North Korea (Superthread)

[CougarKing]

Meanwhile, Kim Jong Un checks out Japan's defences as well...  ;D

 

[57Chevy]

This article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act shows the possibilities of radioactive fallout as the worst
consequence of war on the Korean peninsula but would not be coming from nuclear bomb strikes.

Korean War Unlikely, But Risks for Russia Serious

MOSCOW, April 9 (Alexey Eremenko, RIA Novosti) – Radioactive fallout from South Korean nuclear plants blown up by enemy saboteurs could be, for Russia, the worst consequence of a Korean war – should one happen, Russian analysts said.

“You could have five or six Chernobyls take place over a relatively small territory,” said Alexander Zhebin, who heads the Center for Korean Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Far Eastern Studies.

The worst nuclear disaster in history was also on the mind of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said Monday that if events on the Korean Peninsula take a turn for the worse, it could make “Chernobyl…seem like child’s play.”
---
---
---
Six Chernobyls

If a new Korean war produces radioactive fallout, it is unlikely to come from nuclear bomb strikes, experts said.

North Korean ballistic missiles remain inefficient, said Vladimir Yevseyev, head of the Public Political Studies Center, an independent non-profit think-tank in Moscow.

Moreover, the country’s leadership is reluctant to violate the international taboo on nuclear attacks, Yevseyev said.

But in the meantime, sabotage or strikes by conventional weaponry against South Korea’s 23 nuclear reactors are highly likely, he said.

In that case, radioactive fallout could reach Russia’s Far Eastern Federal District, which has a population of 6.2 million, experts said.

Even if the nuclear threat is avoided, a war could boost the outflow of people leaving the economically depressed region, said Zhebin of the Center for Korean Studies. The Far Eastern Federal District lost 20 percent of its population between 1989 and 2013, according to official statistics.

A war would also see North Korean refugees, possibly including armed deserters from its 1.1 million-strong army, flee north to China and Russia, said Lankov of Kookmin University.

Finally, in the event that the United States joins the conflict – which is almost inevitable, given its 60-year-old military alliance with South Korea – stray American missiles may hit Russian or Chinese territory, Zhebin said. He cited as examples the Yugoslavian and Iraq wars, both of which saw US rockets hit the wrong targets or land far from their intended ones.

complete article and continuation at link...

 

[CougarKing]

But, bear in mind, please, that numbers, even HUGE numbers of ships, aircraft, tanks and howitzers means little if there is no fuel, ineffective logistics, poor maintenance and indifferent training.

What about the "fifth Columnists or infiltrators" and other unconventional units mentioned in the article below? If I can recall correctly that back in 1996, a North Korean mini-sub that was carrying some of these infiltrators had been found on the South Korean coast and a number of its crew were killed or captured.

excerpts:

Special North Korean amphibious units would land and strike these targets from the sea.

North Korea has 300 old Soviet-era AN-2 biplanes that carry 10 commandos each. Invisible to radar because they are made of fabric and hug the earth, the AN-2's would air assault suicide squads into US and ROK airbases.

source:
Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist, writing mainly about the Middle East and South Asia. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
Sun Daily link

 

[tomahawk6]

Kim Jong Un is taking his marching orders from his aunt and uncle.He's the face of the regime at 27 and needs to be seen as up to the task.Right now its the same old game of racheting up the rhetoric and then victory was be announced and the game will abate for awhile.

 

[CougarKing]

article synopsis: A University of Texas professor argues for a strike against North Korea in a New York Times op-ed. Some US military planners are sympathetic to the idea, while others accuse him of being a warmonger.

link

Time for a preemptive strike against North Korea? Some say yes

At the office of the secretary of Defense in the Pentagon, a plan for a preemptive military attack on North Korea was being presented to “a small, grim group.”

“The plan was impressive,” recalled an official who was at the presentation by US military strategists. “It could be executed with only a few days’ alert, and it would entail little or no risk of US casualties during the attack.”

It was also designed to have a low risk of North Korean casualties. But it allowed for some troubling contingencies.

“In particular, we wanted the plan to fully reflect that nuclear weapons were not the only weapons of mass destruction that North Korea had been working on. They clearly had chemical weapons, and their interest in biological weapons and ballistic missiles was also evident,” the official recalled. “We all knew that we were poised on the brink of a war that might involve weapons of mass destruction.”

The official was then-Secretary of Defense William Perry, and the year was 1994. He recounts the episode in a book he cowrote with Ashton Carter, who is now the No. 2 civilian at the Pentagon: “Preventive Defense: A New Security Strategy for America.”

Such an attack didn’t occur in 1994, but today, in the face of North Korea’s belligerence, some are suggesting that the Pentagon dust off its plans.


“They have made a threat, and they have made a weapon – and it seems to me that is a legitimate reason for self-defense,” says Jeremi Suri, a professor of history and public affairs at the University of Texas, Austin.

“We don’t want the Iranians, or North Koreans, or anyone else thinking it’s not – and if we wait for the next threat, the damage could be far worse,” Dr. Suri argues. “The safest thing to do is to destroy this weapon on the launchpad.”

It is an argument that Suri made in a New York Times op-ed on Friday entitled, “Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late.”

“President Obama should state clearly and forthrightly that this is an act of self-defense in response to explicit threats from North Korea and clear evidence of a prepared weapon,” Suri writes.

“And he should explain that this is a limited defensive strike on a military target – an operation that poses no threat to civilians – and that America does not intend to bring about regime change. The purpose is to neutralize a clear and present danger. That is all,” he writes.

