-Caveat Lector- http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1185170,00.html
U.S. eyes North Korea sanctions By James Dao The New York Times WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is developing plans for sanctions against North Korea that would include halting its weapons shipments and cutting off money sent there by Koreans living in Japan, in the event that North Korea continues its march toward developing nuclear weapons, senior administration officials say. The officials said late last week that the administration had no plans to push for the sanctions soon, since the United States' Pacific allies still opposed the idea and the U.N. Security Council was likely to remain focused on Iraq for weeks. But the Pentagon and State Department are developing detailed plans for sanctions, and perhaps other actions, so that the United States has a forceful response ready in case North Korea takes aggressive new steps toward developing nuclear weapons, senior officials said. Many administration officials believe that it is just a matter of time before North Korea resumes testing long-range missiles, for example, or starts reprocessing nuclear fuel for weapons production. Many officials also worry that if the United States attacks Iraq, North Korea will use the opportunity to push forward with weapons production. "If they start to dismantle their weapons programs, then we can talk about incentives," a senior administration official said. "But if they torque up the pressure, you're looking at the other direction. That's when sanctions become much more likely." The officials said the possibility of sanctions would be part of a broader diplomatic campaign intended to get North Korea to step back from its nuclear programs. The first step will be to urge the Security Council, perhaps in the next two weeks, to condemn North Korea's recent steps toward nuclear weaponry, which have included withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarting a mothballed reactor at Yongbyon that can produce weapons-grade plutonium. The United States will also continue pressing Russia and China, major trading partners and providers of foreign aid to North Korea, to take more active roles in pressuring North Korea to dismantle its programs, the officials said. Both countries have said they would not support sanctions yet, contending that less confrontational approaches should be given more time. North Korea has said it would consider sanctions an act of war. Precisely because Russia and China, as well as South Korea and Japan, have been unwilling to support cutting off trade with North Korea, the United States is looking at more tailored sanctions that will focus on banned activities like smuggling drugs or proliferating weapons of mass destruction, officials said. For instance, Pentagon planners are looking closely at using American military forces to stop, turn back or seize ships and aircraft from North Korea that are suspected of carrying missiles or nuclear weapons materials, officials said. The sale of missile technology to Iran, Iraq and other countries has been a major source of foreign currency for the impoverished North Korea, American officials contend. In December, Spanish warships working with American military and intelligence officials stopped a North Korean freighter that was found to be carrying 15 Scud missiles bound for Yemen. But the Bush administration, at the urging of Yemen's government, determined that it had no legal right to seize the cargo and ordered the freighter released. To prevent a similar situation, administration officials say that they will need Security Council authorization to seize or turn back weapons shipments from North Korea. At a Senate hearing last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hinted at that strategy, advocating revamping international rules to allow steps to halt North Korea's weapons exports and calling North Korea "the world's greatest proliferator of missile technology" and a threat for selling fissile material to terrorists or rogue nations. http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~1182125,00.html Development of new nukes receives ok Gloves come off as administration sets stage for debate on tailor-made nuclear weapons By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Top Bush administration nuclear-weapons executives and weapons scientists are sketching out a strategy for adding a new menu of mininukes, neutron bombs and other nuclear arms to the nation's Cold War-style arsenal. In talks at the Pentagon last month, federal defense executives and weapons scientists from California and New Mexico set the stage for a debate over "selecting first 'small builds,'" -- that is, choosing tailor-made weapons for limited production runs. "What's clear is, in this administration, the brakes are off in nuclear development and the push for nuclear testing," said Greg Mello, head of the Los Alamos Study Group, an arms-control group in New Mexico that obtained minutes to a meeting of top nuclear-weapons advisers. The revelations are the latest herald of a potential sea-change in U.S. nuclear policy: On Thursday, House Republicans touted an aggressive new nuclear-weapons policy calling for scientists at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos labs to begin studying "advanced concepts" for new weapons for the first time since 1994. GOP lawmakers say they also are thinking of repealing a 1993 ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons, that is, those with an explosive yield at or below a third of the Hiroshima bomb. President Bush's new budget seeks $21 million for design of new or modified nuclear weapons in 2004. White House pronouncements since September lay out a new defense policy giving greater prominence to pre-emptive strikes on foreign weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon war planners already are drawing up contingency plans for a nuclear strike in Iraq, to pre-empt or retaliate for a chemical or biological attack, according to a Los Angeles Times report. Nuclear Weapons Council chairman and Assistant Defense Secretary E.C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr. asked weapons scientists last October "to assess the potential benefits that could be obtained from a return to nuclear testing." Meanwhile, Assistant Defense Secretary for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons Dale Klein has said the nation will have to test within five to 10 years. "The drums are beating pretty loudly on all quarters," said Thomas Cochran, a physicist and head of the Natural Resources Defense Council's program on nuclear arms. "Like kids in a toy shop, they have all these ideas (for weapons) they want to pursue but without any utility," Cochran said. "The U.S. has not designed a new, successful weapon in decades, and that's because all the practical improvements you can make in nuclear weapons were made at least two decades ago." Senior administration officials stress that they have no requirements for new nuclear weapons, meaning the military services and President Bush have not yet detailed a new attack mission demanding a new weapons design. Yet according to minutes of a Jan. 10 meeting, federal defense executives and top lab scientists are laying the preliminary groundwork for those new weapons requirements as they prepare for a Stockpile Stewardship Conference this August, their first in seven years. They plan to debate among other things whether a return to low-yield or high-yield nuclear testing for the first time since 1992 will be needed in proving the new designs. "What forms of testing will these new designs require?" Defense Department officials asked themselves and scientists on a panel advising the Nuclear Weapons Council, the foremost body for recommending wea-pons policy to the president. "What is the role of nuclear testing in reducing risk in the stockpile? What parts of those risks are associated with the absence of nuclear testing, in comparison to the risk association with a 150kt (kiloton explosive yield) threshold or a low-yield test program ...What would demand a test?" The talks offer a rare glimpse into the Bush administration as it mulls building modified or wholly new bombs and warheads as hardware for preemptive attacks. Administration officials cautioned that the document distilled frank conversations a-mong the executives and scientists responsible for "very long-range issues for the nuclear stockpile." "So it's appropriate that they consider any range of possibilities and that's exactly what this group is doing," said Anson Franklin, chief of governmental affairs for the National Nuclear Security Administration. "That shouldn't be read to suggest we are actively considering new weapons systems or a return to testing." "It's a far cry from a planning document for administration policy," Franklin said. Even so, the Bush administration is seeking $21 million for "advanced concepts" studies of modified or new weapons in 2004. That includes $15 million for scientists at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national labs to compete for design of a "bunker-buster" bomb for attacking deeply buried, hardened concrete bunkers. Called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the bomb would be based either on Livermore's B-83 or Los Alamos B-61, both featuring adjustable explosive yields. The president also is asking for $6 million for "additional and exploratory studies" of advanced weapons designs. "These are not vague plans for the future," said the Los Alamos Study Group's Mello. "This is a detailed planning process that bespeaks a great deal of thought and coordination between branches of government." He finds especially disturbing a portion of the document in which top defense executives and weaponeers ask themselves "what should the policy and practice be for granting authority to adapt and build small quantities?" Traditionally, only the president may authorize the production of a nuclear weapon. The conversation to Mello suggests lax oversight and control of the nation's key nuclear weapons agencies at the Defense and Energy departments. "That you would even talk about that would suggest the democratic governance of these institutions is already very, very weak. Every member of Congress should sit up and take notice that we are losing congressional oversight of the nuclear weapons program of the United States." Contact Ian Hoffman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
