Why Should We Worry About North Korea’s Nuclear Test?

Posted on October 4, 2006

Apparently, Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea (DPRK) is going to attempt a nuclear test, This is surely to set off fireworks with the international community. Stand by for some hand wringing and alerts over this development.

According to today’s UK Times online, North Korea said it would conduct a nuclear test as part of measures to bolster its self-defense amid what it calls increasing US hostility toward the communist regime.

“The DPRK will in the future conduct a nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed,” the North’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement, using its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The statement gave no precise date as to when a test might occur. Pyongyang has said it has nuclear weapons, but has not conducted any known test to prove its claim. The story was also carried on Reuters - North Korea says will conduct nuclear test and Sky News - Koreans’ Nuclear Test . So, now we have a lunatic with nuclear weapons.

Taep’o-dong 1 and Taep’o-dong 2 Missile Programs

On July 4, 2006, DPRK attempted to fire a long-range Taep’o-dong 2 ballistic missile but it failed after about 40 seconds in flight. The development of the Taep’o-dong 2 is estimated to have begun at the same time as another missile, Taep’o-dong 1, in 1990. The Taep’o-dong 2 missile has been described to be a 2-stage liquid, possible 3-stage, with a range of 6,000-9,000 km.

Over the next several days after the unsuccessful Taep’o-dong 2 test, DPRK successfully fired several non-guided, medium-range Scud-style missiles which landed in the Sea of Japan and caused a furor with the United States’ Asian ally. Unfortunately, these tests were downplayed by the mainstream media as simply “scud type missiles” with little amplifying information provided. The medium - range Scud -style missiles were Taep’o-dong 1 (Daep’o-dong 1, Nodong 2, Scud X, Scud Mod. E, Rodong 2) or perhaps advanced versions of the same.
The Taep’o-dong 1 is a medium-range, liquid and solid propellant, single warhead ballistic missile. The Taep’o-Dong 1 is said to be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to a maximum range of 2,000 km (1,243 miles). The Taep’o-dong 1 program has been in development and testing since 1990.

Do you recall that DPRK successfully test launched the Taep’o-dong 1 in 1998, which caused an outrage in Japan? From January 1993 - January 2001, North Korea developed its “Nodong” missile delivery programs and apparently steadily worked on its nuclear program. The “Nodong” missile is capable of covering South Korea and most of Japan, and our American military forces stationed in those countries.

Strange bed fellows
Along with DPRK, Pakistan and Iran have jointly worked with DPRK on similar missile projects. The Iranian Shahab-5/Shahab 6 is similar in technology and in design to the Taep’o-dong 2. There is much more that meets the eye on this problem. (Source: Missile Threat.Com)

30 Years of miscalculations
For the past 30 years, as the international community idly sat wringing its hand, DPRK pursued the development of their ever expanding ballistic missile program (and apparently their not so covert) nuclear weapons program. Mismanagement and miscalculation has occurred on every American Presidents’ watch for probably the past 30 years. DPRK has devoted itself to developing weapons and delivery systems under the noses of the world community. Now DPRK is going to test their nuclear weapon? What next? Are they going to collude with their “partners” to hold the free world hostage?

Perhaps you should dig into the problems a little more with these “open source” links on DPRK Missile and Weaponry programs.

Technorati tags: Iran … United States … Ballistic missile … North Korea … Shahab - 3 … Shahab - 6 … Missile test … International diplomacy …. Chess … Strategic … Nodong-1 … Taep’o-dong 2 … Taep’o-dong 1 … Warhead … Weapons … Nuclear … Opinion

» Filed Under Communism, History, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

22 Responses to “Why Should We Worry About North Korea’s Nuclear Test?”

Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 1:49 am

I would like to pose a question to all of you. What right do we have to tell any country what type of missiles they can or cannot develop?
Bosun on October 4th, 2006 1:57 am

Here we go again. Get me some koolaid. I gotta go find my DNC talking points before I answer this one.

Have a beautiful day, Jeff.
Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 2:02 am

Well said, Bosun. You managed to make your biases clear without offering anything of any substance.

I fully understand why we don’t want them to develop certain weapons. If I had any say, they’d still be trying to figure out how to make bronze.

