politics

Pyongyang parades fake missiles and smuggled Mercedes: UN

55 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

Very responsible UN even misleads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sanctions experts also suspect that luxury Mercedes cars seen in the sidestreets were smuggled into the country.

As much as I enjoy criticizing North Korea, that's just silly. If the North Koreans wanted the Mercedes there, then the word "smuggling" doesn't apply, and come on, "illicit" doesn't either. The UN wants to call all imports illicit, which is not a reasonable position. The North Koreans are probably sitting around, laughing and eating illicit popcorn and reading illicit world newspapers that were smuggled in.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So the missiles were fake? That's what a lot of people have been saying for years... that NK doesn't have the capacity for those particular types of missiles. So, now that they ARE fakes... what does that mean, exactly? Is NK now regarded as more or less of a threat?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So, now that they ARE fakes... what does that mean, exactly?

It doesn't really say they are fakes. It says, "Analysts debate whether the KN-08s on display may have been mock-ups."

Translation: We want to make North Korea look weak with this bogus story.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh, those silly Americants... They practically eat up anything Fox and The Post feed them, weapons of mass destruction included. "They showed us a satellite photo so it must be true." Let's occupy neighboring countries with our own incompetent weapons etc. and get ready to invade. In the meantime let's persude those countries to buy our failing anti-missile systems bla bla bla ... Anyway, about them NK missiles... As I stated last month (and as claimed on numerous tv shows in Japan) they are as real as China's numerous high rise buildings we saw during the Olympics there. North Koreas missiles made of cardboard, plastic and polystyrene foam the quality of props used at tv show studios. Shhhh, don't tell anyone though 'cause that'll hurt the profitable status quo. Profitable for whom? Exactly! Oh, the ones that do fly... LOL Held together with bolts and nuts available from your local DIY store. And their missile control center... Buwahahahahaha!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Clemens,

As you now know. the two nuclear tests North Korea did (which were nuclear explosions, not cute little lab tests) were very real. You can laugh about that too, if you want. I do not find anything amusing, however.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Jack:

As you now know. the two nuclear tests North Korea did (which were nuclear explosions, not cute little lab tests) were very real.

Are you sure about that?

As sure as you have been about the authenticity of those NK missiles?

As sure as the United Nations and the USA were sure about them?

Now those people are saying that all of those misiles are fake! Can you imagine? ROFL

Then there was the CIA. Oh yeah... You remember them? The Central INTELLIGENCE Agency of the USA....

Back in1998 the CIA "located" a huge underground facility where North Korea was secretly making nuclear weapons. When NK allowed the US military to inspect this site only to find it empty, and with no traces of radioactive material.

Back in 2003 the CIA claimed to have "located" another secret plant for producing weapons-grade plutonium. The evidence consisted of ‘elevated levels of krypton-85’.

Back in 2007 reports from Washington suggested that the 2002 CIA reports that North Korea was developing uranium enrichment technology had overstated or misread the intelligence. U.S. officials were no longer making this a major issue in the six-party talks.

Need I continue?

You can laugh about that too, if you want. I do not find anything amusing, however.

I do. I find it hillarious!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Are you sure about that?

You agreed that they were confirmed.

As sure as you have been about the authenticity of those NK missiles?

What missiles are you talking about that you are suggesting I have been sure about?

I do. I find it hillarious!

Interesting. I find it sad.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Oops...

When I stated that:

back in 2003 the CIA claimed to have "located" another secret plant for producing weapons-grade plutonium. The evidence consisted of ‘elevated levels of krypton-85’.

I forgot to mention that the CIA recanted on the advice of South Korean experts pointing out to the CIA that it is impossible to pinpoint a hidden or secret location merely by detecting raised levels of krypton-85.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Stick to what we are discussing, please.

I have not commented on things that have been disproved. There is a reason for that. Please do not again attempt to misrepresent me or my opinions.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Two “customized Mercedes Benz limousines” were also shown at the Pyongyang parade. North Korea is banned from importing such luxury items under sanctions imposed over its nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, which the experts monitor.