Suri says that the feedback he has received on his piece has run the spectrum, from those who accuse him of being a warmonger to US military planners sympathetic to the idea.

“A lot are frustrated that we’re playing this game with North Korea every year,” he says.

The consequences of a strike could be dire, Suri concedes. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un could decide, for example, to fire off some of the thousands of artillery rounds in his possession toward Seoul, South Korea, potentially killing tens of thousands of people.

But there’s some likelihood that Kim will instead “save face at home by saying, ‘Look, we’re so important that they have to attack us’ and retaliate instead on a smaller scale,” Suri says.

This might include “trying to assassinate someone in South Korea or attacking an island” – in other words, one of the responses they have tried in the past.

“My belief is that if we take out this missile now, and we make it clear it’s an act of self-defense, the choice they have is face suicide or not respond,” Suri says. “I think they will choose not to commit suicide.”

Indeed, it might boil down “to being the best of bad options,” he says.

It is similar to an argument that Messrs. Perry and Carter recall making in their book.

“I went over the ‘talking points’ prepared by my staff, which sketched out how we should explain to the president the difficult choice he had to make,” they wrote.

As the assistant secretary of Defense for international security policy, Carter supported the development of the strike plan.

Perry decided to begin his briefing to the president with a statement attributed to John Kenneth Galbraith: “Politics is not the art of the possible. Rather it consists of choosing between what is disastrous and what is merely unpalatable.”

“We were about to give the president a choice between a disastrous option – allowing North Korea to get a nuclear arsenal, which we might have to face someday – and an unpalatable option, blocking this development, but thereby risking a destructive non-nuclear war,” they wrote. “How had we gotten to this position?”

President Clinton was “within minutes of selecting and authorizing” a deployment option when the meeting was interrupted by a phone call from former President Carter, who had been dispatched to North Korea to negotiate on behalf of the United States. Kim Il-sung, then the aging leader of the regime, had agreed to negotiate.

What will happen this time?

 

[Edward Campbell]

A US preemptive nuclear strike on the DPRK would not be seen, not by the Chinese in any event, as "an act of self-defense". Rather, I suspect, the Chinese would see it as an unwarranted act of aggression by the USA and China would retaliate: diplomatic and economic retaliation, not military.

 

[kevincanada]

Some thoughts on North Korea I have not notice brought up.  The north has always been up and down with threats and behaving badly.  Lets say for arguments sake, Kim Jung-Un is done with the threats and puts his missiles back into storage and the USA backs off with the missile defense systems. Everyone anxiety drops from high to low and North Korea goes back to negotiations.  Where does it go from there?  While there is many issues to address three stick out like a sore thumb.

1. North Korea agrees to back down, gets foreign aid in return then fails to honour their end of the agreement (nuclear treaties for example)
2. Rogue state that has nuclear bombs.
3. The gulags, political prisoner retraining camps.

Items 1 and 2 seems to be fairly common knowledge, Item 3 I been reading about the gulags.  They appear to be similar to the camps of the holocaust.  Just with a different name, same end result.  Worked to death and torture, providing the newsprint I have read about them are indeed correct.

- A quick link to verify the papers have been reporting it from the National Post.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/jonathan-kay-a-look-inside-the-monstrous-north-korean-gulag-system-that-dennis-rodman-will-never-see/

- Gulag #22 location, requires google earth pluggin.  You can see it using their satellite images online. Go to google maps and punch in "Hoeryŏng, North Hamgyong, North Korea"

- From there look north east along the yellow highlight road about 5 kilometres.  You hit suspected check point,  then follow the road another 15km approximately and go north at the turn in the road then you hit the suspected prisoner camps.

Reading newsprint about Senator Kerry trip to South Korea, there is references they discussed the prisoners camp.  Senator Kerry even brought up the gulags in his Confirmation Hearing Statement, January 2013, found here http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2012/senator-john-kerrys-confirmation-hearing-statement-january-2013/p29874.


Back to my observation.  Military conflict tensions ease,  yet the North Korean atrocities continue,  with history showing no compliance on the North concessions in return for foreign aid.  Now that the political prisoner camps are coming to light.  What do we do if the Military standoff comes to a halt.  continued diplomacy with a nation that never honours their agreements?

I guess the point I'm hopping to get across is; how does it end?  Has the North finally stepped over the line?  It seems like Kim Jung-Un has poked a sleeping bear in the eye with a stick, then cowardly says I'm going to do it again and again....

Anyway just trying to look at the situation from a different light.

 

[GAP]

China Sends A Nastygram To The Boy General
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/korea/20130415.aspx 
April 15, 2013

North Korea is again running one of its big extortion campaigns against the rest of the world. This is the biggest and boldest yet, with threats of nuclear weapon armed missiles being fired at Japan and other enemies. All this media theater has more impact the farther you get from North Korea. In the two Koreas it is pretty much business as usual. The planting season has begun in the north and that has ended the token military mobilizations (used as a media event to scare the foreigners). Most troops are now doing what they normally do this time of year, help with growing food. North Korea desperately needs this food, especially since reforms (incentives for farmers) in the last year appear to have worked and increased production a bit. That’s remarkable considering the growing fuel, fertilizer, and other shortages farmers have to deal with. The weather has been bad in many parts of the country for the last two years and there has been a noticeable increase in starvation related deaths and illness. Scaring foreigners does not help much if you are very hungry.