But honestly: Are they signatories of any treaties that bar them from the research that they’ve been pursuing?
Bosun on October 4th, 2006 2:27 am

Sounds like you already showed yours.
Bosun on October 4th, 2006 2:31 am

Read the article that I wrote using about 654 words, before, you chimed in with about a 28 word slant to the left. It isn;t research that they are doing. It has been a steady progression to nukes and a way to deliver them.

Unfortunately we are not immune to radiation. And, if and when it falls into less stable hands, we may feel the effects in our lifetime. I am not sure if you are American, Canadian, or European. But, it can and may be turned on right, left, red, blue, socialist, liberal, or what have you. Kumbiya is not going to protect the peacenixs from lunatics. And I see it on the horizon.
Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 2:34 am

Read the article that wrote (sic) using about 654 words
I did. I ask again: what treaty are they violating by developing missile technology?
Bosun on October 4th, 2006 3:03 am

Your right. They have not signed a binding agreement. I am concerned. Here is what some Brits are saying,

“A senior British official told Sky News: “The decision to test is a very serious development. North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons already.”

In July, the United Nations Security Council unanimously backed a resolution condemning North Korea’s tests of conventional missiles.

The resolution demanded the suspension of the testing program.

It also called on UN members to prevent imports from or exports to North Korea of missiles and missile-related items as well as materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction.

In response, North Korea said it rejected the resolution.”

So, by your comments, I guess DPRK can do whatever it pleases. But, if they do turn their weapons on innocents, should the world community do nothing?

Is there any reason whatsoever to take preventative steps or take defensive measures? When should the world community act?

Jeff, I can see how you would want the world to be restrained about this crisis. Is it a crisis or is it a non crisis? Is there ever a time to act?
kerwin_brown on October 4th, 2006 5:14 am

Jeff Molby,

“What right do we have to tell any country what type of missiles they can or cannot develop?”

The right of self defense. We could bomb them or go to war in some other way but using diplomacy is usually considered a good first step.
Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 10:41 am

In July, the United Nations Security Council unanimously backed a resolution condemning North Korea’s tests of conventional missiles.

It also called on UN members to prevent imports from or exports to North Korea

I agree with both of these actions. The world has every right to tell DPRK that we don’t want them developing certain weapons. We also have every right to withhold our assistance.

if they do turn their weapons on innocents, should the world community do nothing?

If they use their weapons unjustifiably (or is clearly about to), the world would be morally justified (some might say “obligated”) to take action. Until then, we have to respect their right to develop a military capable of protecting their sovereignty.

The right of self defense.

What scares me is an attitude like Kerwin’s. Clearly he does not understand the definition of self defense.

To the best of my knowledge, DPRK has not (unlike Iraq) signed a treaty that waives their right to engage in military research. We have no justification for attacking them simply because we’re afraid that they’re getting too strong.

Heck, we’d be proving their rhetoric right.
Jay on October 4th, 2006 10:47 am

Blah! This tyrant in NK does not need his crazy hands on nukes. It is not only the opinion of the U.S. but the world that no one that doesn’t already have nukes should not have them. There is no reason that NK needs Nukes to protect its sovereignty. What is wrong with your thinking Jeff?
Jeff Molby on October 4th, 2006 10:51 am

I share the opinion that they shouldn’t and don’t need to, but if they are not signatories of the NPT, on what basis do you tell them that they can’t?
kerwin_brown on October 5th, 2006 4:29 pm

Jeff Molby,

You wrote:

“What scares me is an attitude like Kerwin’s. Clearly he does not understand the definition of self defense. “

The 2nd definition of self defense is:

“Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one’s works or reputation.”

I respond:

North Korea developing a nuclear weapon is a perceived threat to one or more of our allies. The perception of a threat is sufficient justification to act in self defense. A precedent of this is the Cuban missile crisis.
Jeff Molby on October 5th, 2006 4:51 pm

Kerwin,

I (and I’m sure most other people) draw a huge distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, so I’ll respond in two parts.

1. To the best of my knowledge, we have zero justification for preventing them from developing long-range weapons. We can hit them from here, what right do we have for attacking them just because they’ve gained the right to hit us from there?

