North Korea said its nuclear programs are weapons related

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - North Korea (news - web sites) acknowledged that most of its nuclear programs are weapons related, during the recent six-party talks to resolve the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly told a Senate committee.

"While they said they wanted to maintain a civil nuclear program, they also acknowledged that most of their nuclear programs are weapons related," Kelly said Thursday.

North Korea has refrained from stating publicly that it has nuclear weapons, although it speaks of an existing "nuclear deterrent."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20040715/ts_afp/us_nkorea_nuclear

[Worst Username Ever]

1. Nice work, George. Your priorities are clearly in the right place.

Sarcasm/

[Seraphi]

2. Interesting, but we are still yet to send them more money to stop :)

Somehow this does not come as a surprise to most of the intelligent world community.

If you think back to the tactics of K. J. Il about 2 years ago, one might get the impression that a conflict with N. Korea would have been more justified than one with Iraq.

It's school yard politics.

N. Korea is the little guy that likes to push around other countries but the U.S. is only interested in the little guy sitting in the corner who said mean things about the U.S.A.'s dad a couple of weeks back.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. North Korea likes to push around other countries?

What countries has North Korea invaded or bombed in the last 50 years?

I bet it is less than the number of countries the US has invaded or bombed in the last 5 years!

[daleo]

8. Or indeed, the last five days.

n/t

[Massacure]

9. On the other hand North Korea is pretty poor.

They wouldn't win a war against Japan, South Korea, or China.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

11. Then why is everyone so shit scared of them?

Last I heard they were part of the "axis of evil", and were such a threat to South Korea that the US had something like 40,000 US troops permanently based there.

[Snow]

12. Yes, well, there may be other reasons for keeping that many

troops in a 'friendly' country. Originally containment of Russia & China, but also very much to keep South Korea in line. Remember, Pak Junghee, the president of south korea through the late 60's & 70's, in 1949 tried a revolution in a southern port city as a communist.

Also, while keeping the south in line is a large part of it, look how many other countries arond the world have US bases with US soldiers therein. It's amazing. No way would the US tolerate that. There's a foreign military base about a 4-hour drive - okay maybe a coupla more hours than that - south of where I sit. It's a US marine base, in Baja California, Mexico. What is with that?

[nodehopper]

3. and this is news...how?

(party_line, this is not a comment directed at you for posting this, but rather a rhetorical question to our Press)

[Gregorian]

4. Sorry, no oil. Move along.

However, they'd make a FABULOUS October surprise.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Their Nukes Can ONLY Hit the West Coast

which is something I don't think Bush* and all his fundies friends
would mind at all. Nothing but blue states out here.

[Rose Siding]

6. We joke but

don't ya know that's just the kind of cost analysis that gets Cheney's attention.

[Snow]

10. Maximum range is one thing, accuracy is quite another

and what I've heard is that NK's missles couldn't hit the broad side of a continent even if it were right next door.