year, 120 kg of 20 percent-enriched uranium for use in a medical research reactor.

Clinton said the deal did not commit Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and could lead to months of negotiations before Iran turned over any of its low enriched uranium. She suggested that it was a ploy to stave off U.N. sanctions.

"The fact that we had Russia on board, we had China on board, and that we were moving early this week, namely today, to share the text of that resolution, put pressure on Iran which they were trying to somehow dissipate," Clinton added.

CHINA MORE UPBEAT ON FUEL SWAP

However, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said he was encouraged by the fuel swap deal. His reaction suggested that world powers discussing possible new U.N. sanctions against Iran may part ways on how much weight to give Iran's offer.

"China ... expresses its welcome and appreciation for the diplomatic efforts all parties have made to positively seek an appropriate solution to the Iranian nuclear issue," Yang said, according to the Foreign Ministry website (www.fmprc.gov.cn).

China's stance appeared more in line with Moscow's position that although many questions remained, including whether Iran intended to continue enriching uranium, further consultations were appropriate.

"After this, we need to decide what to do: Are those proposals sufficient or is something else needed? So I think a small pause on this problem would not do any harm," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:46 PM

South Korea: North responsible for torpedo attack on warship


By John Pomfret and Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; 2:47 PM

South Korea will formally blame North Korea on Thursday for launching a torpedo at one of its warships in March, causing an explosion that killed 46 sailors and heightened tensions in one of the world's most perilous regions, U.S. and East Asian officials said.

South Korea reached its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the attack after investigators from Australia, Britain, Sweden and the United States pieced together portions of the ship at the port of Pyongtaek, 40 miles southwest of Seoul. The Cheonan sank on March 26, following an explosion that rocked the vessel as it sailed in the Yellow Sea off South Korea's west coast.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because South Korea has yet to disclose the findings of the investigation, said that subsequent analysis determined that the torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo that had previously been obtained by South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion underscores the continuing threat posed by North Korea and the intractable nature of the dispute between the two Koreas. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak must respond forcefully to the attack, analysts said, but not in a way that would risk further violence from North Korea, whose artillery could -- within minutes -- devastate greater Seoul, which has a population of 20.5 million.

South Korea's report will also present a challenge to China and other nations. China waited almost a month to express its condolences to South Korea for the loss of life, and, analysts and officials said, has seemed at pains to protect North Korea from criticism.

South Korea will request that the U.N. Security Council take up the issue and is looking to tighten sanctions on North Korea, the officials said. The United States has indicated it would support such an action, U.S. officials said. Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada told his South Korean counterpart on Monday that Japan would do the same, the Japanese news media reported Tuesday.

Another consequence of the report, experts predicted, is that Lee will request that the United States delay for several years a plan to pass operational control of all forces in South Korea from the United States to the South Korean military. Approximately 28,500 U.S. forces are stationed in South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan also means it is unlikely that talks will resume anytime soon over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea has twice tested what is believed to be a nuclear weapon. China has pushed for an early resumption of those talks, but South Korean officials said they will return to the table only after there is a full accounting for the attack against the Cheonan and a policy response.

The sinking -- and the reluctance of the South to respond with an in-kind attack -- is the latest example of the raw military intimidation that North Korea has practiced for decades. With 1.19 million troops on active duty, the Korean People's Army has positioned about 70 percent of its fighting forces and firepower within 60 miles of the border with the South.


David Straub, a former director of the State Department's Korea desk who is now at Stanford University, said that while the Cheonan's sinking was horrendous, it marked more of a return to "normal" behavior for North Korea than a new direction.

"We tend to look at this as shocking because things have been relatively quiet for a decade or two," he said. But North Korea killed 30 sailors aboard a South Korean warship in the 1970s; in 1983, its agents are believed to have been behind a fatal bombing in Rangoon that narrowly missed then-South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan.

What has changed, Straub said, is the Western view of North Korea. In the past, North Korean misbehavior was often rewarded with Western attention and aid from Japan and South Korea. But after North Korea conducted its second nuclear test in May 2009, "opinion changed in a fundamental way," he said.

"Before there was a tendency of government officials to say, 'Well, maybe if we try hard enough to persuade the North Koreans to give up the bomb, they will,' " he said. "Now the conclusion of most people, including in the Obama administration, is that they can't see the North Koreans giving up their nuclear weapons on terms that would be acceptable to anyone."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:42 PM

Diplomats: Iran expands enrichment facility

Posted 4h 55m ago

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has set up new equipment that will allow it to boost its efficiency at enriching uranium at higher levels, diplomats said Friday. The move is likely to give the U.S. more leverage with Russia and China in its push for new U.N. sanctions on Tehran.
Iran's clandestine enrichment activities were discovered eight years ago and have expanded since to encompass thousands of centrifuges churning out material enriched to 3.5%. But despite three sets of Security Council sanctions meant to enforce demands of a freeze, Tehran moved to a new level in February, when it set up a small program to produce material enriched to near 20%.

Tehran denies any interest in developing nuclear arms and says it needs the higher enriched uranium to supply its research reactor with fuel after a U.N.-supported deal to provide the material from abroad fell apart. But the move has increased concerns because it brings the Islamic Republic closer to the ability to produce warhead material.

Uranium at 3.5%, can be used to fuel reactors which is Iran's avowed purpose for enrichment. If enriched to around 95%, however, it can be used in building a nuclear bomb, and at 20%, uranium can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than from lower levels.