And you really think they're gonna care?!

Seriously, the USA and the UN remind me of my cigarette-smoking father who used to tell me I shouldn't smoke, taking my Marlboros away from me after he'd found them on me.

Hypocrites the world over!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Trash news. May be fake. So what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

N.K parade is the showcase of the abuser elites who exploit and brainwashing the mass. The bottom line is N.Koreans have not seen any light of day in this 21th. century. Those few elites sacrifice too many for their crimes and being fake as dear leader(s). For the comrades who rally to support them, commit the crime similar to China which is the culprit thus exploiting N.K. as the buffer zone. What a conscience?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the whole of Japan boycotted Pachinko, the NK economy would collapse overnight.

One even small war would wipe the country off the map. It's a tiny country and whatever we do or do not know about it, we know it's got no food.

What's the UN trying to do?

Fill our hearts with terror and dread?

Give the US an excuse to start yet another war?

Perhaps the US military could bombard them with polystyrene drones and Coca Cola Napalm?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Jack:

You agreed that they were confirmed.

No, Jack. I never did such a thing. Please go back to the thread and reread what I posted, please.

What missiles are you talking about that you are suggesting I have been sure about?

The missles mentioned in this article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the whole of Japan boycotted Pachinko, the NK economy would collapse overnight.

So true!

What's the UN trying to do?

Fill our hearts with terror and dread?

Give the US an excuse to start yet another war?

As they have been trying for years... Bill Clinton came close to launching a ‘pre-emptive strike’ against North Korea’s nuclear reactors at Yongbyon, about sixty miles north of Pyongyang. Then, at the last minute, Jimmy Carter got North Korea to agree to a complete freeze on activity at the Yongbyon complex, and a Framework Agreement was signed in October 1994. The Republican Right railed against this for the next six years, until George W. Bush brought a host of the Agreement’s critics into his Administration, and they set about dismantling it, thus fulfilling their own prophecy and initiating another dangerous confrontation with Pyongyang. The same folks who brought us the invasion of Iraq and a menu of hyped-up warnings about Saddam Hussein’s weapons have similarly exaggerated the North Korean threat: indeed, the second North Korean nuclear crisis began in October 2002, when ‘sexed-up’ intelligence was used to push Pyongyang against the wall and make bilateral negotiations impossible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, Jack. I never did such a thing. Please go back to the thread and reread what I posted, please.

Done.

Me:

You agreed that they were confirmed.

You:

Jun. 29, 2012 - 09:31PM JST

So the UN nuclear chief wouldn't be surprised blablabla... and the tests were confirmed...

You did agreed the tests were confirmed.

Lasty, you may call me by my first name, Ben. My name is not Jack.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The missles mentioned in this article.

I never said I was sure about anything related to the missiles mentioned in this article.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The eight-axle transporter-launcher carrying the missiles also surprised foreign analysts. North Korea “has not previously demonstrated its capacity to build such a vehicle. The panel will further examine this,” said the UN report.

Hilarious, the vehicle is actually a Chinese vehicle. And the best bit it is made with the assistance of US companies. Oops someone made a mistake there now didnt they. Fancy that US companies indirectly helping the North Koreans with their WMD's...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You did agreed the tests were confirmed.

No, Ben. All I did was requote what you had posted earlier.

My "bla bla bla" wasn't enough of an indication to show you that I don't agree?

Let me make it absolutely clear then... Just because the CIA and the UN claim something to be doesn't make it so.

Isn't that clear also from the above article and the other CIA FAIL examples I have posted here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fancy that US companies indirectly helping the North Koreans with their WMD's...

Yeah, now how would that have happened eh? LOL

Maybe Ben has an explanation...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

About those "confirmed" WMDs...

