Forums | MacLife

And do you know why they have these WMD?

Clinton's regime...I've already been through this already with too many people actually I don't know if it is was in this section or not, I forget now. Long story short, Clinton reduced the security of several key places, and some how our secrets were leaked out of the country...

And as Bush takes office, not even 2 yrs in, NK starts up their nuclear weapons research again, and not even a few months after they have their first nuke... I can almost guarantee you where those secrets went.

That's ridiculous. Anyone could build a nuclear bomb -- it requires little more than a basic understanding of college physics and a decent lab. There's no need to guard "secrets" regarding their creation. It's public knowledge. In fact, here are some specs and diagrams detailing their construction I found on Google.

What prevents people from building them is a ready supply of weapons-grade plutonium, which North Korea was producing long before Clinton was in office. To suggest that he's is somehow responsible for North Korea learning how to make a nuclear bomb is nothing short of retarded.

As you said, anyone can build one, but because only a handful of countries own that grade, and signed a treaty not to give it to anyone, the chance of one being created is safe...

If NK decided to offer Saddam, or Al Queda weapons grade plutonium, then we will have every right to go in and squash both countries...or parties.

Actually about that shot about them having the ability... you are right, but they shut down the reactors due to political pressure from China, and the US.  Last year is when the finished inserting the last of the rods to make the plant active did the potential for military grade weaponry come into possibility...

To build a plant to handle that type of grade plutonium takes more than 2 yrs...So it was known in the Clinton administration that NK was building it, but did nothing to stop, or hinder it permanently...

And to your information, NK, was almost 25 yrs away from having a fully functional nuclear weapon...and a payload system to use it with... they are now 2 yrs away from that... now you are telling me that NK could leap 25 yrs of technology in less than 4?

Ok, meet me at the Brooklyn Bridge, I got the deed for you, all you need to do is sign the papers and we are set... deal?

Cyberpawz

To build a plant to handle that type of grade plutonium takes more than 2 yrs...So it was known in the Clinton administration that NK was building it, but did nothing to stop, or hinder it permanently...

And to your information, NK, was almost 25 yrs away from having a fully functional nuclear weapon...and a payload system to use it with... they are now 2 yrs away from that... now you are telling me that NK could leap 25 yrs of technology in less than 4?

Once again you are wrong, my friend. North Korea has been producing weapons-grade plutonium since the mid-1980s. Check out this site.

The North Korean nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. In the 1980s, focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication and conversion. It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon, respectively, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests. In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had been known for eight years from official IAEA reports.

And further down:

A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39 kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms. Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass, this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3 nuclear warheads could be extracted.

Therefore, North Korea had enough plutonium for three potential nuclear weapons before President Clinton was even elected. And they also had long-range missile capabilities as early as 1997, which Pentagon officials claim were built using technology from Russian "Styx" and Chinese "Silkworm" rockets.

Your claim that North Korea stole key government "secrets" regarding nuclear weapons is crap.

To build a plant to handle that type of grade plutonium takes more than 2 yrs...So it was known in the Clinton administration that NK was building it, but did nothing to stop, or hinder it permanently...

And to your information, NK, was almost 25 yrs away from having a fully functional nuclear weapon...and a payload system to use it with... they are now 2 yrs away from that... now you are telling me that NK could leap 25 yrs of technology in less than 4?

Once again you are wrong, my friend. North Korea has been producing weapons-grade plutonium since the mid-1980s. Check out this site.

The North Korean nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. In the 1980s, focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication and conversion. It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon, respectively, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests. In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had been known for eight years from official IAEA reports.

And further down:

A close examination by the IAEA of the radioactive isotope content in the nuclear waste revealed that North Korea had extracted about 24 kilograms of Plutonium. North Korea was supposed to have produced 0.9 gram of Plutonium per megawatt every day over a 4-year period from 1987 to 1991. The 0.9 gram per day multiplied by 365 days by 4 years and by 30 megawatts equals to 39 kilograms. When the yearly operation ratio is presumed to be 60 percent, the actual amount was estimated at 60% of 39 kilograms, or some 23.4 kilograms. Since 20-kiloton standard nuclear warhead has 8 kilograms of critical mass, this amounts to mass of material of nuclear fission out of which about 3 nuclear warheads could be extracted.

