North Korean says it will stop developing nukes:
North Korea agreed Monday to stop building nuclear weapons and allow international inspections in exchange for energy aid, economic cooperation and security assurances, a breakthrough that marked a first step toward disarmament after two years of six-nation talks.
The chief U.S. envoy to the talks praised the development as a “win-win situation” and “good agreement for all of us.” But he promptly urged Pyongyang to make good on its promises by ending operations at its main nuclear facility at Yongbyon.
“What is the purpose of operating it at this point?” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. “The time to turn it off would be about now.”
Yeah. Sure. The check is in the mail. We’ll stop developing nukes. I will respect you in the morning. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Cynical enough for you?
TallDave
John, you’re so cynical. Don’t you blieve in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy?
Well, the Nuclear Disarmament Fairy is no different.
srv
No doubt the true believers will soon be waving this as another faux victory.
John Cole
Do you mean Josh Marshall talking about the ‘wildly successful’ Agreed Framework again, SRV?
TallDave
Hehe, just wait until they start talking about the “verify” part of the deal. Condi Rice is no one’s fool. They will never agree to her terms.
The DPRK is just trying to create the illusion that the US had a deal in its grasp but the Bush admin screwed it up at the last second, which illusion will then be proudly propagated by the left’s pusillanimous political punditry.
Just you wait and see.
srv
John,
Not that I’ve even read your link, but I assume after all this sabre rattling and axis-of-evil crap for the last several years we’re back to where we were in 1994 (we won’t invade, inspections, and you can have peaceful reactors).
Except that North Korea probably has more nukes now than they did then.
srv
Now that I’ve read it, I guess I assumed 2 of 3 correctly.
Techie
North Korea is one of the few places that can be truely described as “hell on Earth”.
I keep wondering why that little gargoyle hasn’t had his Mussolini Moment yet.
I trust NK’s word as much as I’d trust a starving bear not to eat me.
TallDave
we’re back to where we were in 1994
Yep. There really is no way short of mlitary force to stop a gov’t from developing nukes (or anything else) if they really want to.
Just wait until it becomes possible to build a true doomsday device, like a slow strangelet bomb. Then we’ll all wish we had overthrown the nutter regimes when we had the chance.
Krista
TallDave – so just to satisfy my curiosity, which countries do you think should have nuclear weapons?
docG
Well, let’s see. A dictator messing with WMD’s, promises to cooperate with inspections, a history of not following through with promises. . . John is right, its deja vu all over again. No invasion (I’m sorry, make that liberation) to come, though. No oil, no connection to Bin Laden (heh, heh), and a really big army historically tied to mainland China.
Remember 21st Century Politics Maxim One: No matter how cynical you become, its never enough.
Techie
I have an easy answer for that one, Krista.
Stable Democracies: (USA, UK, France, Japan, Israel, Italy, Germany, Canada, etc.)
Then there is the real world where not-so-nice people have them, but aren’t insane enough to use them … yet (Russia, China, Pakistan, etc.)
Then there are the people who should be our Priority One from preventing getting ahold of nuclear technology. (Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.)
Davebo
Tall Dave.
“Hehe, just wait until they start talking about the “verify” part of the deal. Condi Rice is no one’s fool. They will never agree to her terms.”
Too late dude.
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country’s own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework’s requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm
Looks like a
kindler gentler Clinton deal to me.
M. Scott Eiland
Memo to “Hans Brix”:
When the evil little dwarf tells you to move a “little to the left” during your inspection tour, *don’t*–unless you fancy becoming a diet for seafood.
Vlad
To me, the interesting part of the agreement was the bit where we agreed not to invade or pursue regime change. That was a pretty big bone of contention in past negotiations.
docG
Techie, am confused by your selection of countries that should have nukes. I am only aware of one country insane (your word, not mine) enough to have ever used the weapons, but that country is on your list of first priority for having nuclear weapons. Am I missing something?
Defense Guy
Davebo
Unbelievable. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice watch some city get annihilated by a ‘peaceful’ noko nuke. I really hope the BBC got this one wrong.
I officially give up, as this rates up there with the all time stupid moves ever. I am tempted to build a bomb shelter and just start growing dope in it.
Davebo
Calm down Defense Dude.
That was from the aide we sent in 2002.
But I’d be very concerned that we might well cave again here.
Defense Guy
Davebo
Bastard. I was ready to put flowers in my hair and just call it a life.
jg
I guess someone made it to the ‘P’ volume of his Encyclopedia.
Mr Furious
In pirate: I find this t’ be th’ sure confirmation Bush`s poll numbers be bad, an’ decidely so. Sounds t’ me like th’ Bushies needed a good news pushaft an’ agreed t’ what Clinton had port in place after the’r voyages o’ tough talk.
In English: I find this to be the sure confirmation Bush’s poll numbers are bad, and decidely so. Sounds to me like the Bushies needed a good news pushback and agreed to what Clinton had left in place after their years of tough talk.
Northman
Hey Techie,
Canada doesn’t have nukes, but thanks for believing we should get some. At least we’ll know our oil is safe then, eh?
StupidityRules
In the best of worlds no nations should have nukes.
But in this rather crappy version (at least right now) of a world I somewhat agree with Techie’s list. I don’t think there’s a good idea that Pakistan has nukes, but since they are an ally in the GWOT I’m guessing it’s just peachy.
