Jump to content

Satellite images may show reprocessing activity at North Korea nuclear site: U.S. researchers


webfact

Recommended Posts

Satellite images may show reprocessing activity at North Korea nuclear site: U.S. researchers

By David Brunnstrom

 

2019-04-17T035324Z_1_LYNXNPEF3G07J_RTROPTP_4_NORTH-KOREA-NUCLEAR-REPORT.JPG

A view of what researchers of Beyond Parallel, a CSIS project, describe as specialized rail cars at the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center in North Pyongan Province, North Korea, in this commercial satellite image taken April 12, 2019 and released April 16, 2019. CSIS/Beyond Parallel/DigitalGlobe 2019 via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Satellite images from last week show movement at North Korea's main nuclear site that could be associated with the reprocessing of radioactive material into bomb fuel, a U.S. think tank said on Tuesday.

 

Any new reprocessing activity would underscore the failure of a second summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi in late February to make progress toward North Korea's denuclearisation.

 

Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies said in a report that satellite imagery of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear site from April 12 showed five specialised railcars near its Uranium Enrichment Facility and Radiochemistry Laboratory.

 

It said their movement could indicate the transfer of radioactive material.

 

"In the past, these specialised railcars appear to have been associated with the movement of radioactive material or reprocessing campaigns." the report said. "The current activity, along with their configurations, does not rule out their possible involvement in such activity, either before or after a reprocessing campaign."

 

The U.S. State Department declined to comment on intelligence matters, but a source familiar with U.S. government assessments said that while U.S. experts thought the movements could possibly be related to reprocessing, they were doubtful it was significant nuclear activity.

 

Jenny Town, a North Korea expert at the Stimson Centre think tank, said that if reprocessing was taking place, it would be a significant given U.S.-North Korean talks in the past year and the failure to reach an agreement on the future of Yongbyon in Hanoi.

 

"Because there wasn't an agreement with North Korea on Yongbyon, it would be interesting timing if they were to have started something so quickly after Hanoi," she said.

 

Trump has met Kim twice in the past year to try to persuade him to abandon a nuclear weapons programme that threatens the United States, but progress so far has been scant.

 

The Hanoi talks collapsed after Trump proposed a "big deal" in which sanctions on North Korea would be lifted if it handed over all its nuclear weapons and fissile material to the United States. He rejected partial denuclearisation steps offered by Kim, which included an offer to dismantle Yongbyon.

 

Although Kim has maintained a freeze in missile and nuclear tests since 2017, U.S. officials say North Korea has continued to produce fissile material that can be processed for use in bombs.

 

Last month, a senior North Korean official warned that Kim might rethink the test freeze unless Washington made concessions.

 

Last week, Kim said the Hanoi breakdown raised the risks of reviving tensions, adding that he was only interested in meeting Trump again if the United States came with the right attitude.

 

Kim said he would wait "till the end of this year" for the United States to decide to be more flexible. On Monday, Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo brushed aside this demand with Pompeo saying Kim should keep his promise to give up his nuclear weapons before then.

 

Town said any new reprocessing work at Yongbyon would emphasise the importance of the facility in North Korea's nuclear programme.

 

"It would underscore that it is an active facility that does increase North Korea's fissile material stocks to increase its arsenal."

 

A study by Stanford University's Centre for International Security and Cooperation released ahead of the Hanoi summit said North Korea had continued to produce bomb fuel in 2018 and may have produced enough in the past year to add as many as seven nuclear weapons to its arsenal.

 

Experts have estimated the size of North Korea's nuclear arsenal at anywhere between 20 and 60 warheads.

 

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Tom Brown and Grant McCool)

 

 

reuters_logo.jpg

 -- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jobsworth said:

what about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction?

the evidence was photographs similar to these.

 

No it wasn't. Not at all. Or are you denying that North Korea has nuclear weapons? That this site manufactures them? In the runup to the Iraq War the agency responsible for checking on Iraq's weapons was very sceptical of US claims. That same agency is not sceptical now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  " a U.S. think tank " Now there is a contradiction in terms! Why is it OK for the US to have nuclear weapons and process fissile material, sell nuclear information and expertise to Saudi Arabia, protect the Israeli nuclear program, continually threaten the world with nuclear destruction, but cry like babies because North Korea chooses to retain their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to the US world dominance madness?! What North Korea does in its own country is entirely their business. It isn't as if they are instigating regime changes and coups all over the world like some!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, farq said:

  " a U.S. think tank " Now there is a contradiction in terms! Why is it OK for the US to have nuclear weapons and process fissile material, sell nuclear information and expertise to Saudi Arabia, protect the Israeli nuclear program, continually threaten the world with nuclear destruction, but cry like babies because North Korea chooses to retain their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to the US world dominance madness?!