The CIA has maintained that NK probably has one or two atomic bombs but no more than that, because they could not have reprocessed more than 11 or 12 kilograms of plutonium – the maximum amount they could have obtained from their reactor in 1989. This conclusion was first included in a National Intelligence Estimate in November 1993, after all the government experts on North Korea had been gathered together and asked to put their hands up if they thought the North had atomic bombs. Just over half raised their hands. Those in the slim majority assumed that the North Koreans had reprocessed every last gram of the fuel removed in 1989, and had fashioned an implosion device that would detonate this plutonium – no easy task. Still, the CIA referred only to nuclear ‘devices’, not bombs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, Ben. All I did was requote what you had posted earlier.

With no commentary whatsoever. Please look at the order.

Just because the CIA and the UN claim something to be doesn't make it so.

Then why did you at first incorrectly claim that they had not confirm it and then ask me to provide proof they had? So that you could say it did not matter anyway?

Isn't that clear also from the above article and the other CIA FAIL examples I have posted here?

Again, you were claiming that there were no nuclear tests because the US intelligence agencies and the IAEA had not confirmed them. You then ask me for proof that they had confirmed them. I provided that proof. You quote it. Now, after all that you are claiming that confirmation does not mean anything? Why ask for it then? By the way, you neglect to mention that the IAEA also confirmed that tests.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Maybe Ben has an explanation...

? Thanks for the sudden vote of confidence ;)

Once tech is sold/given to another country, they do with it what they want to. I think that is one of the reason there is concern about North Korea. It is their potential to pass the tech/weapons on to others. This is possibly another example of that kind of thing. How's that?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Simon,

We are talking about two nuclear explosions in North Korea, one in 2006 and one in 2009. These have been confirmed by the IAEA.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Still, the CIA referred only to nuclear ‘devices’, not bombs.

Six or half dozen.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ben:

Why ask for it then?

Simple. To see who your so-called "reliable" sources are. Once you stated them, I had nothing further to say besides maybe "go figure!" as you must understand by now.

We are talking about two nuclear explosions in North Korea, one in 2006 and one in 2009. These have been confirmed by the IAEA.

Six or half dozen.

Every year the CIA Director tells Congress that ‘the chances are better than 50:50’ that NK has one or two bombs (not devices), and newspapers have routinely reported this assumption as fact.

Yet, nuclear experts at the Livermore and Hanford laboratories reduced their estimate of how much fuel North Korea possessed to less than the amount needed for a single bomb. NK, they concluded, could only have seven or eight kilograms of fuel, whereas ‘it takes ten kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium to fabricate a first bomb,’ and eight or nine kilograms for subsequent ones.

According to David Albright, one of the best and most reliable independent experts, ‘the most credible worst-case estimate’ is that NK may have between 6.3 and 8.5 kg of reprocessed plutonium.

In other words, the CIA’s "educated" guess, endlessly repeated in the media, appears to have been mistaken.

What else is new, eh?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The United Nation shall never ever raised up any question to the Chinese government about the TELs, it was China telling who is who in the United nation security council and no countries can bring China to disclose more details about this, China has veto power and Chinese rule there!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

America seeking Chinese cooperation to sanction her ally North Korea, was that an idea from Hillary when she was being the first lady convincing her husband to do so as state policy or better known as 'bedtime fairly tales'?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The United states of America, while possessing a huge nuclear arsenal themselves (strategic warheads to be reduced to 1,550 by 2016 but still a ridiculously high number), in addition to also being the only country in the world to have ever used such WMDs, is okay with the manufacture, possession and sales of such weapons.

What are they bitching about?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

smuggled Mercedes

That is PR for Mercedes. Because all bad guys (yakudza, gangsters and all dictators) use Mercedes and have black glasses. Also Kim need sword.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simple. To see who your so-called "reliable" sources are. Once you stated them, I had nothing further to say besides maybe "go figure!" as you must understand by now.

Sorry, that is simply incorrect. Look back at the discussion again. You specifically asked me for corroboration from the CIA and the IAEA and I provided it. To which you now are saying you said 'go figure'. Sorry, it still does not make sense. You never said, 'go figure'. You said, 'So what. What does that prove?' I still have no idea why you had me provide you information about something you specifically asked for when you did not care or want it in the first place.