The implicit message in all the North Korean threats is that if someone offers some free food and fuel the aggressive messages would disappear. No one has stepped up and China has apparently quietly threatened cuts in aid if North Korea doesn’t quiet down. As these campaigns go, they usually end abruptly with the northerners declaring some kind of victory and that’s it. While it would be nice if all this theater produced some free stuff from fearful foreigners, Kim Jong Un could win inside North Korea without getting a payoff from the foreigners because he has shown his henchmen that the new boss can work the foreign media even more adroitly than daddy or grandpa.

China is angry at all this North Korean theater. The current barrage of threats from North Korea is upsetting Chinese trading partners and is bad for business. North Korean actions have caused a massive amount of international media speculation and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). While this is not much of a problem for China, which strictly controls its own media, it forces politicians in nations with a free press to respond to their anxious voters. This can lead to decisions that are not favorable for China. The most unfavorable such decision would be for Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Both could do so quickly and would complicate Chinese foreign policy. Currently, Chinese diplomacy is backed up by the fact that China has nukes and that limits how far other nations can go in threatening China. That works both ways, and China tries to maintain reasonably good relations with South Korea and Japan because both nations are trading partners and tension and threats are bad for business. China may be a communist police state but the leadership remains in power only because they keep the economy growing. The neighbors know this and have not felt compelled to go through the political, economic, and diplomatic hassle of building their own nuclear weapons capability. But the current hysteria could force Japan and South Korea to go nuclear. China would lose a diplomatic edge and there would be an increase in the risk of someone actually using nukes.

China does not like to publicly criticize an ally and has been low-key in its public comments to North Korea over the current unpleasantness. But China has other ways to send a nastygram to the Boy General (one of the official nicknames for Kim Jong Un). China has ordered its Internet media operatives to say what they think about the Boy General. As a result, popular Chinese Internet personalities are saying what the government prefers not to say (that Kim Jong Un is a fat little dork, asshole, maniac, or whatever). Chinese Internet commentators are often local celebrities who are allowed to spout on their website or microblog (the tightly controlled Chinese version of Twitter) as long as they do not say anything the government censors do not approve of. The Chinese people understand how this works and know which blog posts are crap and which are sincere. The jabs at the Boy General are largely sincere, with the posters saying what a lot of Chinese think about North Korea.

Yet China is unwilling, or unable, to actually replace Kim Jong Un. Since the Cold War (and Russian subsidies that kept the economy afloat) ended in 1991, China has picked up some of the slack. China has become unhappy with the incompetent leadership in North Korea, as the Kim dynasty refuses to undergo the kind of economic reform that has kept the Chinese Communists comfortably in power. Staging a coup in North Korea has always been a possibility but the paranoid (for good reason in this case) North Korea leadership has made it difficult for China to recruit enough North Korean officials to make this feasible. That said, the potential is still there and China could still go this route.

Many North Koreans believe that the Chinese will take over if it appears that the North Korean government is about to fall apart. The Chinese plan to install pro-Chinese North Koreans as head of a new "North Korean" government and institute the kind of economic reforms they have been urging North Korea to undertake for over a decade. The Chinese do not want North Korea to merge with South Korea, nor do they want North Korea to collapse (and send millions of starving refugees into northern China). China and South Korea both want North Korea to stay independent and harmless. Thus, China is willing to unofficially annex North Korea, knowing that the South Koreans would go along with this as long as the fiction of North Korean independence was maintained. South Korea won't admit this but most South Koreans know that absorbing North Korea would put a big dent in South Korean living standards. That is more unpopular than any other outcome. While all Koreans would like a united Korea, far fewer are willing to pay the price.

The North Korean government has ordered a crackdown on the use of USB memory sticks to bring in Chinese and South Korean movies and TV shows. Many North Korean families have inexpensive Chinese DVD players (which are still legal) that have a USB port. Police have been ordered to go door-to-door to find homes with these DVD players and disable the USB capabilities. After that is done a sticker is placed over the USB port indicating that the change has been made. Police are making a lot of money selling the stickers without altering the USB port.
more on link

 

[CougarKing]

When it comes to the article below, I agree that a unified Korea under ROK/South Korean leadership will not necessarily see a need for a continued American troop presence. Furthermore a unified Korea will eventually become more of an economic powerhouse that will dwarf the current ROK's economy in decades once the North's population and resources are fully integrated, much like the German reunification after 1989. Because of China's own trade and vested interests in the South, this will only further China's immediate goal of economic prosperity. While unified Korea may also be a rival to Beijing when it comes to becoming a regional power, both have an interest in regional stability as well.

Please note another, older thread posted before about the global influence a unified Korea may yield.

Must China Fear a Unified Korea?

The recent crisis on the Korean Peninsula has once again brought to the fore China’s support for North Korea, which many deem vital for Pyongyang’s survival. In explaining this support analysts typically cite two factors: Beijing’s fear that the North Korean regime’s collapse will bring untold numbers of refugees across the border into China, and Beijing’s fear of a unified, democratic, and pro-American Korea under Seoul’s leadership with a large U.S. troop presence stationed on the Sino-Korean border.

These factors probably accurately reflect Beijing’s strategic calculus. However, although possible, it’s not at all clear that a unified Korea under Seoul’s tutelage would in fact be as pro-American as Western and (presumably) Chinese policymakers assume. A number of factors could undermine this assumption.

Read more...