The 20-percent uranium is being produced by a "cascade" 164 centrifuges hooked up in series. The diplomats said that Iranian technicians had in recent weeks assembled another 164-centrifuge cascade and the throw of a switch appeared ready to activate it to support the machines already turning out small amounts of near 20-percent uranium.

One of the diplomats, from a member country of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the new cascade is meant to reprocess the waste produced by the equipment now in operation and produce more enriched material from it.

An IAEA-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor in exchange for most of Iran's stock of lower-level enriched uranium initially raised Western hopes that it could temporarily curb Iran's capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

But it hit a dead end last year after Iran rejected it, though the country's leaders have since tried to keep the offer on the table, proposing variations without accepting the original terms. As the standoff continues, Russia and China two veto-wielding Security Council members normally against sanctions are signaling increased willingness to support a new round of U.N. penalties meant to punish the Iranian government for its nuclear defiance.

At U.N. headquarters on Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said that talks on a U.S.-drafted sanctions resolution are making "good progress."

Diplomats familiar with the negotiations said a draft resolution could be circulated to all Security Council nations permanent members the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia and 10 elected countries before the end of the month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:43 PM

"The report says the opposite of Fox's statement that "Iran is still working on building a nuclear weapon." "


No, it does not. Try reading for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:30 PM

Iran could fire nuclear missile within two years, says think tank

Iran will be able to deploy a missile capable of carrying a one-tonne nuclear warhead within two years, according to a report from a leading security think tank.

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Published: 6:22PM BST 10 May 2010

The International Institute for Strategic Studies said Iran's missile development programme was expanding in tandem with its drive to acquire an atomic capability.

The Sajjil-2 missile, with a range of 1,400 miles, was test-fired at the end of 2008 and will be ready for deployment in 2012. The weapon relies on solid fuel for propulsion, which means it has a short preparation time and can't be as easily deterred by a pre-emptive strike.

Although the missile is initially likely to carry a conventional warhead, the development of similar missiles in other countries has been closely tied to a nuclear weapons programme.

"Iran is the only country to have developed a missile of this reach without first having developed nuclear weapons," the report said.

The missile would be capable of hitting Israel and parts of southern Europe depending on the size of the warhead. A nuclear device weighting between 750 kilograms and one ton could be placed on the models seen in testing.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a specialist on Iranian security, said the report demonstrated that Iran had devoted substantial resources to ballistic technology and an associated space race, even though its economy was failing. "Iran has been extremely active and increasingly active over the years," he said. "It's very clear that huge investment are being made in both missile technology and the space programme."

Efforts to stop Iran enriching uranium in contravention of nuclear treaties top the global diplomatic agenda and have already seen three rounds of United Nations sanctions imposed.

The report dismissed American fears that Iran was on track to develop an intercontinental missile that would be capable of a range beyond 3,450 miles in the near future. It said the development would not take place in the current decade.

"Logic and the history of Iran's revolutionary missile and space launcher development efforts suggest Tehran would develop and field an intermediate range missile before embarking on a programme to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the American East coast," it said.

While Iran is developing a large range of missiles and building new launching sites, it has not proven its ability to improve the accuracy of its weapons.

The IISS also warned that the missile programme was fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:28 PM

Russia says may build nuclear power plant in Syria

By Denis Dyomkin

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Russia may help build a nuclear power plant in Syria, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko told Reuters on Tuesday as the Kremlin moved to strengthen ties with a Soviet-era ally in the Middle East.

On the first state visit to Syria by a Kremlin chief since the Bolshevik Revolution, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev played up prospects for nuclear power cooperation and said Washington should work harder for peace in the Middle East.

"Cooperation on atomic energy could get a second wind," Medvedev said at a news conference with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after their talks.

Assad said he and Medvedev "talked about oil and gas cooperation, as well as constructing conventional or nuclear powered electricity stations."

Asked whether Russia would build an atomic power plant in Syria, Shmatko told Reuters: "We are studying this question."

Syria is under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency for a suspected nuclear site that Israeli warplanes destroyed in 2007. Syria said the site was a conventional military complex.

The nation has been plagued for years with huge electricity shortages, with power generation falling one-third short of demand and the population expanding at 2.5 percent a year.

Israel has opposed Russian arms sales to Syria in the last several years, and nuclear energy cooperation between Damascus and Moscow may anger the Jewish state.

Shmatko said that cooperation with Russia on a possible nuclear plant would require Damascus to abide by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


MORE ATOMIC PLANTS IN IRAN?

He also suggested Russia might build more nuclear power reactors in Iran beyond the one it plans to switch on this year near the city of Bushehr despite likely U.S. disapproval.

"We are in favour of continuing cooperation with Iran in the energy sphere to the full extent, including in building light-water reactors," Shmatko told journalists.

Russia says all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear power programmes and is aggressively seeking contracts abroad to build nuclear power plants.

But Medvedev, who has indicated Russia could support new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, called for "constructive cooperation with the international community on Iran's part."

The United States and some European countries believe Iran's nuclear programme is a front for an effort to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies it.

Moscow backed Syria through the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Kremlin is seeking to reinvigorate ties in the Middle East nations. It forgave most of Syria's multi-billion dollar debt.

Russia has also improved ties with Israel and tried to increase its clout to advance the Middle East peace process.

Medvedev repeated Russia's proposal for a Middle East peace conference in Moscow, but he suggested the United States would have to do more if peace efforts are to make headway.

"I agree with my colleague that the American side could take a more active position," Medvedev said at the news conference with Assad.

He said shuttle diplomacy and indirect talks could be helpful.