But you could argue that if you believe that nukes prevent wars that it’s good that both Pakistan and India got theirs and not only India.
What’s clearly not good is that the father of the Pakistan nuclear program has been helping the states that we would not want to aquire nukes. But he’s a Pakistani hero and they are our ally. For now…
I would also like personally add that nukes should be banned from overly religious nations. And the way the US is going at the moment they are soon going up on that list…
StupidityRules
Maybe not as much overly religious nations as nations with overly religious leadership.
Krista
StupidityRules – I agree about the religious thing. But it is rather interesting that countries who were once the U.S.’s sworn enemies make the list of being allowed to have nukes. And countries that were once allies at some point or another, should not be. Frankly, the thought of the U.S. having nukes scares me just as much as the idea of North Korea having them…especially with the “wage war now, duck the questions later” president that you have. I definitely think that we’ve reached a dangerous point right now, though…I was talking to a retired Canadian senator, and he said that it’s soon going to get to the point where countries just “holding” nukes is no longer going to be feasible…that either we have to get serious about disarmament, or those nukes are going to be used sooner rather than later. Joseph Rotblat was right: we should have never gone there in the first place.
TallDave
TallDave – so just to satisfy my curiosity, which countries do you think should have nuclear weapons?
Liberal democracies, of course. They’re the only gov’ts that have any legitimate right to exist at all. The rest are thugocracies of one stripe or another.
StupidityRules
The question now is, how long does the new Iraq have to wait until they are allowed to get some nukes? How many democratic elections do you need to have?
I’m guessing it won’t matter that they seem to be into “religion as law” since they might become our main arab ally in the GWOT.
Boronx
Do you mean Josh Marshall talking about the ‘wildly successful’ Agreed Framework again, SRV?
Are we going to get another round of wingnuts who don’t know the difference between Uranium enrichment and Plutonium processing again?
Techie
Ah, I love the left. I say that stable democracies should have nuclear weapons and it gets turned around into a slam on the US.
It must be great knowning all the answers before hand. NK and Iran can have all the nukes they want because AMERIKKKA IS EVVVVIL”.
And yes, I know that Canada doesn’t have nukes. You know why? Because the US has nukes. Do you really think that we’d have let the Soviets nuke Canada scott freee? I’d be perfectly fine with Canada having nukes.
And as for former US enemies, I’d be as afraid of a nuclear Japan as I am of a nuclear Great Britain.
Techie
I’d say that feeling that a nuclear armed America is just as worrisome as an armed North Korea indicates . . . a lack of perspective.
Techie
And finally, in response to StupidityRules’ observation, only strictly non-religous nations shall be allowed nuclear weapons.
China, the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba: You move to the front of the class.
StupidityRules
Techie, where did I express support for the idea that Russia, North Korea or Cuba should have or be allowed to have nukes?
And on religion. Starting a major, or even a minor, nuclear war has consequences. But some people’s beliefs of an afterlife makes the consequences moot in their view.
Mike
“StupidityRules Says:
And on religion. Starting a major, or even a minor, nuclear war has consequences. But some people’s beliefs of an afterlife makes the consequences moot in their view.”
Strange…
In 46 years of going to Southern Baptist Churches I’ve yet to hear a preacher or a congregation say they didn’t care if they got nuked cause they were ready to go to heaven. I guess I need to get out more, or you need to hang around churches more.
Krista
The reason why the U.S. having nukes worries me as much as North Korea having nukes is twofold:
1. Frankly, I don’t think anybody should have nukes.
2. My concern about the U.S. having them is due solely to the people who are currently in power. Not necessarily GWB, but those who surround him, who do not have to worry about their popularity, or lack thereof. I don’t genuinely think that the U.S. will use nukes again. But…they HAVE done it before during a war. So that alone keeps me from feeling completely at ease.
p.lukasiak
geez, its gotta be tough to be a Bush supporter on nowadays. For five years, the Bushbots have been talking about how bad the “agreed framework” was….and now Bushco wants to reinstitute it.
meanwhile, Iran is thumbing its nose at us on the nukes issue….and Bushco can’t do a damn thing about it….
Of course, the likelihood of either NK or Iran actually using a nuke is far less than that of Bush, whose subordinates keep trying to find ways to justify the “limited” use of nuclear weapons.
StupidityRules
Mike, I recall writing:
And since I’m pretty sure I’ve never been around the churches you go to I’m going to take your word about the people worshiping there.
But yes there are Christians which I don’t believe should have access to any kind of WMD. I’m guessing they are a smaller subset of the “God has given us enough oil to last until the Second Coming of Christ” group.
Defense Guy
Nope. You do get good crazy points for this statement though. All of the renewed talk about nuclear weapons from this country is a response, not the first cause.
When the US starts threatening to turn N. America into a sea of fire, as Korea has for their peninsula, or when we end our sessions of Congress with chants of ‘Death to Iran’, as the Iranians do, or when we state outright that we seek to nuke an Islamic city as al Quada has, then you can compare the two.
Mike
“p.lukasiak Says:
meanwhile, Iran is thumbing its nose at us on the nukes issue….and Bushco can’t do a damn thing about it….”
They’re thumbing their noses at the EU as well, what are they doing about it?
Tim F
lol. Bush got punk’d.
Com Con
I’m not concerned. I’m sure Kim Il Jong saw what happened to Saddam.