 

[CougarKing]

An interesting perspective of North Korean-Chinese relations, comes from the Canadian owners of a café that operates on the Chinese side of the Yalu River!

Globe and Mail link

Canadian café owners serve up coffee with a view of North Korea

MARK MacKINNON

DANDONG, CHINA — The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 16 2013, 8:53 PM EDT

Vancouverites own more than their share of coffee shops. But none of those java joints offers the front-row seat to unfolding international drama that you get at Peter’s Coffee House.

A 20 yuan (about $3) cup of cappuccino at Peter’s Coffee House comes with a view of the trucks that lumber each morning across the dark-metal frame of the Friendship Bridge that links this comparatively glittering corner of northeastern China to the greyness that is North Korea on the opposite bank of the Yalu River. Owners Kevin and Julia Garratt, Vancouverites who have lived in China since 1984, serve cheesecake, coffee and Western breakfasts to Dandong’s tiny crowd of foreigners plus the growing number of tourists who come here hoping for a peek inside the Hermit Kingdom next door.

These days, the bridge is a crucial indicator of how much support the paranoid regime of Kim Jong-un has left. North Korea has for weeks been threatening war against South Korea and its ally the United States, bringing tensions on the Korean Peninsula to their highest point in years.

Even China, North Korea’s only remaining ally, has started to openly question the leadership in Pyongyang. Beijing supported tighter sanctions against its unpredictable friend after the Kim regime ignored its advice and detonated a nuclear device in February.

Despite those sanctions, Mr. Garratt said Tuesday that trade across the Friendship Bridge appears routine. Business is also good in the Dandong supermarkets where North Koreans load up with Western and luxury goods. Some banking avenues have been shut, but it remains possible to send cash from accounts in China into Pyongyang.

Still, drivers who cross the border every day say they’re no longer bringing in materials that could have a military use, and those who have helped fleeing North Koreans say there are tighter controls in place over who crosses the border.

Chinese trucks cross the Yalu each morning laden with everything from bags of rice and cans of cooking oil to new cars and kitchen appliances. Each afternoon, the trucks return empty. The North Korean side pays for the Chinese goods either with hard currency carried across the border by hand or with coal that is shipped into China by train.

“Last week we saw hundreds of trucks going in because [Monday] was the Day of the Sun,” the 52-year-old Mr. Garratt said, referring to the anniversary of the birth of North Korea’s founder, Kim Il-sung. “I think China has tightened up [since the sanctions], but you can’t really see that from here.”

Dandong bustles with commerce, while across the water the North Korean city of Sinuiju sits silent and dark despite its designation a decade ago as a “special administrative region” where Chinese-style economic reforms were to have been introduced.

The Friendship Bridge was closed Monday and Tuesday, but a line of trucks was already forming Tuesday afternoon at the customs office on the Chinese side of the border in expectation of crossing Wednesday. Some carried bags of rice, others refrigerators. Also in line to cross was a gasoline truck, five new Chinese-made BYD sedans, plus half a dozen construction vehicles.

Traders say that what isn’t crossing, for now, is anything that could be seen as useful to the North Korean military. “The sanctions are very serious,” said Qin, a 66-year-old truck driver who has been driving back and forth across the Friendship Bridge since the 1990s. “Before, things like chemical products and pipes and steel were very common. Now, very few of these things are going across and the main products going in are fertilizer, washing powder, cooking oil, daily things. It’s all civilian trade. If there are any forbidden things, they have to be smuggled.”

As for luxury goods, which were specifically targeted by the new sanctions, those appear tougher to stop. Truck drivers say luxury items never flowed in bulk across the Friendship Bridge, but rather were hand-carried into the country by North Koreans who came to shop in Dandong’s markets.

And in this shady frontier city – packed with spies, smugglers and missionaries – you can find whatever it is you’re looking for, if you have the money. The Chinese side of the Yalu River is lined with neon-advertised hotels, massage parlours and karaoke joints.

Stores selling Apple products are a favourite stop for visiting North Koreans, as are shops selling big-screen televisions. Liquor outlets are also popular. “They come in here and buy red wines and brandy, the cheaper the better,” said a saleswoman in Tesco, a British supermarket chain that is famous in Dandong as the place North Koreans go to stuff their bags before returning home where such things are scarce and expensive.

Efforts to crack down on the flow of money into North Korea – where few besides those connected to the regime have hard-currency bank accounts – seem half-hearted.

China made a show of closing the local branch of the Kwangson Bank (listed in United Nations’ documents as the Foreign Trade Bank) earlier this year after the United States designated it a “key financial node in North Korea’s weapons-of-mass-destruction apparatus.” But other banks in Dandong said they were still able to send cash directly to accounts in Pyongyang. “We haven’t received notice to stop any of our services,” an employee of the China Construction Bank, which has known ties to the Kwangson Bank, told The Globe and Mail.

Since sanctions were tightened and the crisis began, one thing has changed: It has become harder for those wishing to flee North Korea to leave. Christian groups involved in helping North Koreans escape into China, usually en route to South Korea, say that the security situation is such that they’ve largely had to suspend their efforts during the past two months.

“Along the border between North Korea and China, there is much more security,” one Christian activist said. “In the past, you could bribe your way past the soldiers, but now, because of the security situation, they dare not allow anyone in or out.”

 

[Nemo888]

Kim Jong Un is taking his marching orders from his aunt and uncle.He's the face of the regime at 27 and needs to be seen as up to the task.Right now its the same old game of racheting up the rhetoric and then victory was be announced and the game will abate for awhile.

