1000
North Korea and the Bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
That component is the people of North Korea. Some live under deplorable conditions, some don't. By putting a complete ending to the interaction of North Korea with the outside world would lead to the demise of many of the people. The winter is coming and they need to live through it.
Let's just go where no person is willing to go.
China and Russia don't want a war in the region. I don't blame them. The West, Japan believe that a war can be waged to dismantle North Korea to a limited extent. That is not a realistic view.
Currently, and I am not making excuses, the 'explosion' that occurred yesterday is not considered to be the capacity of a nuclear weapon. It may have been a poor construction, poor science, incomplete construction; but; across the board there is some question about the 'capacity' of this weapon that was significant to set off the Richter Scale.
The region can easily escalate especially with Bush and Cheney salivating over Russia Oil and the Chinese economy. It's not realistic to start a war to dismantle North Korea.
The people of North Korea need an aggressive program of relief, and dare I say it; a North Korean 'Oil for Food Program," but the difference is what would the North Korean's trade. At least Iraq had something to trade. At the same time this takes hold the current leadership of North Korea has to be tried before the World Court. Either there is reason to remove these men or there isn't. Everyone puts out all kinds of information about that country regarding violations of Human Rights, but, nothing is done about it.
The world needs to focus on the people and children of that nation while placing tight controls on how North Korea handles itself. The circumstances aren't good for the people there. They, like Iraqis, are governed by 'nationalism' and there is every reason to believe if the government of North Korea was to collapse the same anarchy would insure and THEN where would be stand in regard to LOOSE NUKES.
Where is Osama bin Laden?
The actions taken against North Korea has to be controlled while supportive of the populous there.
Are there any questions?
1009
Condi Rice is an arrogant Neocon. She hasn't said anything constructive, but, only inflammatory. WHERE IS THE 'PLAN' FOR NORTH KOREA? She hasn't got one and just one day in her capacity of Secretary of State she should sound like one.
1011
Bush is STILL out of touch. Clinton had a conversation, UN seals and control. Bush has yet to have a conversation. Who's kidding who?
Tell 'em Governor Richardson.
1018
Scientific world gathers data on 'nuclear test'
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10256-scientific-world-gathers-data-on-nuclear-test.html
Scientists around the world are taking a cautious wait-and-see attitude after North Korea claimed to have successfully conducted an underground nuclear test on Monday.
Only careful analysis of data returned by seismic or atmospheric sensors will determine whether the blast was a success or a damp squib, they say. Nor could they rule out the possibility of a scam, in which North Korea blew up a huge stock of conventional explosives to bolster its claim to have joined the nuclear club.
There are significant discrepancies between reports into the size of the blast.
The Korea Earthquake Research Centre in South Korea said there was a 3.58-magnitude tremor from North Korea's North Hamgyong province – the equivalent of 0.8 kilotonnes of TNT explosives.
1021
EXACTLY, whom was it that caused the escalation of nuclear proliferation anyway?
China Braces for Uncertainty as ABM Treaty Unravels
http://taiwansecurity.org/News/2001/ST-122701.htm
Despite its low-key reaction, Beijing views Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty negatively and is devising plans carefully to brace China for a more uncertain and insecure world resulting from the United States' move.
According to a source close to the Chinese military, such planning involves both tactical and strategic aspects.
From the tactical point of view, by abrogating the ABM, the US gains a free hand to develop and deploy the national and theatre missile defences (NMD and TMD) which will effectively nullify China's minimal nuclear-deterrence capability.
Besides, as the ABM laid the foundation for 32 other international treaties limiting an arms race, its jettisoning would undermine the validity of all these treaties and open the world for a new round of arms race.
The source predicts that the US move will prompt an arms race in three directions.
Countries whose nuclear-deterrence capability is nullified would step up their own weapon programme to develop land, sea, air and space-based missile-launching pads, and also increase the size of nuclear arsenals and upgrade the quality of warheads as well as a whole range of space weapons such as satellite-killers in order to pierce through the missile-defence shield.
Those facing potential threats from the US would be compelled to develop their own missile-defence shields. Others would step up their development of chemical and biological weapons.
The source admitted that any tactical planning would have to take into consideration all these aspects.
However, many in China, including some in the military, fear that meeting the US challenge would lead China into the quagmire of an arms race with the US and repeat the bitter experience of the former Soviet Union that collapsed under the pressure of such a race.
Many Chinese strategists believe that an important contributing factor leading to this collapse was the country's attempt to meet the challenge imposed by America's Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). To avoid the pitfall, the source said that China has to map out a new way of response. He refused to go into details but simply outlined several points.