Again, many of the world's intelligence agencies, the UN and the IAEA confirmed the two nuclear tests (explosions). I will not be moved away from this discussion by distractions about other cases or topics. Prove your theory that they were merely earthquakes as you claimed. You have been asking me to do a lot of leg work for you and you have provided absolutely none in return. Time to earn your keep.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Why am I not surprised? They may be fake it till they make it. But no doubt North Korea is looking for Military Superiority. And they do know how to split the atom. Their rockets? not so good. But make no mistake they want to fight their way out of the sanctions put on them. And remember they are still part of the Axis of Evil, Stated by GW Bush...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You specifically asked me for corroboration from the CIA and the IAEA and I provided it.

No, ben. You're wrong. Sorry.

1) I didn't ask you anything. I told you to post [quote] facts, not rumors [end quote]. Show me the quote, Ben. Oh, I just did....

2) Wrong! I didn't (ask or) tell you to posts facts corroborated by the CIA and the IAEA. Show me the quote, ben. Oh, you can't 'cause it ain't there...

And even if I did... Man, have you even read any of the lies and retractions the CIA has been putting out there re: North Korea since the 50s? They have been trying to convince several US presidents to attack NK. Luckily those presidents were smarter and able to keep things in perspective. Can you imagine pre-emptive strikes? Nuclear strikes!

The IAEA, you say... Is that the same IAEA that admitted errors in a report on Iran's nuclear program not so long ago?

The United Nations? Well... The list of FAILS of that institution... Just read the above article for starters if you're interested.

Prove your theory that they were merely earthquakes as you claimed.

I don't need to prove anything, ben. Nothing like that, simply because I never claimed it. All I said in that regard was [quote] Just because those agencies say that those earthquakes were triggered by nuclear tests, don't make it so [end quote]

There is no theory, just me saying I don't trust what any of those agencies are trying to feed me. With good reason, I should add, as I have read (and posted) plenty of their so-called "facts" that were later proven to be false.

I have also stated numerous times now that YOU are free to believe whatever you want. Believe the UN, CIA, and IAEA. I mean that. But PLEASE stop trying to forcefeed me your USA war propaganda BS. Enough!

Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1) I didn't ask you anything. I told you to post [quote] facts, not rumors [end quote]. Show me the quote, Ben. Oh, I just did....

I posted facts. You asked me for them. You asked me to post facts. It is right here in black and white. You actually did it again. You claim you said something else and then you actually post what I said you said. Then you said you did not need them. By the way, although your post seems to have been deleted, you did indeed ask me for proof the IAEA corroborated the tests. You also claimed that US intelligence agencies had not corroborated the tests, when in fact that have.

Wrong! I didn't (ask or) tell you to posts facts corroborated by the CIA and the IAEA. Show me the quote, ben. Oh, you can't 'cause it ain't there...

It is not there because, like many of your posts, it has been deleted. However, you did claim the tests had not been confirmed:

(by either the US or Japan) should read (not confirmed by either the US or Japan)

They were confirmed by US and other countries' intelligence agencies and IAEA. Why would you say anything about the tests supposedly not being confirmed by the US if you did not care anyway? See? It still does not make sense. Just because some of your posts are missing does not mean the rest of your failed argument is not still there.

And even if I did... Man, have you even read any of the lies and retractions the CIA

Again, you wrote above that it was not confirmed, as if this meant something (otherwise, why write it?) and then claim you do not care when it is pointed out to you that it had been confirmed. Again, poor debating technique.

The IAEA, you say... Is that the same IAEA that admitted errors in a report on Iran's nuclear program not so long ago?

1) Iran has lied about their program and not allowed inspectors in. In such a situation, errors can occur. Iran should have been straightforward. Same for North Korea.

The United Nations?

See above.

Nothing like that, simply because I never claimed it.

Ahem,

Claiming that two earthquakes were caused by nuclear testing doesn't make it so.

I don't trust what any of those agencies are trying to feed me

Then why would you even say, incorrectly of course, that they had not confirmed the tests, when they had?

By the way? What agency do you trust?