This makes no sense because the media inside DPRK is complete nonsense with no influence from actual world events. They are told things like they are sending food aid to other countries because a failing US has created a worldwide famine. This if for external consumption. It has no bearing on what goes on inside the DPRK. It is a show for the world. In a war the Kim's are as good as dead so obviously that is not the goal.

A former Chinese diplomat to Japan thinks that the only winner in this is the USA. They have a perfect excuse for the pivot to Asia now. I find his paranoia mildly appealing. Perhaps his crazy alcoholic aunt made a deal. It will be interesting to see how all this shakes out in a year or two.

 

[CougarKing]

Smoking gun evidence that they have a nuclear device?

link

Possible radioactive traces found from North Korea nuclear test

Reuters

By Fredrik Dahl | Reuters – 12 hours ago.

VIENNA (Reuters) - Radioactive gases that could have come from North Korea's nuclear test in February have unexpectedly been detected, a global monitoring body said on Tuesday, possibly providing the first "smoking gun" evidence of the explosion.

But the April 9 measurement - almost two months after Pyongyang said it had carried out the underground detonation - gave no indication of whether plutonium or highly enriched uranium was used, it said.

The time that had passed before the so-called noble gases were picked up made it "very difficult" to distinguish between the two fissile materials, said spokeswoman Annika Thunborg of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO).

The isolated east Asian state is believed to have tested plutonium bombs in its previous two such blasts, in 2006 and 2009. Any switch to uranium would increase international alarm as it could enable Pyongyang to greatly expand its arsenal.

North Korea threatened nuclear attacks on the United States, South Korea and Japan after new U.N. sanctions were imposed in response to its latest atomic test. But U.S. officials have cast serious doubt on whether it could launch a nuclear missile.

Pyongyang's third nuclear test was registered virtually instantaneously via seismic signals around the world. But no radioactive traces that would have constituted conclusive proof were found in the immediate weeks afterwards.

The Vienna-based CTBTO, which has a worldwide network of monitoring stations, said in mid-March that it was highly unlikely any such radioactivity would be detected.

But Tuesday's statement said it made a significant detection of radioactive noble gases two weeks ago in Takasaki, Japan, about 1,000 km (620 miles) from the test site. Lower levels were picked up at another station in Ussuriysk, Russia.

"Two radioactive isotopes of the noble gas xenon were identified, xenon-131m and xenon-133, which provide reliable information on the nuclear nature of the source," it said.

"Detection of radioactive noble gas more than seven weeks after an event is indeed unusual. We did not expect this and it did not happen in 2009," the CTBTO added, referring to the reclusive country's previous nuclear test.

(...)

 

[57Chevy]

Nuclear blast shakes town


Radiation detected in Japan may be from North Korea nuclear test
Herald Sun 24 Apr

POSSIBLE radioactive traces from a North Korean nuclear test in February have been detected for the first time, 1000km away in Japan.

The  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) said it had detected isotopes "consistent with a nuclear fission event", The Japan Times reports.

"The ratio of the detected xenon isotopes (xenon-131m and xenon-133) is consistent with a nuclear fission event occurring more than 50 days before the detection," the CTBTO said.

"This coincides very well" with the North Korea’s announced nuclear test on February 12.

The detection at a monitoring station in Japan came 55 days after the explosion, The Japan Times reports.

The group said, however, that the discovery couldn’t help it answer the key question of whether Pyongyang used plutonium or uranium in the blast.

North Korea used plutonium in its 2006 and 2009 tests and any discovery that it used highly enriched uranium for its third test would mark a significant technological step for the impoverished and unpredictable regime.

It would also raise international concerns that North Korea might pass on weapons-grade uranium.

North Korea threatened nuclear attacks on the United States, South Korea and Japan after new U.N. sanctions were imposed in response to its latest atomic test. But U.S. officials have cast serious doubt on whether it could launch a nuclear missile.

Pyongyang's third nuclear test was registered virtually instantaneously via seismic signals around the world. But no radioactive traces that would have constituted conclusive proof were found in the immediate weeks afterwards.

It is also possible that the so-called radionuclides were from a nuclear reactor or other atomic activity, and the CTBTO said it is currently examining the traces to see whether this is the case.

It ruled out however that the source was the crippled Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant.

The detection was made in Takasaki, Gunma Prefecture, 1000 km from the North Korean test site. Lower levels were also picked up at Ussuriysk, Russia, one of several hundred sites worldwide reporting to the CTBTO.


(The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) was set up in 1996 with its headquarters in Vienna, Austria. It is an interim organization tasked with building up the verification regime of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in preparation for the treaty's entry into force as well as promoting the treaty's universality.)

screengrab and videos at link.

                                            Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

 

[Gringo2]

The group said, however, that the discovery couldn’t help it answer the key question of whether Pyongyang used plutonium or uranium in the blast.

North Korea used plutonium in its 2006 and 2009 tests and any discovery that it used highly enriched uranium for its third test would mark a significant technological step for the impoverished and unpredictable regime.

It would also raise international concerns that North Korea might pass on weapons-grade uranium.

I dont understand the uranium weapon grade thing... If i follow the explaination of a PhD he says that plutonium bombs are made after uranium. In the article they say that North Korea used plutonium bombs during their tests in 2006 and 2009. It would be very nice if someone explain me the new concern with this news.