Therefore, North Korea had enough plutonium for three potential nuclear weapons before President Clinton was even elected. And they also had long-range missile capabilities as early as 1997, which Pentagon officials claim were built using technology from Russian "Styx" and Chinese "Silkworm" rockets.

Your claim that North Korea stole key government "secrets" regarding nuclear weapons is crap.

OK, first of all, you just confirmed my facts...

1. I said from China and America they signed a treaty, your link said from interational pressures... I was specific, you link wasn't...

2. NK and nuclear weapons...

Whoopsie...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article … 3301.shtml

Seems that everyone likes to link here so will I... I think this will provide the information I have been saying for quite some time...

If anyone states this is biased, then jump in a lake with an anchor tied to your legs, for I have had links from this site reamed down my throaght from people on this board stating "See! See! I was right" ...If I am wrong, then this site is from this point on is junk, and anyone stating anything from this site is off kilter!

Cyberpawz

Are you kidding with that site?

Notwithstanding the protestations of blind Democrat sycophants, former President Bill Clinton was a foreign policy disaster.  The consequences of his geopolitical myopia and epic penchant for doing exactly the wrong thing are personified in the recent acknowledgment of North Korea.

If anyone states this is biased, then jump in a lake with an anchor tied to your legs, for I have had links from this site reamed down my throaght from people on this board stating "See! See! I was right" ...If I am wrong, then this site is from this point on is junk, and anyone stating anything from this site is off kilter!

C'mon, man. This site is laughable. I'll admit I've posted some Libertarian-biased links on occasion, but this one takes the cake as far as screwball journalism is concerned. If the fact that they're advertising a book that accuses Bill Clinton of single-handedly masterminding the World Trade Center attacks next to another ad for "I Love George Bush"  hats and t-shirts doesn't alert you to extremely biased reporting, what will?

If this is the best you can find, I rest my case.

No it's not, but I wanted to prove a point... and that was that this site is junk, but yet it leads into the thinking of a few americans as twisted as they are... do I agree with it, no... not it total...but are they on the right track...yes...

This is the site people always send me to, to prove a point, which really pisses me off, because this site is very biased... and you and I know, or at least I know, that I hate using sites that are biased as it is.

Few other sites that are more credible

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arm … 102704.htm

Clinton Bribed the NK to not sell their weapons...
http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/brief15.htm
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_08-09/nk2as98.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/12/nkorea.us.reax/


BTW, why would Clinton and Putan sign a treaty to start the way to cover BOTH Iraq, and NK. (as well as other countries) in a "anti-ballistic missile shiled"?  especially if Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons of any sort? If Clinton signed this into law, then he knew something we don't... wouldn't you say?

Also, clinton paid off NK to stop their Nuclear arms race, with gas...he didn't tell them to remove it...why?

Cyberpawz

... And I still don't see how any of this relates to your baseless claim that North Korea stole all of our closely guarded "nuclear secrets" while Clinton was President.

Actually that was China...[url=http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/other/news/030699china-nuke.html]link[/URL]

I don't care how North Korea got nuclear weapons.  But the fact is that they have them (fully operational, not two years away) and Bush is doing nothing about them.  I would be interested to rationalize how you think Iraq is more dangerous to the United States than North Korea.

I don't care how North Korea got nuclear weapons.  But the fact is that they have them (fully operational, not two years away) and Bush is doing nothing about them.

Since when have presidential letters, diplomatic envoys, and treaty considerations constituted "nothing"?

I don't care how North Korea got nuclear weapons.  But the fact is that they have them (fully operational, not two years away) and Bush is doing nothing about them.  I would be interested to rationalize how you think Iraq is more dangerous to the United States than North Korea.

The fact that they have nukes is the reason they are being handled differently.  North Korea just might nuke Tokyo just out of spite, if it feels that the U.S. is not treating it fairly.

Aw dayum, so there goes our import of porn! 

*smirks*

Cyberpawz

Would they fire them at us, yes they would, remember the 30,000+ troops that are stationed near the border...?  Could they be filled yes... with what... Anthrax, who knows what else... small pox?