YOU are free to believe whatever you want

As are you. However, you claimed Japanese no longer fear North Korea and you have yet to back this up. How long are you going to make me wait? Are is this like your saying there was no confirmation of the nuclear tests and then you claiming you don't care when it is shown to you that there was confirmation? Are you going to claim you don't care that there is fear of North Korea in Japan when you cannot back up your own claim? Back up what you claim or please stop claiming it.

But PLEASE stop trying to forcefeed me

Ummm, I also am free to voice my opinion on this discussion board. I have neither suggested war nor used propaganda of any kind. In fact, I have specifically stated that I am not in favor of a military solution to this. You know I have said this because I said it to you. I have stated facts. Many of which you claimed did not exist and asked me to show you. Then you claim they do not matter.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

is this like your saying there was no confirmation of the nuclear tests and then you claiming you don't care when it is shown to you that there was confirmation?

No, this is me saying that the agencies that claim to have confirmed stuff are continuously being called on and proven wrong. They include the CIA, the UN and the IAEA.

However, if you're really interested I suggest you go to Wiki (not my favorite either) and read for yourself that the tests were not fully corroborated as you claim. Still, if you can find other links that prove Wiki wrong that only proves that above-mentioned agencies claim something (as per your links), which IMO doesn't make it so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, that's a very poor debating technique. I agree. The fact of the matter remains that I never asked you. I told you.

You seriously do not remember asking me for show you where the IAEA confirmed the tests? Please.

The difference is clear in the posts available.

Umm, you suggested the CIA did not confirm the tests. You asked me to provide facts about that. I did. You then wrote, 'What does that prove?' Why ask, when you did not care in the first place? I think you really thought they did not confirm them and that supported your argument. Then, when you were shown you were incorrect, you swtiched gears to say you did not care. Again, why ask? Why make me answer a question you do not care about the answer to?

What is it to you?

You have incorrectly used the word 'paranoid' to describe me. I find it ironic you seem to be paranoid of pretty much every international agency related to this subject. Thus, I asked you. Seems reasonable consider the tact you have taken in this conversation. What's good for the goose and all.

Me:

you claimed Japanese no longer fear North Korea

You:

No, I didn't. Please stop stop claiming that I have posted things I never did. It's the equivalent of lying.

Really? Try wriggling out of this one. It is still there:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/s-korea-japan-to-sign-first-military-pact#comment_1342260

Clemens SimonJun. 28, 2012 - 11:07PM JST In fact the Japanese haven't really feared NK for a very long time.

I said that it's MY opinion and that of THE JAPANESE AROUND me.

Again, no. You attempted to back up your above statement with that. However, the above statement is yours and you do not qualify it as only representing some people you know. If you look you will see you even attempted to give me advice on how to talk to Japanese people (allow me my first LOL to you) in order to get them to tell me their real feelings, which you assumed to be that they no longer really fear North Korea. However, my survey shows the fear exists. Again, you have shown only at the least that you do not fear them as your aquaintances cannot be used as data (as you yourself just pointed out).

Are you talking about ADDITIONAL errors made by the IAEA(?)

No.

Looks to me that the IAEA lied, not Iran.

Wrongly reporting something does not equate lying.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You seriously do not remember asking me for show you where the IAEA confirmed the tests?

I remember clearly TELLING you to put up facts (not rumors). Did you see the exclamation?

I don't remember TELLING (or asking) you to put up facts from the IAEA or any other agency.

You decided to get your "facts" from those agencies. I just told you to put up facts.

I did so because I wanted to know where you get your "facts" from. After that I couldn't care less.

This is because I don't believe any of the agencies you have mentioned so far.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Again, why ask? Why make me answer a question you do not care about the answer to?

See above post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Try wriggling out of this one.

In fact the Japanese haven't really feared NK for a very long time.

It means what it says.

It means that it is likely that the Japanese (generalizing it to mean ALL Japanese) feared North Korea.

Nowadays, however, the Japanese (generalizing it to mean ALL Japanese) don't fear North Korea.

You further proved it for me with your links to the surveys.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I remember clearly TELLING you to put up facts (not rumors).