Sources: http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412190319AAK3h8m

First let me straighten you out on plutonium and uranium. I have a PhD in nuclear physics, and built Nuclear weapons for a living. Plutonium is the by product of refined Uranium. Uranium is mined out of the ground, then processed into weapon grade plutonium, Uranium is not used in the nuclear device, it is plutonium which was used in both A bombs that were used in WWII. There are different grades of plutonium depending on how much refining is done to it. the more pure the uranium is refined into plutonium also determines the yield of explosive power that is produced when the the nuclear device is detonated. like the A bombs we used in Japan had a yield of 1 mega ton each. because the Technology has come so far we now have nuclear devices that have 65 kilo tons of energy.

 

[ModlrMike]

Natural uranium contains about 99% U238 and about 1% U235. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is the most common form of nuclear weapons material, with 85% U235. Low enriched uranium (20% U235) is not generally a weapons grade material, but it can be used for a "dirty bomb". Plutonium (Pu94) has several isotopes, the most important for weapons is Pu239. Contrary to your citation, Fat Man was a U235 bomb, and Little Boy was a Pu239 bomb.


For more info, go here: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq8.html#nfaq8.1.1

 

[a_majoor]

I dont understand the uranium weapon grade thing... If i follow the explaination of a PhD he says that plutonium bombs are made after uranium. In the article they say that North Korea used plutonium bombs during their tests in 2006 and 2009. It would be very nice if someone explain me the new concern with this news.

Sources: http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412190319AAK3h8m

PHD guy is talking through his hat. Uranium can be enriched to produce weapons grade Uranium (as indicated above). Plutonium is one of the byproducts of nuclear fission in reactors, and can also be used for nuclear weapons. Generally speaking, if you have access to a pretty heavy duty industrial capability, you can build the machinery to enrich Uranium (a fairly involved process, as Iran discovered). If you have access to a nuclear reactor, you can use lower grade Uranium as fuel and process Plutonium from the spent fuel rods. This is also fairly intensive in resources and you should not try this at home.

The yeild of the weapon has to do with a huge number of factors, most of which have nothing to do with what sort of fissile material you use. Uranium was used in the "Little Boy" bomb over Hiroshima, and Plutonium used in the "Fat Man" bomb used over Nagasaki. Which material you use is pretty much a matter of choice or economics these days, either one will do just fine.

As for yeilds, the first weapons were @ 20 Kt each (20 Kilo tons = 20,000 tons of TNT)
The largest ever bomb was the Soviet "Tsar Bomba", with a yeild of 50 Mt (Mega tons = 50 million tons of TNT)
Most modern weapons are thought to be in the hundreds of Kilotons range, since more is not always better.

 

[DBA]

Fat Man was the more complex implosion design and used Plutonium.
Little Boy was the gun design and used enriched Uranium.

Out of the ground Uranium is 99.27% U238 and 0.72% U235. Increasing the % of U235 is called enriching which can be a little for reactor grade (3.5%) and a lot for weapons grade (90%+). Left behind is depleted Uranium which has a lower % than natural Uranium. It is U235 that is of use in Weapons.

Plutonium can be produced in a nuclear reactor and consists of two main isotopes: P239 which is the one desired for weapons and P240 which hinders use in weapons due to it's high rate of spontaneous fission. Different production methods can reduce the % of P240 so it's below the 7% considered weapons grade.  The presence of P240 is what necessitated a faster rate of assembly over the U235 gun design. That faster rate was provided by the implosion design which being much more complex required testing before it could be reliably used.  Trinity was that test.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Diplomat, is an aptly titled article about China's North Korean dilemma:

http://thediplomat.com/2013/04/30/a-complex-calculus-chinas-north-korea-dilemma/?all=true

A Complex Calculus: China’s North Korea Dilemma
It remains in Beijing’s self-interest to provide aid to Pyongyang. The alternatives, like a North Korean collapse, could be far worse.

By Julia Famularo and Timothy Rich

April 30, 2013

It appears that China is growing exasperated with instability on the Korean Peninsula. Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell recently remarked that “The most important new ingredient [in the North Korean crisis] has been a recognition in China that their previous approach to North Korea is not bearing fruit. That they are going to have to be much clearer and much more direct with Pyongyang that what Pyongyang is doing is undermining Chinese security…. There is a subtle shift in Chinese foreign policy. You’ve seen it at the U.N., you’ve seen it in our private conservations… I don’t think that subtle shift can be lost on Pyongyang. It’s not in their strategic interest to alienate every country that surrounds them. I think they have succeeded in undermining their trust and confidence in Beijing.” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice similarly stated that the Chinese are  “very much of the view that Kim Jong-un has gone too far, and that this now is a situation that has the potential to directly threaten their interests in the region.”

In fact, China has already agreed to two rounds of sanctions, and China and North Korea have failed to hold high-level talks since December 2012. (It is nevertheless rumored that Chinese envoy Wu Dawei may soon travel to Pyongyang. Last week, Wu traveled to Washington to meet with Glyn Davis, his American counterpart, and pressed for a return to the six-party talks.) However, according to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations, China sees little of its nearly $6 billion in bilateral trade with North Korea affected by the UN sanctions, given that it characterizes the trade partnership as furthering economic development and humanitarian work. It also remains unclear whether China adequately enforces the existing sanctions regime. Yet, in a positive sign, South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se has reported that “we hear that China already instructed… local governments to implement the resolution… So, I think China is playing its role rather well.”

