Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on September 19, 2004, 02:01:37 PM
-
"Associated Press
Updated: Thu. Sep. 9 2004 11:57 AM ET
SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea said Thursday that it extracted a tiny amount of plutonium in a nuclear experiment in 1982, a revelation that followed an acknowledgment last week that it enriched a small amount of uranium in 2000.
South Korea also said it had "lost" some nuclear material from the 1982 experiment, and acknowledged differences with the UN nuclear agency over the South's report on the matter.
Plutonium and enriched uranium are two key ingredients of nuclear weapons. The controversy over South Korea's uranium-based experiment has threatened to further disrupt troubled efforts to persuade North Korea to dismantle its suspected nuclear weapons programs.
On Thursday, a South Korean delegation left for the UN agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria, to explain the experiments and pledge transparency in nuclear operations.
The plutonium-based experiment was conducted in April and May 1982 at a Seoul research reactor belonging to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, South Korea said in a statement.
"This experiment was conducted by a small group of scientists to analyse the chemical characteristics of plutonium," the Ministry of Science and Technology said.
"We have no written data left on the result of the experiment and the amount of plutonium extracted, but we estimate that a very minute amount in the range of milligrams was extracted," the ministry said.
It said the UN International Atomic Energy Agency found traces of plutonium while examining environmental samples at the site of the reactor, which is being dismantled.
UN officials asked for clarification from South Korea in 1998, but South Korea said it could not find relevant data on research at the TRIGA Mark III reactor. When asked for clarification again in 2003, South Korea said it discovered that a tiny amount of plutonium had been extracted.
"We also confirmed that we informed the IAEA in September 1983 that the nuclear material used during the experiment was lost and should be exempt from safeguard measures," it said.
All the equipment used and samples taken during the experiment were scrapped and kept as nuclear waste, the ministry said.
South Korea said that in March, it presented a report to the IAEA explaining the plutonium experiment, and an IAEA delegation that visited South Korea last week to investigate the 2000 uranium test also continued the plutonium investigation.
South Korea reiterated that it will "thoroughly" honour all its obligations as a member country of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The revelation follows a disclosure last week that the U.S. ally conducted a secret uranium-enrichment experiment four years ago. North Korea responded to that experiment by warning of a "nuclear arms race" in Northeast Asia.
The United States, with the support of South Korea, Japan, China and Russia, has been trying to negotiate an end to North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The talks are due to resume at the end of the month, but no date has been announced."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/1094729948359_16/?hub=World&subhub=PrintStory
I wonder if there's going to be the same amount of diplomatic pressure on SK as on other countries that were/are thought to, or have admitted to developing nukes.
-
OHH NO IT IS PERFECTLY FINE SINCE THEY ARE FRIENDS.
i can see it coming already.
-
Hey Einstein, we already have a zillion troops there, what do you want us to do, pull out so you can whine when we re-invade?
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
OHH NO IT IS PERFECTLY FINE SINCE THEY ARE FRIENDS.
i can see it coming already.
And how exactly would it be wrong?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
And how exactly would it be wrong?
hum im going to attempt at this but since i have no clue what you mean i will be wrong.
we whine "So and So has nukes!!!!"
but yet someother country points out our allies have them. "Bah it is ok, since they are friends" is a reply.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
hum im going to attempt at this but since i have no clue what you mean i will be wrong.
we whine "So and So has nukes!!!!"
but yet someother country points out our allies have them. "Bah it is ok, since they are friends" is a reply.
Ok brainiac, what exactly should we do to our allies?
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
hum im going to attempt at this but since i have no clue what you mean i will be wrong.
we whine "So and So has nukes!!!!"
but yet someother country points out our allies have them. "Bah it is ok, since they are friends" is a reply.
Umm yeah, that's kind of the idea son. It's been the pattern for the last 60 years, why would it change now?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Umm yeah, that's kind of the idea son. It's been the pattern for the last 60 years, why would it change now?
because i say so :p
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Hey Einstein, we already have a zillion troops there, what do you want us to do, pull out so you can whine when we re-invade?
Uh, the US is already starting to pull out of SK.
And how exactly would it be wrong?
Hypocracy, letting an ally getting away with breaking the Non-proliferation treaty and condemning a nation that isn't an ally.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
hum im going to attempt at this but since i have no clue what you mean i will be wrong.
we whine "So and So has nukes!!!!"
but yet someother country points out our allies have them. "Bah it is ok, since they are friends" is a reply.
When did all these bleading hearts get this attitude that everything needs to be fair?????
Crack a history book and look up the 1950s. North Korea invaded the south.
They were then and still are a communist state.
They are also governed by an evil dictator that controls his laborforce/population by means of starvation and propaganda.