I remember telling you the fact is they confirmed it. I never said you had to believe it. You obviously do not. However, the fact is they confirmed it. It is not a rumor that they confirmed it.

I don't remember TELLING (or asking) you to put up facts from the IAEA or any other agency.

That's okay. You didn't remember plenty of things. For example, did not remember I was the first one in our discussion to use the word 'concern' and you claimed you did.

You decided to get your "facts" from those agencies. I just told you to put up facts.

The facts are that they confirmed the tests. They are not rumors. The confirmations exist. Never said you had to believe them. I merely would like you to admit they exist and that when asked to I presented them to you.

I did so because I wanted to know where you get your "facts" from.

Sorry, you claimed they have not confirmed the tests. You were incorrect. Why would you even mentioned, incorrectly, that they had not confirmed them if you did not care whether they confirmed them or not. Still not making sense.

After that I couldn't care less

You are claiming you could not care less from the beginning. Then why claim, incorrectly, that agencies you could not care less about and that you evidently do not believe did not confirm the tests? You see, your explanation still does not make sense.

This is because I don't believe any of the agencies you have mentioned so far.

Again, what agencies do you believe? Considering the sheer number of times you have incorrectly called me 'paranoid', it is only fair you talk about why agencies you do believe. As I said, what is good for the goose and all.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The facts are that they confirmed the tests. They are not rumors. The confirmations exist.

You call them facts.

I call them questionable opinions because the agencies in question often make errors and recant their previous "facts".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On October 9, 2006, the North Korean government issued an announcement that it had successfully conducted a nuclear test for the first time. Both the United States Geological Survey and Japanese seismological authorities detected an earthquake with a preliminary estimated magnitude of 4.3 in North Korea, corroborating some aspects of the North Korean claims.

2006 test: An official in France's Atomic Energy Commission reported that they estimated the blast was "about or less than a kiloton" and expressed uncertainty about whether or not the blast was actually nuclear. There have been various large planned and unplanned non-nuclear explosions comparable in yield to small nuclear detonations, such as the U.S. "Minor Scale" explosion from 1985, which used conventional explosives to simulate a 4 kiloton detonation. According to the Washington Times anonymous U.S. intelligence sources speculated there "was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives." The Wall Street Journal explains that this blast was equivalent to the explosive force of about US$100,000 worth of ammonium nitrate.

2009 test: In June 2009, the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) announced that no radionuclides had been detected that could be associated with the 25 May event. At the time of the test, the CTBTO global network included 40 radionuclide sampling stations. In addition, the United States reported that no radionuclides were detected by aircraft over the Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea), and South Korea also reported that no radionuclides were detected. By contrast, radionuclides were detected in at least two locations after the 2006 event. Lack of detection does not mean that the event was non-nuclear: it is reasonable for a nuclear test with this yield, buried deep enough in the appropriate rock, to not yield remotely detectable radionuclides, but it makes it more difficult to prove whether the test was nuclear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I gave the quotes. The tests were confirmed. I nvever suggested they were confirmed right away. You did not deny the tests were confirmed. You said it did not prove anything.

At least, I provided links to my data. Where'd you get yours?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I am getting used to you. I assume you are going to say, 'Where? You never showed any evidenced the tests were confirmed. ' So, here we go again:

Ahem,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aO7kW.RjqqaE&refer=japan

North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed by U.S. Intelligence Agency

Ahem,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6056370.stm

US confirms N Korea nuclear test

Pyongyang announced it had carried out a nuclear test on 9 October Air samples from North Korea confirm that a nuclear explosion was carried out a week ago, US intelligence officials say.

Ahem,

http://www.iaea.org/blog/feeds/?p=6327

IAEA says would “not be surprised” by North Korea nuke test The United Nations nuclear chief said on Friday he would not be surprised if North Korea were to carry out a new nuclear test, amid speculation the secretive Asian state is preparing to conduct the third such explosion since 2006.

