N Korea 'to abandon nuclear work'

news.bbc.co.uk
North Korea has agreed to give up all its nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Chinese and Korean news agencies say.
At the same time, the US is said to have given an undertaking that it has no intention of attacking North Korea.

The breakthrough came during a fourth round of six-party talks in Beijing aimed at ending a three-year standoff over North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

There is no decision on whether to give North Korea a light-water reactor.

looks like korea is giving up on its work on nukes

Great news, if it's true...

sounds very familiar...clinton got the same promise from them in the 90's, in exchange for aid and technology...wonder what we gave them this time?

They probably got a nuke now, that we dont know about.. and are just milking the international cow...

Yes, and this will last until we change Presidents again. Then NK will have another guy to try nuclear blackmail on. They can start the cycle up all over again and again, every 4 or 8 years.

Originally posted by C0le
They probably got a nuke now, that we dont know about.. and are just milking the international cow...

Actually the concensus is that they already have 1-5 nuclear weps. Delivery however is another issue. Not sure if they have one sized yet that they can fit on one of thier ICBM's

It's all about cost versus gain. They have probably (correctly) calculated that they have the most to gain if they play ball. They already likely have a few devices, so if they ever want to up the ante, they can always stage limited nuclear blackmail. This way they can avoid a suicidal and costly (for both sides) conflict, get something they want/need from others, and still get to keep the devices they have so far. It also means they're very likely free to continue developing delivery capabilities, because it shouldn't be too difficult to make whether or not certain missiles are intended for nuclear use pretty ambiguous unless they openly arm one with a warhead. Taking the brinksmanship to this point and no further is the most favorable decision for them at this time. Later, that may change. And so it goes.

This is absolutely wonderful news. I was so happy that I wanted to call my mom at 11 last night and then call my aunt in Seoul, but I decided against it.

This is truly monumental. It may be the best indicator yet that we will never have to go to war in the Korean Peninsula. And it may also signal a sign that maybe things will get better in the DPRK as well.

'Tis a great day...

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
This is truly monumental. It may be the best indicator yet that we will never have to go to war in the Korean Peninsula. And it may also signal a sign that maybe things will get better in the DPRK as well.

Perhaps, but we have been here with Kim before and only time will tell.

As Reagan said doveryay, no proveryay trust but verify. If he sticks to his word then yes it is a big deal.

It was also stated that they want to work towards normalization of the relationship between NK and the U.S. That would be pretty cool for everybody, and perhaps most the people of NK. If this is true, the "axis of evil" will be reduced to Iran.

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. NK now says there's no way they'll give up their nuclear program unless the U.S. provides them with an atomic reactor, which the U.S. says was not part of the deal.

SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea said Tuesday it would begin dismantling its nuclear program only if the United States provides a light-water reactor for civilian power.

www.cnn.com...

I knew the deal was full of air.

Now they need a nuclear reactor? Thought they had those already. Yeah, Bush, give me some more nuclear material, promise I wont make it into bombs...

Did the promised Aid even come in the 90s?

I was wondering if the americans actually gave them aid why would they have still gone on with their Nuclear program.

The only countries giving them REAL aid are china and south korea.

I dont think N.korea was a threat at all, they wanted nuclear weapons to defend themselves but if thats the way they chose than good for them atleast no more starving people in that country.

If this turns out to be real this time its great new. So much for all the nay-sayers to Bush wanting six-party talks.

At first N Korea wanted direct talks with only the US if I recall correctly and Bush held out for six party talks.

Originally posted by NR
I dont think N.korea was a threat at all, they wanted nuclear weapons to defend themselves but if thats the way they chose than good for them atleast no more starving people in that country.

I don't really think they're a threat either, but the problem is, the more countries that obtain nuclear weapons to defend themselves, the higher the chance somebody is going to defend themselves with nuclear weapons. We recently came close to a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. Soon if your homeland Iran obtains nuclear weapons, we will very likely be close to nuclear exchange again, between Iran and Israel.

I think we need less nuclear weapons in the world, not more. I think the U.S. should put pressure on Israel to give up theirs, and the world should pressure India and Pakistan to give up theirs, then we can start with the U.S. Russia, etc. I feel we need less nuclear powder kegs in the world, because the law of averages dictates that the more there are, the greater chance of one going off.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


At first N Korea wanted direct talks with only the US if I recall correctly and Bush held out for six party talks.

NK didn't want the japanese to be involed thats why they wanted one to one talks

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by NR
I dont think N.korea was a threat at all, they wanted nuclear weapons to defend themselves but if thats the way they chose than good for them atleast no more starving people in that country.

I don't really think they're a threat either, but the problem is, the more countries that obtain nuclear weapons to defend themselves, the higher the chance somebody is going to defend themselves with nuclear weapons. We recently came close to a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. Soon if your homeland Iran obtains nuclear weapons, we will very likely be close to nuclear exchange again, between Iran and Israel.

I think we need less nuclear weapons in the world, not more. I think the U.S. should put pressure on Israel to give up theirs, and the world should pressure India and Pakistan to give up theirs, then we can start with the U.S. Russia, etc. I feel we need less nuclear powder kegs in the world, because the law of averages dictates that the more there are, the greater chance of one going off.

India is a democracy with a freely elected government, Pakistan is a military regime that carries out state sponsored terrorism.

India is justified in having nuclear weapons.

Pakistan is not.

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
India is justified in having nuclear weapons.

Pakistan is not.

My point is nobody is justified to have nuclear weapons. Nobody needs the ability to create that much destruction at once. I know my vision of a world free of nuclear weapons is lofty, but it's a nice place to visit.