 

Because nuclear proliferation is bad.

 

 

8 minutes ago, farq said:

What North Korea does in its own country is entirely their business.

 

Is it really?  Tell that to the southeast Asian countries that set their post-harvest corn & sugar cane fields and palm plantations ablaze to clear them.  NK starving its own citizens isn't okay either, even though it's what they are doing in their own country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, farq said:

  " a U.S. think tank " Now there is a contradiction in terms! Why is it OK for the US to have nuclear weapons and process fissile material, sell nuclear information and expertise to Saudi Arabia, protect the Israeli nuclear program, continually threaten the world with nuclear destruction, but cry like babies because North Korea chooses to retain their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to the US world dominance madness?! What North Korea does in its own country is entirely their business. It isn't as if they are instigating regime changes and coups all over the world like some!

Erm.  Ah.  Hmmmm. Yes.

Forget "think. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

Because nuclear proliferation is bad.

 

 

 

Is it really?  Tell that to the southeast Asian countries that set their post-harvest corn & sugar cane fields and palm plantations ablaze to clear them.  NK starving its own citizens isn't okay either, even though it's what they are doing in their own country.

So  sanctions against a regime that imposes non conformist  policy that  in real terms impacts only the citizens is  best humanitarian  counter policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

Who runs the think tank?

 

Do you need to know the political leanings of everyone before you can comment about their findings?

 

https://www.csis.org/programs/about-us

 

 

4 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

So  sanctions against a regime that imposes non conformist  policy that  in real terms impacts only the citizens is  best humanitarian  counter policy?

 

Is that a rhetorical question?  Because I don't recall voicing that opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

Do you need to know the political leanings of everyone before you can comment about their findings?

 

https://www.csis.org/programs/about-us

 

 

 

Is that a rhetorical question?  Because I don't recall voicing that opinion.

Consider  your  opinion stating that it is the NK regime"  soley starving it citizens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:
13 minutes ago, riclag said:

Who runs the think tank?

 

Do you need to know the political leanings of everyone before you can comment about their findings?

 

https://www.csis.org/programs/about-us

Yes, When I googled -CSIS/Beyond Parallel/DigitalGlobe bias

It brought up a mix bag of links,here is just one of them

"In the aftermath of the Hanoi Summit, President Trump has been barraged with attempts to undermine his confidence in the good faith of Kim Jong Un and his intentions to deal fairly with the United States in the negotiation process concerning denuclearization and de-escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula". 

https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&hl=en&pws=0&ei=tTC3XPffDaDYz7sPodyUwA4&q=CSIS%2FBeyond+Parallel%2FDigitalGlobe+bias&oq=CSIS%2FBeyond+Parallel%2FDigitalGlobe+bias&gs_l=psy-ab.12...28837.32286..34117...0.0..0.130.578.0j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i302i39j33i160.-y6zxTGiW3Y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Consider  your  opinion stating that it is the NK regime"  soley starving it citizens.  

 

They are certainly not helping. If sanctions were eased, how much of the the incoming relief would go to the people?  The US was one of the primary benefactors of NK through the later part of the 20th century, giving over $1B in humanitarian aid in a 13-year span from 1995-1008

 

Yes - the regime is starving its people.  The precise adverb that should be used before "starving" is debatable.  

 

From the same think tank: Humanitarian Engagement with North Korea—Great Need but Increasingly Difficult

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interference by way of sanction,  covert  interference , political and  diplomatic abolition  etc  in the attempt to  "force" compliance to  an assumed position  rarely  has real impact on the  regime  it is aimed at.

Rather than it exacerbates  the  suffering  of the  general  populace  who are used  to excuse  on  mostly  false  grounds for such actions.

The  reaction  of such  regimes  is to protect  itself  to maintain the advantage of it's existence at the cost of it's populace regardless of  suffering.

Which side of the  political  philosophy has the  greater  humanitarian  right  of principle?

When and where  military  intervention  has been applied  to "save  " a population   has  no great  history  of  actual success  other than to  acquire  alternative  domination  while  the  population  continues  to suffer in the  majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

They are certainly not helping. If sanctions were eased, how much of the the incoming relief would go to the people?  The US was one of the primary benefactors of NK through the later part of the 20th century, giving over $1B in humanitarian aid in a 13-year span from 1995-1008

 

Yes - the regime is starving its people.  The precise adverb that should be used before "starving" is debatable.  