Ahem,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-nuclear-nkorea-iaea-idUSBRE8430HS20120504

IAEA says would "not be surprised" by North Korea nuke test

The United Nations nuclear chief said on Friday he would not be surprised if North Korea were to carry out a new nuclear test, amid speculation the secretive Asian state is preparing to conduct the third such explosion since 2006.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

At least, I provided links to my data. Where'd you get yours?

I already told you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben,

Your favorite agencies make you believe that they confirm stuff all the time and you just eat it up.

Years later, however, these pop up:

expressed uncertainty about whether or not the blast was actually nuclear.

it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test.

it more difficult to prove whether the test was nuclear.

No biggie. It happens all the time. wink wink nudge nudge

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Again, if you're really interested I suggest you go to Wiki (not my favorite either) and read for yourself that the tests were not fully corroborated as you claim.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I already told you.

Nope. You refused. I will ask again. It is only fair after all. Where did you get your data? Which agencies do you trust?

Your favorite agencies make you believe that they confirm stuff all the time and you just eat it up.

Actually, they just happen to be the agencies that confirmed the tests. (Good to see you accidently admit they confirmed them. Now, let's wait for you to deny admitting it.). Never said they were my favorites. I believe you brought up the CIA first yourself actually when you incorrectly claimed they had not confirmed it.

expressed uncertainty about whether or not the blast was actually nuclear. etc, etc...

Actually, as you can see by recent articles, they have confirmed them.

the tests were not fully corroborated as you claim.

Yes, they were, as you can see by recent IAEA posts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Clemens SimonJul. 02, 2012 - 03:45PM JST

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/s-korea-japan-to-sign-first-military-pact#comment_1342486

Quite the gullible one, aren't you, Mr. Jack?

So, what are your sources of information? What agencies do you trust? If I am so 'gullible' (can't deny you said it this time, I copied it), what do you use to avoid being so 'gullible'?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mr. Jack,

You're posting quotes here that belong to another article...

I'm not going to post answers to a single question on multiple articles.

Sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not going to post answers to a single question on multiple articles.

You did not answer it anywhere, actually.

I posted it already twice here. Please learn to read...

So, you went to wiki and just believed what was there. Learn to read, huh? That is a great idea. You know what? I think I will start here at the CTBTO's site. How about that? Let's see what we find there, shall we?

http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2009/experts-sure-about-nature-of-the-dprk-event/

Experts sure about nature of the DPRK event

Scientists compared the seismic findings on both the 2006 and 2009 DPRK announced nuclear tests. In 2009, 61 stations had registered the event, compared to 22 stations in 2006. This has allowed for a more precise assessment of the event’s characteristics, including its location and magnitude.

2009 Nuclear Test

“Nuclear bluff” scenario dismissed

Verification technology experts such as Professor Paul Richards from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA, considered the scenario of a “bluff”, i.e. the creation of a nuclear explosion-like seismic signal using conventional explosives. While technically possible, he stated that it was highly implausible. As CTBTO seismic data have clearly indicated an explosion of a yield many times greater than that of 2006, it would have required several thousand tons of conventional explosives to be fired instantaneously. Richards explained that such a massive logistical undertaking would have been virtually impossible under the prevailing circumstances and would not have escaped detection.

2006 Nuclear Test http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2007/the-ctbt-verification-regime-put-to-the-test-the-event-in-the-dprk-on-9-october-2006/

Two weeks after the event, the radionuclide noble gas station at Yellowknife, Canada, registered a higher concentration of Xenon 133. Applying atmospheric transport models to backtrack the dispersion of the gas, its registration at Yellowknife was found to be consistent with a hypothesized release from the event in the DPRK.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I have not stated that your post WERE any of that.

No?

Clemens SimonJul. 02, 2012 - 03:45PM JST

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/s-korea-japan-to-sign-first-military-pact#comment_1342486

Quite the gullible one, aren't you, Mr. Jack?

Somehow, I find that very hard to believe. My above post stands.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Pyongyang parades fake missiles

Plastic toy made in China? Probably the same toy will show up in local "Dollar Store" shelves pretty soon..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites