North Korea admits it has secret nuclear weapons programme
-
Chris Hambleton wrote: Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... I couldn't quite figure the logic in that either. :confused: I don't think those facilities were actually started until late '99, though. The N.Koreans, then turned around and threatened to restart their nuclear programs if U.S didn't compensate for electricity lost due to delays in the power plant construction. WTF? Supposedly in early '99, inspectors reported no evidence of "nuclear activity". I guess they were fooled. You don't think the Iraqi's would try to hide their activity too, do you?? :omg: BW The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to talk, mad to live, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding. - Jack Kerouac
;P What find absolutely hilarious about this whole nuclear thing is that nuclear power plants are popping up all over the world, and are widely used in "green" countries like France. But what about the US?? Nooo... we don't build new ones, and we try to shut down the ones we have! So, the US burns coal, NG, and oil for power, which are not nearly as efficient as nuclear power, and also produce a lot more pollution. To make it worse, the US helps foreign countries with "questionable" leadership and human rights records build their own nuclear power plants! It's like someone wanting to kill you, and you volunteer to dig the grave, hop in, and nail yourself into the coffin. And all they have to do is toss some dirt on you and walk away... "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
-
Sounds like someone is *enjoying* the game.. -- modified at 14:58 Friday 2nd June, 2006
Fazlul Kabir wrote: Sounds like someone is *enjoying* the game.. Process of elimination......;) Cheers Mike Johannesburg, South Africa
-
Megan Forbes wrote: why was peace promoted so nicely while Clinton was in office, but the Bush family seem to cause so much disturbance? Not peace at all, just deferral of the problems. Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. Clinton bombed Iraq, with impunity just days before hearings on impeachment - then backed off after everyone's attention was distracted. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Mike
Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Really? I thought they only had a material processing plant. Have they actually built and detonated a bomb (if the answer is yes, then I am woefully ignorant--not the first time!!!) Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Marc
-
;P What find absolutely hilarious about this whole nuclear thing is that nuclear power plants are popping up all over the world, and are widely used in "green" countries like France. But what about the US?? Nooo... we don't build new ones, and we try to shut down the ones we have! So, the US burns coal, NG, and oil for power, which are not nearly as efficient as nuclear power, and also produce a lot more pollution. To make it worse, the US helps foreign countries with "questionable" leadership and human rights records build their own nuclear power plants! It's like someone wanting to kill you, and you volunteer to dig the grave, hop in, and nail yourself into the coffin. And all they have to do is toss some dirt on you and walk away... "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
What find absolutely hilarious about this whole nuclear thing is that nuclear power plants are popping up all over the world, and are widely used in "green" countries like France. But what about the US?? Nooo... we don't build new ones, and we try to shut down the ones we have! Well, the US has something called a "tree hugger". All kidding aside, am I wrong in saying that Europeans are very unhappy with nuclear energy as well? Especially since they were much more impacted by the Chernobel (sp?) disaster? Marc
-
Hopefully the US won't go to war with NK; and here's some info about the treaty from Boortz.com Nealz Nuz[^]: "We’re not going to hear that Bill Clinton extracted a promise from North Korea in 1994 that they would halt all programs aimed at developing nuclear weapons and, in return, Clinton promised to send American nuclear technology to Korea for the development of nuclear power plants. You also won’t hear that many critics said in 1994 that North Korea would almost certainly use that American technology, provided by Clinton, to continue development of nuclear weapons." Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... :confused: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." -- Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God, commenting on the value of the United Nations)
Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material? From everything I've read about how a nuclear power plant works, I think there are very major differences in infrastructure--mining, processing, storage, containment, supporting technology, etc. Just the process of enrichment requires a completely different infrastructure, doesn't it? Marc
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" Of course he was. Marc Clifton wrote: Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Americans? Try "Democrats". Marc Clifton wrote: Are we going to war with NK next? Worse things could happen. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen maybe your wish will come true. Stan Shannon wrote: Try "Democrats". you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Really? I thought they only had a material processing plant. Have they actually built and detonated a bomb (if the answer is yes, then I am woefully ignorant--not the first time!!!) Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. And he never had sex with that woman. Please excuse, I couldn't resist the sarcasm. Marc Clifton wrote: But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. I didn't say it was a bad agreement. Fact is I believe Palestiniasns will never see one as good. What I did say was, Clinton attempted to force feed a solution. The force feeding, to create a legacy other than the one he earned, created unrealistic expectations / euphoria - when the promise of the agreement was not delivered because the terrorist Arafat would then be out of work, all hell broke loose and hasn't been reined in since. Marc Clifton wrote: Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. And who is currently running the country? Marc Clifton wrote: Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Ronald Reagan - who brought down the Berlin Wall, brought the USSR to their knees and created the basis for the economy that Clinton touts. Carter, while we're on the subject, is the only president who ever caused me to honestly feel bad about and for my country. A cowardly joke. Mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen maybe your wish will come true. Stan Shannon wrote: Try "Democrats". you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. Possible. But he is also correct. Please read up on the behavior of the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor. Sounds a lot like today. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Clinton ignored the terrorist threats, and we had 9-11. My understanding was that the Clinton admin. had a plan in the works for going after Al Queda, and Bush tabled it. Clinton had North Korea agree to cancel it's nuclear weapons program, and now they have the nuclear bomb. Really? I thought they only had a material processing plant. Have they actually built and detonated a bomb (if the answer is yes, then I am woefully ignorant--not the first time!!!) Clinton attempted to force feed a solution to the Israeli and Palestinian problem causing an unbelievable escalation to that problem where it would have been much more intelligent to continue the slow pace towards resolution. But both Palestinian and Israeli diplomats were recently quoted in saying that we should try for the Clinton plan again because it was so close to agreement. Clinton brokered a peace agreement in Northern Ireland that is a sham. I disagree. The man was and is a joke, a blight on our history as long as history books are written honestly. 8 years of playing at statesmanship leaving a mess for adults to deal with. Hmmm. And what president after Kennedy hasn't been (no offense to Carter, who I commend for his post-presidential work). Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: And what president after Kennedy hasn't been Might want to include Kennedy in that bunch and put the question back to after Eisenhower. Kennedy's one shining moment was the man on the moon project and even then because we took the wrong approach ( I'm seeing this in hindsight not foresight ) it put the space program in a big hole with a lot of giant expensive boosters that had no use after Apollo. He got us into Vietnam, almost got us in a nuclear war, let Cuba go Communist, raised nepotisim to a new level, and probably would not have been re elected. And these are just the highlights. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. Possible. But he is also correct. Please read up on the behavior of the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor. Sounds a lot like today. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. disgusting -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material? From everything I've read about how a nuclear power plant works, I think there are very major differences in infrastructure--mining, processing, storage, containment, supporting technology, etc. Just the process of enrichment requires a completely different infrastructure, doesn't it? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material Not in some cases. Most bombs these days are plutonium based weapons - not U235. U238 can be used in power reactors and if the reactor is a type called "fast breeder" reactors they can produce ploutonium as a byproduct. This can be refined fairly easily to produce weapon grade material. Remember that there are no plutonium mines. It is a completly artifical element. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Leads to the question - why was peace promoted so nicely while Clinton was in office, but the Bush family seem to cause so much disturbance? Is it just bad luck timing? Sorry, I don't live in US, so something of a mystery for me. :suss:
Dave Goodman on funny error messages:
It is a definite no-no to run BITMAP as a user command. Your nose will grow, your lawn will die, your hair will fall out, and your first-born will marry an aardvark. Shame on you!The North Koreans admit that the nuclear program was started in the Clinton administation. Clinton wanted a weapons inspection program (to verify that they weren't building nukes), but when North Korea wasn't going for it, he didn't press the issue. Hence, it's not an issue about "Clinton = peace, Bush = war". If Bush ignores Iraq, the next president will have the same exact problem except replayed with Iraq. Then, we'll call it the next president's fault? ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Chris Hambleton wrote: Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... I couldn't quite figure the logic in that either. :confused: I don't think those facilities were actually started until late '99, though. The N.Koreans, then turned around and threatened to restart their nuclear programs if U.S didn't compensate for electricity lost due to delays in the power plant construction. WTF? Supposedly in early '99, inspectors reported no evidence of "nuclear activity". I guess they were fooled. You don't think the Iraqi's would try to hide their activity too, do you?? :omg: BW The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to talk, mad to live, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding. - Jack Kerouac
