NK has Nuclear Weapons by RUSSIAN General




 
--
 
April 5th, 2006  
sandy
 

Topic: NK has Nuclear Weapons by RUSSIAN General


Quote:
Former chief of staff of Russian Strategic Missile Troops, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, believes that North Korea currently has all the necessary infrastructure for the production of a nuclear explosive device, while Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon within the next few years.

“Pyongyang already said last year that it had a nuclear weapon. I think this statement was not groundless: the DPRK (Democratic Party of the Republic of North Korea) has developed the necessary infrastructure for the creation of nuclear weapons, and the North Korean nuclear facilities have not been monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency for more than three years,” Yesin told Interfax news agency.

However, he noted that “unlike India and Pakistan, Pyongyang has so far not carried out a nuclear test”.

“Therefore I would refrain from saying unequivocally that the DPRK has a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Yesin suggested that “the North Koreans have managed to assemble a nuclear explosive device but not nuclear munitions”.

But another state with nuclear ambitions, Iran, would only be able to accomplish its project in several years’ time, Yesin believes.

“Iran has not created the full-fledged infrastructure needed for the production of nuclear weapons. But in two or three years Tehran will accomplish its nuclear project and create an A-bomb if the world community does not stop it. I am convinced that the Iranian leadership has this intention and won’t give it up voluntarily,” Yesin said.
If this story was true,NK and Iran will have nuclear deterrent power.
Don,t you think that is ploblem?
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/04/...nworried.shtml

Pop Kim

Taepodong Stamp
April 6th, 2006  
boris116
 
 
The Russian General seems to be at odds with te official Russian position on Iran. They claim(with China) that the Iranians are peaceful bunch of people tha just desperate for the new energy source...
April 6th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boris116
The Russian General seems to be at odds with te official Russian position on Iran. They claim(with China) that the Iranians are peaceful bunch of people tha just desperate for the new energy source...
I will be the next commandant of the Marine Corps. Yep, that is how believable that is. I would personally be more inclined to believe the General than the government. By the way, where is this general now? Still alive I hope. . .
--
April 8th, 2006  
CABAL
 
 
If Iran and N. Korea have a Nuclear Deterrent, the only type of action the US or its ally can take is either pre-emptive strike as a defensive role if there is a clear and emminent threat. For now there is no clear emminent threat yet. But if there is, then the threatened nations has every right to dismantle and disable these capabilities through any means necessary. It can be IAEA inspections, UN weapns inpections or even conducting air strikes.

Personally, looking through a realist perspective, N. Korea and Iran is behaving like any state would do in terms of international conflicts. It is arming itself because it feels threatened, mainly from the US. The same would apply for Venezuela.

If N. Korea or Iran feels no threat, there is no particular reason for them to build Nuclear Weapons. For example South Africa. South Africa dismantled its small nuclear arsenal because the country no longer experience any sort of threat. India on the other hand decides to build nuclear weapons because of China. As for China, they decided to build nuclear weapons because of nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union and the US. The same would apply for France and any other nuclear armed nation.
April 8th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CABAL
If Iran and N. Korea have a Nuclear Deterrent, the only type of action the US or its ally can take is either pre-emptive strike as a defensive role if there is a clear and emminent threat. For now there is no clear emminent threat yet. But if there is, then the threatened nations has every right to dismantle and disable these capabilities through any means necessary. It can be IAEA inspections, UN weapns inpections or even conducting air strikes.

Personally, looking through a realist perspective, N. Korea and Iran is behaving like any state would do in terms of international conflicts. It is arming itself because it feels threatened, mainly from the US. The same would apply for Venezuela.

If N. Korea or Iran feels no threat, there is no particular reason for them to build Nuclear Weapons. For example South Africa. South Africa dismantled its small nuclear arsenal because the country no longer experience any sort of threat. India on the other hand decides to build nuclear weapons because of China. As for China, they decided to build nuclear weapons because of nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union and the US. The same would apply for France and any other nuclear armed nation.
Why do they feel threatened? The US has made no overt, or covert that I know of, moves against any of the countries you have listed. China is building up armaments on it's borders with Japan, Iran is possibly researching in the hopes of building nuclear armaments. . against who? The US? Why? India builds against China. . why? China builds nuclear armaments against the US and the Soviet Union aka Russia. . why?

If they are building them in the hopes of deterring any country then all they are doing, I feel, is inviting someone to come in and tear their programs down. This will of course ignote internatoinal outrage and again the world will be at odds. Vicious circle it seems to me.
April 8th, 2006  
sandy
 
Iran and NK and etc etc・・・・
Those coutries often say"American threat"
But realstic,Nuclear weapons are also used for Nationalism and justify power.
The most ploblem is the politicians in these counries don,t understand how expensive nuclear weapon.
They must think that "Having nuclear weapon costs only Price of theirself,nuclear is cheap"
But realstic,Having nuclear means
at least,They are needed

Quote:
delivary system
Equipment that endures preemptive attack nucleus attack
Retaliation ammunition like strategic nuclear submarine
defending from terrorist,rebellion force
Early-warning satellite
Reconnaissance spacecraft
Development of satellite defense situation
Certain, prompt decision
Construction of information transmission system.
Development, experiment, disposition, and maintenance
About six trillion dollars was needed in case of US.

Just Only having?
by
Quote:
"Economic Implications of the Acquisition and Further Development of Nuclear Weapons (1967),"
about 2~3 billion is just needed
But this means just having,
by this case,Nuclear weapons are just on the ground.

These things are very&very&vert simple but unfortuneteliy almost people don,t think so.
Why?
Almost people learn from their experience?
After mistake,they notice it?