Now compare them to the south. One of our allies and a relitivly peacefull nation that is still in a state of war w/ their northern neighbors.
Why would we want them to be fair and not have nukes....they have never demenstrated an ill will nore have they ever acted aggresivly AND they have stated they are willing to conform to the UN nuke inspection rules???????
Why would we want to help out north korea by limiting its enemy's defencive capabilities???????
B17Skull either you are trolling here or your head is clouded by your socialist liberal teachers. Try and have an original thaught based on a logical assesment of a situation.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hypocracy, letting an ally getting away with breaking the Non-proliferation treaty and condemning a nation that isn't an ally.
Well you are right, there should be diplomatic pressure. But to compare them to Iraq or DPRK is crazy.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
When did all these bleading hearts get this attitude that everything needs to be fair?????
tell that to your enemys (i.e. NK)
kinda funny if u ask me, no wonder wars happen.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Well you are right, there should be diplomatic pressure. But to compare them to Iraq or DPRK is crazy.
To DPRK perhaps. But perhaps not Iraq.
I was thinking more along the lines of Iran, hence my oh so clever and ironic thread title.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
When did all these bleading hearts get this attitude that everything needs to be fair?????
Wow, just wow.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
hence my oh so clever and ironic thread title.
I think you're giving yourself too much credit.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think you're giving yourself too much credit.
I think you missed the cleverness and irony in my mocking my thread title by calling it "oh so clever and ironic". ;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
To DPRK perhaps. But perhaps not Iraq.
I was thinking more along the lines of Iran, hence my oh so clever and ironic thread title.
How can you compare a prosperous peaceful democracy like ROK to a fanatical muslim theocracy that sponsors global terror?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
How can you compare a prosperous peaceful democracy like ROK to a fanatical muslim theocracy that sponsors global terror?
Heheh, the answer is in the topic.
Iran and SK are the same in that they both persued the creation of nuclear material that they agreed not in the non-proliferation treaty.
PS: For Gunslinger...
"Listen children, to a story, that was written long ago. About a kingdom, on a mountain, and the valley folk below.
On the mountain, was a treasure, burried deep beneath a stone and the valley people swore they'd have it for their very own.
Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend, do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end. There wont be any trumpets blowing, come the judgement day. On the bloody morning after, One Tin Soldier rides away.
So the people of the valley, sent a message up the hill, asking for the buried treasure, tons of gold for which they'd kill. Came an answer, from the kingdom, with our brothers, we will share, all the secrets, of our mountain, all the riches buried there.
Now the valley, cried with anger, mount your horses, draw your swords, and they killed the, mountain people. So they won their just rewards. Now they stand, beside the treasure, on the mountain, dark and red. Turned the stone, and looked beneath it... "Peace on earth" was all it said.
Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend, do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end. There wont be any trumpets blowing, come the judgement day. On the bloody morning after, One Tin Soldier rides away."
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Heheh, the answer is in the topic.
Iran and SK are the same in that they both persued the creation of nuclear material that they agreed not in the non-proliferation treaty.[/i]"
And that's where the comparison ends. They should both be dealt with diplomatically, but obviously Iran is a much bigger problem and should face more pressure.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
And that's where the comparison ends. They should both be dealt with diplomatically, but obviously Iran is a much bigger problem and should face more pressure.
Indeed, people keep talking about how the UN doesn't have any balls. I would lay out automatic systems of punishment so who is friendly and who isn't does not matter, but the level of WMD developement does.
First time it is discovered that the nation is/was persuing WMD, they must immediately comply with massive and persistant inspection regime. If they don't comply an automatic total sanction is placed on the country.
If that doesn't work...well war would have to automatically follow, but I would have to think more about the time frame and escalation for that some more.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I think you missed the cleverness and irony in my mocking my thread title by calling it "oh so clever and ironic". ;)
Being clever and Ironic about being clever and ironic....I get it now.
how clever and Ironic ;)
PS: That's a good story who wrote it?
-
Thrawn, I can see how the UN should treat them equally.
From a US point of view, our Constitution charges the government with ensuring American security, not the collective security of the membership of the UN. And obviously Iranian nuclear weapons would represent a much greater threat to the safety and security of the US than RoK nukes, and therefore the US government should deal with the Iranian problem much more firmly than the (yet to be confirmed) RoK nuclear issue.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Indeed, people keep talking about how the UN doesn't have any balls. I would lay out automatic systems of punishment so who is friendly and who isn't does not matter, but the level of WMD developement does.
First time it is discovered that the nation is/was persuing WMD, they must immediately comply with massive and persistant inspection regime. If they don't comply an automatic total sanction is placed on the country.
If that doesn't work...well war would have to automatically follow, but I would have to think more about the time frame and escalation for that some more.
the only problem with that is this little issue of sovereignty. IMHO when a country does what you mention they no longer members of the UN but subjects to it.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Thrawn, I can see how the UN should treat them equally.
From a US point of view, our Constitution charges the government with ensuring American security, not the collective security of the membership of the UN. And obviously Iranian nuclear weapons would represent a much greater threat to the safety and security of the US than RoK nukes, and therefore the US government should deal with the Iranian problem much more firmly than the (yet to be confirmed) RoK nuclear issue.
Sure, but the only thing that will make the US safer in this respect is the non-proliferation of WMD. Heck Iraq has certainly shown that your friend can be come your enemy in a decade.
Take Pakistan, all we need is for some Islamic fundies to take control of that country, and bam, suddenly your ally is a nuclear armed enemy.
Gunslinger,
PS: That's a good story who wrote it?"
It was a bleeding-heart liberal anti-war song. ;)
It was realsed 1971, along with the film “One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack).
the only problem with that is this little issue of sovereignty. IMHO when a country does what you mention they no longer members of the UN but subjects to it.
They would be subject to treaty that they voluntarily (hence the exercise of sovereighty) agree to, just like the UN charter.
And remember sovereignty only extends to ones borders. Outside one is subject to the various systems of treaties they have agreed to.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sure, but the only thing that will make the US safer in this respect is the non-proliferation of WMD. Heck Iraq has certainly shown that your friend can be come your enemy in a decade.
Take Pakistan, all we need is for some Islamic fundies to take control of that country, and bam, suddenly your ally is a nuclear armed enemy.
Gunslinger,
It was a bleeding-heart liberal anti-war song. ;)
It was realsed 1971, along with the film “One Tin Soldier (The Legend of Billy Jack).
They would be subject to treaty that they voluntarily (hence the exercise of sovereighty) agree to, just like the UN charter.
And remember sovereignty only extends to ones borders. Outside one is subject to the various systems of treaties they have agreed to.
The main problem I have with the UN is I see it or a spin off of it one day being the true one world police force making the countries of the world subject to it's demands. Just the way you worded your previous statement smacks of it.
-
We want to be able to tell other countries what they can or can't do with fissle material, we got to be subject to the same thing...or least we must all follow the tenets of the treaties that we agreed to in the first place.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
hum im going to attempt at this but since i have no clue what you mean i will be wrong.
we whine "So and So has nukes!!!!"
but yet someother country points out our allies have them. "Bah it is ok, since they are friends" is a reply.
I don't often agree with you; but you hit it right on the head with this one.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
We want to be able to tell other countries what they can or can't do with fissle material, we got to be subject to the same thing...or least we must all follow the tenets of the treaties that we agreed to in the first place.
sure but the simple fact of the matter is most countrys we apose don't have the best track records. That to me takes precidence over hypocracy or fairness. I guess that's the only argument I'm making here.
-
Pull ALL US troops out of South Korea and let China and Japan handle North Korea.
-
Originally posted by Otto
Pull ALL US troops out of South Korea and let China and Japan handle North Korea.
Sounds good to me. chances are 70/30 that I'll be doing a year over there in the next 3 years and have ZERO desire to do so.
-
Is it just me or is Thrawn tripping over himself to be cleer i the defense of Irans illegal nuclear weapons program..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
to be cleer i
You're channeling Minus. :)
-
what kind of person compares South Korea to Iran...Libya....North Korea......
-
Originally posted by Yeager
what kind of person compares South Korea to Iran...Libya....North Korea......
Someone that actually knows the meaning of the words "compare" and "contrast".
Compare is finding similarities.
Contrast is finding differences.
The question is whether or not the similarites are applicable to the arguement at hand.
Elvis: SK is comparable to Iran.
Chaucer: How so?
Elvis: The land masses of both nation states are comprised of atoms.
Chaucer: WTF??
Hence,
Funked: How can you compare a prosperous peaceful democracy like ROK to a fanatical muslim theocracy that sponsors global terror?
Thrawn: Iran and SK are the same in that they both persued the creation of nuclear material that they agreed not in the non-proliferation treaty.
Funked: And that's where the comparison ends...
Thrawn: Indeed,... (really they could be compared alot of other ways but not for the purposes of the arguement at hand, at least not im my opinoin.)
That is how I understood the exchange (other points being irrelevant to this exercise).
One more.
Elvis: Bush is comparable to Hitler.
Chaucer: How so?
Elvis: They are both Homospiens of the male gender.
Chaucer: I see, but they can also be contrasted.
Elvis: How so?
Chaucer: Hilter has a mustache, where Bush does not.
Elvis: Quite right.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
what kind of person compares South Korea to Iran...Libya....North Korea......
Tht same kind of person who thinks Bush is worse than hitler? :)