I couldn't quite figure the logic in that either. I don't think those facilities were actually started until late '99, though. Actually, the nuclear reactors are still in the process of being constructed. Link The logic of building nuclear powerplants might go back to an agreement made a long time ago - the nuclear powers said that if countries agree not to build nukes, that they'll get the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology (i.e. powerplants and radioactive elements for medical uses, etc) Some countries want it both ways, though. For example, Iraq wants a nuclear weapons program, but shows images of children dying of cancer (which can be treated with radioactive elements). ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Richard Stringer wrote: the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. disgusting -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. And repeat it they do. The Dems as a party have always taken the path of least resistance and have , since FDR's days , held the position that the cure for every ill is another tax, another regulation, another federal project. They pander to every little political cause de jour that comes along as long as it will keep them in office. Details available if you need them but why am I preaching to the choir ? Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. And repeat it they do. The Dems as a party have always taken the path of least resistance and have , since FDR's days , held the position that the cure for every ill is another tax, another regulation, another federal project. They pander to every little political cause de jour that comes along as long as it will keep them in office. Details available if you need them but why am I preaching to the choir ? Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
and what's the Republican's answer? as far as i can tell, it's to curtail the rights listed in amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. i got one word for you: USAPATRIOT -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen maybe your wish will come true. Stan Shannon wrote: Try "Democrats". you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. God's knows I try. Glad to get some recognition. But I honestly forgot that some see partisanship as evil. Personally, I don't know how you avoid it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
and what's the Republican's answer? as far as i can tell, it's to curtail the rights listed in amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. i got one word for you: USAPATRIOT -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Sorry, Chris, but I don't think people who vote Dem even understand why those admendments were written in the first place. Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th. CONSTITUTIONALPATRIOT. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. God's knows I try. Glad to get some recognition. But I honestly forgot that some see partisanship as evil. Personally, I don't know how you avoid it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Personally, I don't know how you avoid it. the range of opinions is not linear. the next time someone has an opinion on world affairs, resist the urge to shout "Liberal!" if you simply disagree with that opinion. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Sorry, Chris, but I don't think people who vote Dem even understand why those admendments were written in the first place. Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th. CONSTITUTIONALPATRIOT. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th Repub's only believe in one amendment, the 2nd - all other amendments are for communists. and they all dress like it's still 1982. and every single one of them has an IQ below 80. and they eat their young. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
(from the Google News site). Hmmm. Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" (god, where did he come up with that phrase anyways)? Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Are we going to war with NK next? What does it all mean??? Marc
I was surprised no one posted this link yesterday. Anyway, I hate North Korea for this. North Korea even complained, "You've called us the 'axis of evil' and you have troops stationed in South Korea, of course we have a nuclear program." First, the 'axis of evil' term wasn't even given to North Korea until YEARS after their nuclear program was started. And why are these countries so stupid to believe that their inclusion in the 'axis of evil' is because the US woke up one day and decided to hate them? It's because of their belligerence, hostility, and militarization that they are included in the 'axis of evil'! Didn't the North Koreans notice that they were the ones who invaded South Korea? And isn't it the North Koreans who have TWICE as many active military personel as South Korea and the US (in South Korea) have COMBINED? Isn't it North Korea that has over 5% of its population in active military duty? (South Korea, on the other hand, has only 1.3% of it's population in active military service.) North Korean Active Military: 1,127,000 South Korean Active Military: 633,000 US forces in South Korea: 35,000 - It seems that nuclear technology (like all technology) started out being available only after enormous effort and genious (through the Manhatten Project in the US). Now that it's been done, it is progressively easier for each country to create their own nuclear weapons. Now, we're down to North Korea having a nuclear program. Further, nuclear armament is a one-way street (with the rare exception of the Ukraine who gave up their nukes when they broke away from the USSR*). Based on trends and the declining costs, it's obvious that the world will become more and more full of nuclear weapons - and in the hands of more and more countries. More and more independent groups with nukes means a greater chance of black-market nuke sales, and it means a greater chance of nuclear war (since any single person in control of nukes can ignite a nuclear war). With the spread of nuclear technology and the declining cost, it seems that it will only be a matter of time before terrorists can get nukes on the black market. And it's only a matter of time before a nuclear strike happens somewhere on earth. And it's next to impossible to reverse this trend. * I believe this was easier since Ukraine didn't develop the nukes themselves. Hence, the rule may be something like, "No country which has ever created a nuclear weapons program has ever gone non-nuclear." It probably reflects the fact th