Of course, the best way to avoid having this be a problem would be to not have put the troops there to begin with...


I honestly don't understand this constant insistence (from lots of people) that we need to strike first in order to prevent an attack from Iraq, when it's pretty clear that they'll only attack us if they're threatened.

Easy, Iraq is a a threat to everyone around it, and has had these projects in full swing for a little over a decade, NK is just starting up...we have a small window before NK becomes the same as Iraq, by then we should be done with Iraq, and have the chance to take NK down a few notches when it comes to ego.

This is easily the stupidest thing I've ever read. Are you simply trolling at this point or do you honestly believe this?

North Korea....
  ... practically beat the United States during the Korean War.
  ... has a gigantic and well-equipped army. The can field several million soldiers and have so many weapons that they've become global arms dealers.
  ... has had nuclear capabilities since the early 1990s.

Iraq...
  ... was beaten by the United States in a matter of one week.
  ... has a small, ill-equipped army. They've been under strict sanctions for the past decade, and haven't had a chance to resupply themselves since Gulf War I.
  ... doesn't have the capacity to build a decent ballistic missile, let alone a nuclear weapon.

North Korea is tough and has been tough since the 1950s, thanks in a large part to their kinship with China. They aren't just "starting up." Iraq is a joke in comparison.

You can't seriously be this ill-informed.

Easy, Iraq is a a threat to everyone around it, and has had these projects in full swing for a little over a decade, NK is just starting up...we have a small window before NK becomes the same as Iraq, by then we should be done with Iraq, and have the chance to take NK down a few notches when it comes to ego.

This is easily the stupidest thing I've ever read. Are you simply trolling at this point or do you honestly believe this?

North Korea....
  ... practically beat the United States during the Korean War.
  ... has a gigantic and well-equipped army. The can field several million soldiers and have so many weapons that they've become global arms dealers.
  ... has had nuclear capabilities since the early 1990s.

Iraq...
  ... was beaten by the United States in a matter of one week.
  ... has a small, ill-equipped army. They've been under strict sanctions for the past decade, and haven't had a chance to resupply themselves since Gulf War I.
  ... doesn't have the capacity to build a decent ballistic missile, let alone a nuclear weapon.

North Korea is tough and has been tough since the 1950s, thanks in a large part to their kinship with China. They aren't just "starting up." Iraq is a joke in comparison.

You can't seriously be this ill-informed.

Buddy, we are still at war with North Korea, don't you know that?  *good lord*  All we did was sign a "peaceful" no-fire agreement... we never truly ended that war...

Ok, first of all, NK, has a larger army than the US...not a large army... get your facts straight if you are going to point them out...

If has had nuclear capabilities before 1990...but you are forgetting Clinton took care of that "issue"  don't you remember?  Oh yeah, he didn't take care of it, he tried to bribe off NK... guess you forgot to mention that...at least Bush has NK in this game plan, it's better than Clinton had...

Iraq is not a joke as you put it, Iraq has the potential of doing so much more damage than NK will ever be able to do to the world's economical structure.  If they destroy the pipelines, or capture the pipelines, not just the US will be in trouble, but the rest of the world... do you realize that when the US economy takes a nose dive the world economic system takes a heavy hit at times too...

As I have said in the past, and will say again, this may be about "oil" in the underlining game of things, but unless the UN, and the rest of the world get off their preverbal high horses, and see this for what it can potentially be...then there is going to be more and more issues around that area than we have seen now, since the hornet's nest has been stirred, don't expect it to go down now...

OK, lets give them more time, and give them 5 to 10 times the manpower, and lets see what happens...

BTW did you hear that Saddam threatened to kill the scientists and families if any of them help the UN inspectors by answering the questions of them?

(I really wonder what he has to hide if that is true)

Cyberpawz

BTW did you hear that Saddam threatened to kill the scientists and families if any of them help the UN inspectors by answering the questions of them?

(I really wonder what he has to hide if that is true)

Cyberpawz

And I really wonder what the Bush administration has to hide if it's not....

Remember the bit about Iraqi troops pulling babies out of incubators? Yeah. Though I do have to give you credit that this one is much more believable.