In raising its overall strategic capability, China should not stop short of the nuclear race but should also explore other options.
In building up its arsenal, China should minimise the military-civilian divide to facilitate a flow of technology and resources between both sectors.
In enhancing its overall security, China should develop long-term strategies instead of haphazardly figuring out ad hoc responses to contingencies.
By doing so, China may solve the dilemma of expanding military spending while avoiding the arms-race quagmire.
Mr Yang Ming-jie, director of the Studies on Arms Control and Security of the Institute of Modern International Relations, said that from the strategic point of view, the manner in which the US dropped the ABM shows that its unilateralism is going to dominate the world in the years to come.
The US claims that the ABM is obsolete as the Soviet Union is no longer existent, disregarding the fact that as late as Nov 29 this year, the United Nations adopted with overwhelming majority (80-3) a resolution demanding respect and adherence to the ABM.
This is the third year in a row that the UN did so, proving that the international community still values the ABM as a means for maintaining the global strategic balance.
According to Mr Yang, the way the US defined obsolescence unilaterally reminds China of a potential danger that surfaced briefly during the presidential campaign last year.
Mr George W. Bush's Republican Party had claimed then that the 'one-China principle' was obsolete and that the 1971 Shanghai Communique expounding that principle and laying down the foundation of Sino-US relations had outlived its value.
The rationale was that Taiwan had undergone full democratisation and marketisation, rendering today's Taiwan totally different from what it was when the Shanghai Communique was signed and that America's China policy had to take such changes into consideration.
'If the US applied the same unilateralism in defining obsolescence, grave trouble awaits China,' said Mr Yang.
Indeed, the US intention to include Taiwan in the TMD programme signals a disregard of its commitment under the 'one-China principle', he added.
A broader strategic consideration is whether China would become the potential target of America's NMD and TMD programmes.
A source close to the Foreign Ministry said that although China deliberately keeps a low profile on this issue, there is no denying that internally, it is very concerned about this possibility.
The source pointed out that a Kyodo dispatch from Washington, dated Dec 14, concluded, after talking to undisclosed State Department sources, that by jettisoning the ABM, the US is targeting China, not Russia.
Strategic planning against such an eventuality calls for a major overhaul of China's foreign policy in general and its Taiwan policy in particular, and China is carefully weighing all options, according to the source.
1045
The News Secretary
1105
I've had enough of the dribble.
North Korea and the Bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
That component is the people of North Korea. Some live under deplorable conditions, some don't. By putting a complete ending to the interaction of North Korea with the outside world would lead to the demise of many of the people. The winter is coming and they need to live through it.
Let's just go where no person is willing to go.
China and Russia don't want a war in the region. I don't blame them. The West, Japan believe that a war can be waged to dismantle North Korea to a limited extent. That is not a realistic view.
Currently, and I am not making excuses, the 'explosion' that occurred yesterday is not considered to be the capacity of a nuclear weapon. It may have been a poor construction, poor science, incomplete construction; but; across the board there is some question about the 'capacity' of this weapon that was significant to set off the Richter Scale.
The region can easily escalate especially with Bush and Cheney salivating over Russia Oil and the Chinese economy. It's not realistic to start a war to dismantle North Korea.
The people of North Korea need an aggressive program of relief, and dare I say it; a North Korean 'Oil for Food Program," but the difference is what would the North Korean's trade. At least Iraq had something to trade. At the same time this takes hold the current leadership of North Korea has to be tried before the World Court. Either there is reason to remove these men or there isn't. Everyone puts out all kinds of information about that country regarding violations of Human Rights, but, nothing is done about it.
The world needs to focus on the people and children of that nation while placing tight controls on how North Korea handles itself. The circumstances aren't good for the people there. They, like Iraqis, are governed by 'nationalism' and there is every reason to believe if the government of North Korea was to collapse the same anarchy would insure and THEN where would be stand in regard to LOOSE NUKES.
Where is Osama bin Laden?
The actions taken against North Korea has to be controlled while supportive of the populous there.
Are there any questions?
1009
Condi Rice is an arrogant Neocon. She hasn't said anything constructive, but, only inflammatory. WHERE IS THE 'PLAN' FOR NORTH KOREA? She hasn't got one and just one day in her capacity of Secretary of State she should sound like one.
1011
Bush is STILL out of touch. Clinton had a conversation, UN seals and control. Bush has yet to have a conversation. Who's kidding who?
Tell 'em Governor Richardson.
1018
Scientific world gathers data on 'nuclear test'
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10256-scientific-world-gathers-data-on-nuclear-test.html
Scientists around the world are taking a cautious wait-and-see attitude after North Korea claimed to have successfully conducted an underground nuclear test on Monday.
Only careful analysis of data returned by seismic or atmospheric sensors will determine whether the blast was a success or a damp squib, they say. Nor could they rule out the possibility of a scam, in which North Korea blew up a huge stock of conventional explosives to bolster its claim to have joined the nuclear club.
There are significant discrepancies between reports into the size of the blast.
The Korea Earthquake Research Centre in South Korea said there was a 3.58-magnitude tremor from North Korea's North Hamgyong province – the equivalent of 0.8 kilotonnes of TNT explosives.
1021
EXACTLY, whom was it that caused the escalation of nuclear proliferation anyway?
China Braces for Uncertainty as ABM Treaty Unravels
http://taiwansecurity.org/News/2001/ST-122701.htm
Despite its low-key reaction, Beijing views Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty negatively and is devising plans carefully to brace China for a more uncertain and insecure world resulting from the United States' move.
According to a source close to the Chinese military, such planning involves both tactical and strategic aspects.
From the tactical point of view, by abrogating the ABM, the US gains a free hand to develop and deploy the national and theatre missile defences (NMD and TMD) which will effectively nullify China's minimal nuclear-deterrence capability.
Besides, as the ABM laid the foundation for 32 other international treaties limiting an arms race, its jettisoning would undermine the validity of all these treaties and open the world for a new round of arms race.
The source predicts that the US move will prompt an arms race in three directions.
Countries whose nuclear-deterrence capability is nullified would step up their own weapon programme to develop land, sea, air and space-based missile-launching pads, and also increase the size of nuclear arsenals and upgrade the quality of warheads as well as a whole range of space weapons such as satellite-killers in order to pierce through the missile-defence shield.
Those facing potential threats from the US would be compelled to develop their own missile-defence shields. Others would step up their development of chemical and biological weapons.
The source admitted that any tactical planning would have to take into consideration all these aspects.
However, many in China, including some in the military, fear that meeting the US challenge would lead China into the quagmire of an arms race with the US and repeat the bitter experience of the former Soviet Union that collapsed under the pressure of such a race.
Many Chinese strategists believe that an important contributing factor leading to this collapse was the country's attempt to meet the challenge imposed by America's Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). To avoid the pitfall, the source said that China has to map out a new way of response. He refused to go into details but simply outlined several points.
In raising its overall strategic capability, China should not stop short of the nuclear race but should also explore other options.
In building up its arsenal, China should minimise the military-civilian divide to facilitate a flow of technology and resources between both sectors.
In enhancing its overall security, China should develop long-term strategies instead of haphazardly figuring out ad hoc responses to contingencies.
By doing so, China may solve the dilemma of expanding military spending while avoiding the arms-race quagmire.
Mr Yang Ming-jie, director of the Studies on Arms Control and Security of the Institute of Modern International Relations, said that from the strategic point of view, the manner in which the US dropped the ABM shows that its unilateralism is going to dominate the world in the years to come.
The US claims that the ABM is obsolete as the Soviet Union is no longer existent, disregarding the fact that as late as Nov 29 this year, the United Nations adopted with overwhelming majority (80-3) a resolution demanding respect and adherence to the ABM.
This is the third year in a row that the UN did so, proving that the international community still values the ABM as a means for maintaining the global strategic balance.
According to Mr Yang, the way the US defined obsolescence unilaterally reminds China of a potential danger that surfaced briefly during the presidential campaign last year.
Mr George W. Bush's Republican Party had claimed then that the 'one-China principle' was obsolete and that the 1971 Shanghai Communique expounding that principle and laying down the foundation of Sino-US relations had outlived its value.
The rationale was that Taiwan had undergone full democratisation and marketisation, rendering today's Taiwan totally different from what it was when the Shanghai Communique was signed and that America's China policy had to take such changes into consideration.
'If the US applied the same unilateralism in defining obsolescence, grave trouble awaits China,' said Mr Yang.
Indeed, the US intention to include Taiwan in the TMD programme signals a disregard of its commitment under the 'one-China principle', he added.
A broader strategic consideration is whether China would become the potential target of America's NMD and TMD programmes.
A source close to the Foreign Ministry said that although China deliberately keeps a low profile on this issue, there is no denying that internally, it is very concerned about this possibility.
The source pointed out that a Kyodo dispatch from Washington, dated Dec 14, concluded, after talking to undisclosed State Department sources, that by jettisoning the ABM, the US is targeting China, not Russia.
Strategic planning against such an eventuality calls for a major overhaul of China's foreign policy in general and its Taiwan policy in particular, and China is carefully weighing all options, according to the source.
1045
The News Secretary
1105
I've had enough of the dribble.