 

From the same think tank: Humanitarian Engagement with North Korea—Great Need but Increasingly Difficult

 

 

Exactly !

People.

Pawns.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

Yes, When I googled -CSIS/Beyond Parallel/DigitalGlobe bias It brought up a mix bag of links,here is just one of them

 

I recommend you not stop after reading "just one of them".  Since you didn't provide a link to your source, I'm guessing it's either Zero Hedge or Disobedient Media:

 

Other than listing a few names associated with the website such as Adam Carter, who’s real name is Tim Leonard, the about page lacks information, such as what they do and/or a mission statement. It also does not disclose ownership and funding.

 

Revenue appears to come from a Patreon donation account, however since there isn’t disclosure, we are uncertain of other revenue streams such as donations or sponsors.

 

There is significant use of loaded emotional language in headlines... [snip] When it comes to sourcing, Disobedient [...] sometimes use conspiracy sources such as ZeroHedge and show support for Alex Jones, a very popular right-wing conspiracy theorist.

 

 

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

...the good faith of Kim Jong Un and his intentions to deal fairly with the United States...

 

 

All credibility lost.

 

Next time try looking at a site that will challenge your bias rather than confirm it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I recommend you not stop after reading "just one of them".  Since you didn't provide a link to your source, I'm guessing it's either Zero Hedge or Disobedient Media:

 

Other than listing a few names associated with the website such as Adam Carter, who’s real name is Tim Leonard, the about page lacks information, such as what they do and/or a mission statement. It also does not disclose ownership and funding.

 

Revenue appears to come from a Patreon donation account, however since there isn’t disclosure, we are uncertain of other revenue streams such as donations or sponsors.

 

There is significant use of loaded emotional language in headlines... [snip] When it comes to sourcing, Disobedient [...] sometimes use conspiracy sources such as ZeroHedge and show support for Alex Jones, a very popular right-wing conspiracy theorist.

 

 

 

All credibility lost.

 

Next time try looking at a site that will challenge your bias rather than confirm it.

Sorry buddy,I could care less about what was lost! I only know  two sides the one that you cling to which doesn't ever give credit were it's due and the one that is giving a chance of hope with the NK issues.Who knows what Un will do in the future,there is a chance of a peaceful solution,if not, a repeat of the last 60 years   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord knows I am not a foreign affairs specialist. But for the life of me I do not get any of this. 

 

Here are basic principles of this situation as far as I can surmise.

 

- N Korea is not supposed to make nuclear weapons (even though many of the countries who say that have them themselves, one of which has even USED them).

- The further N Korea gets in its nuclear efforts, the more respect and negotiating leverage they get.

 

How can the take home point be anything but it is good to defy the international community and go after nuclear arms for the betterment of your country? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, farq said:

Why is it OK for the US to have nuclear weapons and process fissile material, sell nuclear information and expertise to Saudi Arabia, protect the Israeli nuclear program, continually threaten the world with nuclear destruction, but cry like babies because North Korea chooses to retain their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to the US world dominance madness?!

This has always been the dilemma, the "sword of Damocles" if you will. On the one hand, an argument is made "Who is the US to dictate to other sovereign nations?" On the other hand, most nuclear powers have enough self control NOT to use a nuclear weapon. Evidence would indicate Lil Kim might just go ahead and blow one up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, farq said:

  " a U.S. think tank " Now there is a contradiction in terms! Why is it OK for the US to have nuclear weapons and process fissile material, sell nuclear information and expertise to Saudi Arabia, protect the Israeli nuclear program, continually threaten the world with nuclear destruction, but cry like babies because North Korea chooses to retain their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to the US world dominance madness?! What North Korea does in its own country is entirely their business. It isn't as if they are instigating regime changes and coups all over the world like some!

Apparently that’s how it has played out, and it will again by the next superpower.  This is the human condition, and will be it’s demise.  You seem surprised by these events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, quandow said:

This has always been the dilemma, the "sword of Damocles" if you will. On the one hand, an argument is made "Who is the US to dictate to other sovereign nations?" On the other hand, most nuclear powers have enough self control NOT to use a nuclear weapon. Evidence would indicate Lil Kim might just go ahead and blow one up.

What evidence? Why would they want to be reduced to a crater once a single one of their bombs hit the US?

 

I note that Pakistani airspace is still closed, owing to their spat with India. Now they might not be making menacing noises towards the continental United States, but those two nuclear powers going at it with each other I find much more alarming (not to mention, likely)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...