2. Nuclear weapons on a grayer issues simply because of their destructive power, but even still, we’ve developed nuclear capabilities and, to the best of my knowledge, they never agreed to waive their right to develop such weapons.

I’m no expert on US-NK relations, so I could be wrong on point 2, but I still see absolutely no justification for stopping them from developing convential weapons.

We are free to lobby against it and we certainly don’t have to export anything to them, but we can’t invade them simply because they finally managed to design a good missile.
kerwin_brown on October 6th, 2006 1:40 am

So you are saying that John F. Kennedy had no right to object to Russia moving nuclear missiles into Cuba because it is the same type of issue?

I believe the issue of nuclear v. conventional weapons is that a nuclear weapon can take out a city which contains a lot of citizens, but who cares about citizens?
Jeff Molby on October 6th, 2006 8:21 am

I believe the issue of nuclear v. conventional weapons is that a nuclear weapon can take out a city which contains a lot of citizens, but who cares about citizens?

I clearly acknowledged the incrediblly destructive powers of nuclear weapons.

So you are saying that John F. Kennedy had no right to object to Russia moving nuclear missiles into Cuba because it is the same type of issue?

No, he had every right to object, lobby, and threaten. I’m glad he did. But his right to invade Cuba would have been questionable. It would have been even more questionable if we were talking about conventional weapons.
Bosun on October 9th, 2006 12:38 am

Jeff you happy now?

Peace, love, rock and roll
Bosun
loboinok on October 9th, 2006 2:47 am

but if they are not signatories of the NPT, on what basis do you tell them that they can’t?
They have withdrawn from the NPT, but they are still signatories to the Korean War Armistice Agreement of 1953 (which forbids WMDs including nuclear) and since South Korea refused to sign, the U.S. entered into a treaty with S.Korea called: The Mutual Defense Treaty, signed 1 October 1953.
Bosun on October 9th, 2006 7:45 am

Loboinok, good information, thanks for putting it in perspective. However, I do not think that Jeff is listening.

The hands of the doomsday clock advanced toward midnight last evening (our time, kim’s morning).
Jeff Molby on October 9th, 2006 1:13 pm

Jeff you happy now?

No. If you can find even one sentence of mine stating that I wanted NK to develop a nuclear bomb, I’ll buy you a bottle of your favorite champagne.

lobo,

Thanks for taking the time to cite the relevant treaties. However, I looked through the armistice and I don’t see any reference to any of the following phrases: nuclear, wmd, mass, chemical, or biological.

Am I missing something?
loboinok on October 9th, 2006 4:00 pm

The armistice stipulates that only existing equipment, weapons and ammunition were permitted and replacement of same was to consist of the same and nothing more.

Also… Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987 of which neither have withdrawn from.

North Korea also became a member of the U.N. in 1991.
Jeff Molby on October 9th, 2006 9:07 pm

The armistice stipulates that only existing equipment, weapons and ammunition were permitted and replacement (of the same effectiveness and the same type)

Factually accurate, but I would like to make a couple points.

- I doubt either side is still using equipment of the same effectiveness as what they had in the 50s. Under a strict interpretation, both sides have probably been in violation for decades.
- Even if NK is found to be in violation of the armistice, the only recourse would be to declare it null and void.

Also… Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987 of which neither have withdrawn from.

Ok, but I don’t believe they’ve been accused of developing such.

North Korea also became a member of the U.N. in 1991.

I’m not an expert on the UN. Was their membership contingent on anything?
loboinok on October 9th, 2006 10:32 pm

I doubt either side is still using equipment of the same effectiveness as what they had in the 50s. Under a strict interpretation, both sides have probably been in violation for decades.
Of course they both upgraded their weapons as the older generation became obsolete and that would have been handled by the committee.

But, North Korea cannot justify their WMDs,according to the armistice, because S. Korea has not developed the same weapons.

Even if NK is found to be in violation of the armistice, the only recourse would be to declare it null and void.
Which would free the U.S. to honor it’s “Mutual Defense Treaty”.

Ok, but I don’t believe they’ve been accused of developing such.
Biological Weapons are classified as WMD.

Was their membership contingent on anything?
Yes… complying with the obligations of the UN Charter.