Speaking at the Boao Economic Forum for Asia on April 7, Chinese President Xi Jinping remarked that “The international community should advocate… [a] vision of comprehensive security and cooperative security, so as to turn the global village into a big stage for common development rather than an arena where gladiators fight each other. And no one should be allowed to throw the region, or even the whole world, into chaos for selfish gains.” Many observers viewed the comments as a direct reference to the escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula. In a conversation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi similarly stated that the People’s Republic of China “oppose(s) provocative words and actions from any party in the region and do[es] not allow troublemaking on China's doorstep.”

Beijing University professor Wang Xinsheng, a Northeast Asia historian, argues that the president’s speech sent a “clear message” to the DPRK and was among the “toughest remarks” made by any Chinese leader to date. Yet, at the same time, other experts are arguing that recent government statements are also a warning to the United States and its allies. Minzu University Korean studies professor Huang Youfu argues that Washington and Tokyo have used tensions in Northeast Asia “as an excuse to deploy cutting-edge weapons” there. Tsinghua University Sino-American relations specialist Sun Zhe furthermore argues that the United States should not make unreasonable requests of China. Beijing cannot sever its economic ties with Pyongyang because the consequences would harm both countries. He believes that Washington should cease joint military exercises with Seoul and offer to negotiate directly with Pyongyang to reduce regional tensions. “[U.S. politicians] are asking China to do something very serious, and yet the U.S. government won’t make even a symbolic move like stopping military drills.”

China released its new defense white paper on April 16th. It accused the United States, without directly naming it, of causing greater tensions and instability in the Asia-Pacific region by bolstering military alliances and increasing troop numbers. American policy has stoked the territorial ambitions of the Japanese, Fillipinos, and Vietnamese, forcing China to confront “multiple and complicated security threats.” According to Chinese government spokesman Yang Yujun, “Certain efforts made to highlight the military agenda, enhance military deployment and also strengthen alliances are not in line with the calling of the times and are not conducive to the upholding of peace and stability in the region.”

Chinese Netizen Reactions

Following Pyongyang’s February nuclear test and more recent provocations, many Chinese netizens have voiced their opinions regarding their country’s continued support for North Korea. Supporters, detractors, and even the infamous 50-cent party have all weighed into the debate.

Prominent pundit and former Yahoo China executive Xie Wen took to his Sina Weibo microblog to call upon his government to dramatically change its policy toward the DPRK. Specifically, he said that “Beijing should sever the Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance; cease providing free aid; suspend military cooperation; recall the Chinese ambassador; expel North Korean citizens engaged in drug trafficking, arms trafficking, or counterfeiting; and refuse to provide preferential treatment to North Korea in the Chinese media.”

A Chinese lawyer also posted his frustrations online regarding illicit North Korean activities in China. Chi Suma lamented that some people still refuse to believe that the “Kim Dynasty” not only controls an illicit drug production and distribution network, but also overruns China’s three northeastern provinces with drugs. “So many families broken and people dead, and so many people sentenced to long jail time or the death penalty…. We give North Korea free rice and they give us drugs.”

A former Yunnan Province education official named Luo Chongmin remarked that only Chinese aid has hitherto prevented the DPRK from collapsing. “The aid helps to feed North Korea’s army and government, but starve its people.”

Many netizens likened the DPRK to a rabid canine. One commenter asked “I wonder if our government will do anything specific in response or to sanction North Korea’s dictator, other than protesting. If nurturing a tiger is to invite a calamity, what about nurturing a mad dog?” Similarly, another remarked that “Mao raised a dog to watch the door. Turns out the dog is crazy.”

However, it appears that the Chinese Communist Party still shows little tolerance for officials and members of the state-run media speaking out against its stance on the DPRK.    Deng Yuwen, the prominent political commentator and deputy editor of Central Party School journal Study Times, was suspended from his position after he wrote a critical article in The Financial Times. Deng argued that China should abandon Pyongyang and pursue unification of the Korean peninsula. Netizens nevertheless actively discussed his fate, demonstrating once again that despite draconian censorship, domestic microblogs remain an important way to disseminate information and discuss current events.

Official Chinese Attitudes Toward North Korea

Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Pyongyang lost a major communist ally and benefactor. Beijing then recognized Seoul the next year. Taken together, these events dealt harsh economic and psychological blows to the Kim Il-sung’s regime. Compounding North Korea’s sense of growing isolation and insecurity during the 1990s was the advent of South Korean democratization and its “economic miracle,” as well as the emergence of the United States as the world’s sole superpower. Although Pyongyang increasingly relied on Beijing for its survival, the regimes were no longer as “close as lips and teeth.” The trust deficit has continued to grow over time.

An editorial published in different state-media outlets directly after the third DPRK nuclear test in February attempted to explain North Korea’s recent actions. Although it was “unwise and regrettable” for Pyongyang to repeatedly defy UN resolutions and threaten international peace with its nuclear program, it argued that North Korean provocations are “deeply rooted in its strong sense of insecurity after years of confrontation with South Korea, Japan, and a militarily more superior United States. In the eyes of the DPRK, Washington has spared no efforts to contain it and flexed its military muscle time and again by holding joint military drills with South Korea and Japan in the region. The latest nuclear test is apparently another manifestation of the attempt of a desperate DPRK to keep threat at bay.” The editorial counseled all sides to continue to engage in dialogue and negotiations, using the six-party talks as a mechanism to defuse the crisis.

Conversely, a senior editor from The People’s Daily published a new editorial calling upon North Korea to follow the example of Myanmar. Ding Gang argues that Western sanctions on Myanmar “suffocated” its economy and increased its dependence on the People’s Republic of China. At the same time, China supplied Myanmar with aid and invested in its infrastructure, benefiting the local people. He cites these factors as the reasons why Myanmar finally reformed and opened up to the world. Calling the “revival” of Myanmar beneficial for China, ASEAN, and other countries in the region, he asserts that China should further encourage North Korea to reform and develop so that it may follow a similar path.

Beijing’s concerns over an unruly neighbor are nothing new. For many centuries, China has feared instability along its borders. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has served as a useful buffer state following the Korean War, putting distance between the People’s Republic of China and U.S. troops stationed in the Republic of Korea and Japan. It has remained in China’s advantage to defend against any major form of political, economic, or social instability in North Korea that could negatively affect China.

For example, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and a host of Western nations have criticized China for refusing to adhere to the international principle of non-refoulement. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol protect those who are “unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” China refuses to recognize the rights of North Korean refugees. It labels them “economic migrants” and repatriates them to their home country, knowing full well that they face severe punishment. Yet, China does so because it fears that softening its stance on refugees could cause a flood of North Koreans to cross into its territory, triggering possible instability in both countries.

Many Western observers also wonder why China has remained hesitant to severely restrict aid to North Korea. Simply put, it remains in China’s own self-interest to provide humanitarian, economic, military, and energy assistance as well as push for limited market reforms. A severely weakened yet nuclear-armed North Korean regime could lash out in desperation and/or potentially collapse, which could also prompt North Koreans to pour across the Chinese border. Even worse, a major conflict or regime collapse could signal the return of American troops or allied forces above the 38th parallel, perhaps for years to come if the North is occupied or absorbed into a unified Korea under Southern control. China has long feared that the United States and its allies seek to encircle or contain China, and therefore wants to ensure the continued viability of the North Korean regime.

Thus, although Beijing has more leverage over Pyongyang than Washington, Georgetown Professor Victor Cha argues that the Chinese government is similarly “faced with the choices of rhetorical pressure, quiet diplomacy, and mild sanctions. As long as China continues to value stability on the peninsula more than it worries about a few nuclear weapons, it will not fundamentally change its policy towards its unruly neighbor.”

I know I'm repeating myself, but ... "Many Western observers also wonder why China has remained hesitant to severely restrict aid to North Korea. Simply put, it remains in China’s own self-interest to provide humanitarian, economic, military, and energy assistance as well as push for limited market reforms."

 

[CougarKing]

An update:

link

North Korea missiles moved away from launch site: U.S. officials
By Phil Stewart | Reuters – 8 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea has taken two Musudan missiles off launch-ready status and moved them from their position on the country's east coast, U.S. officials told Reuters on Monday, after weeks of concern that Pyongyang had been poised for a test-launch.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned North Korea last month that it would be a "huge mistake" to launch the medium-range missiles, but the prospects of a test had put Seoul, Washington and Toyko on edge.

One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, cautioned that the missiles were still mobile and the fact that they had been moved was no guarantee they would not be set up elsewhere and fired at some point.

(...)

 

[CougarKing]

It seems that assassination attempts on Kim Jong Un's life are more common that originally thought...

link

Did a Female North Korean Traffic Cop Save Kim Jong-un from Assassination?


... that footage from the ceremony in Pyongyang in front of Ri's fellow officers and military personnel is really something. But the propaganda machine doesn't tell us much more about why this ordinary traffic policewoman received such a high honor — beyond those two very mysterious phrases: "unexpected circumstance" and "safeguarding the security of the headquarters." As Agence France Presse points out, traffic cops doing their job to the utmost capacity tend not to receive this prize from the state:


The "Hero of the Republic" award is usually reserved for heroic acts during wartime, although it is also given to individuals who have made a major contribution to the country's advancement.

Recently, a large number were given to scientists and technicians involved in the North's long-range rocket launch in December and February's nuclear test.

Well, assuming this woman is not a secret nuclear rocket scientist hiding out in a police uniform, what could she have done to be honored for such an outstanding life during wartime? (It's pretty much always considered wartime in North Korea.) There's this, from her traffic cop boss, according to state TV: "Comrade Ri's action was not made possible by pure accident, but made possible because she had always harboured this longing for the respected leader day and night." And then comes the big juicy guess, from the secretary general of defector group NK Intellectuals Solidarity, speaking with the AFP:


"I suspect it might have been linked to an assassination attempt disguised as a traffic accident."

That same defector, Park Kun-Ha, said that someone of Ri's stature receiving this honor was "very rare." Turns out assassination attempts are not: Earlier this month, The Week reminded us that assassination attempts involving cars and staged accidents are far from unheard of in North Korea.

Indeed, there was apparently an assassination attempt just last year involving a car, a secret North Korean agent in China, and the life of Kim Jong-nam — the oldest brother of Kim Jong-un whom the Supreme Leader doesn't like very much:  "South Korean officials claimed to have captured a North Korean agent who'd been ordered to kill Jong Nam by staging a car accident in China. Jong Nam fled Macau, and is now thought to be in hiding in Singapore," The Week's team wrote.

So could that woman breaking down above have foiled a similar plot against the young propagandist-in-chief himself? Or did Ri pull Kim Jong-un out of a burning Maybach with her gloved hands? Who knows? But your best guess is probably just as believable as some other North Korean propaganda out there.