Saturday, June 13, 2009
By KWANGTAE KIM,Associated Press Writer AP - SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea vowed on Saturday to embark on a uranium enrichment program and 'weaponize' all the plutonium in its possession as it rejected the new U.N. sanctions meant to punish the communist nation for its recent nuclear test.
North Korea also said it would not abandon its nuclear programs, saying it was an inevitable decision to defend itself from what it says is a hostile U.S. policy and its nuclear threat against the North.
The North will take 'resolute military action' if the United States or its allies try to impose any 'blockade' on it, the ministry said in a statement carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
The ministry did not elaborate if the blockade refers to an attempt to stop its ships or impose sanctions.
North Korea describes its nuclear program as a deterrent against possible U.S. attacks. Washington says it has no intention of attacking and has expressed fear that North Korea is trying to sell its nuclear technology to other nations.
The statement came after the U.N. Security Council approved tough new sanctions on North Korea to punish it for its latest nuclear test on May 25.
The U.N. resolution imposes new sanctions on the reclusive communist nation's weapons exports and financial dealings, and allows inspections of suspect cargo in ports and on the high seas.
The South Korean government said it 'welcomes and supports the unanimous adoption of the resolution.' A Foreign Ministry statement said it showed the council's unequivocal intention to stop the North's nuclear program and its proliferation.
2009 North Korean nuclear test
ReplyDeleteAnalysis of test
[edit]Yield
Analysts have generally agreed that the nuclear test was successful, despite uncertainty of the exact yield.[23]
The U.S. intelligence community assessed that North Korea "probably" had conducted a nuclear test with a yield of "a few kilotons."[24] The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission assessed the yield at only slightly larger than the 2006 test, which was one kiloton.[24] Based on readings from 23 seismic stations, the Preparatory Commission estimated the blast to have a seismic magnitude of 4.52, corresponding to an explosive yield of 2.4 kilotons, compared to a seismic magnitude of 4.1, corresponding to a yield of 0.8 kilotons, for the 2006 blast.[25][26]
Russia placed the yield of the test significantly higher at 10 to 20 kilotons.[24] This was approximately the yield of the Fat Man and Trinity bombs developed by the United States during World War II.[27] After the 2006 test the Russians estimated a far higher yield of 5 to 10 kilotons when other sources estimated a yield of 0.5 to 0.9 kilotons.[16][28] Defense Minister Lee Sang-Hee of South Korea said that more data were needed but that the yield might be between 1 to 20 kilotons.[16]
Analyst Martin Kalinowski at the University of Hamburg estimated the yield at being from 3 to 8 kilotons, still a very successful test when compared with the 2006 test.[16][29] Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists cautioned that "early news media reports about a 'Hiroshima-size' nuclear explosion seem to be overblown."[16] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists asserted that the blast was more powerful than the 2006 test, but put the yield between 2 to 6 kilotons, far short of a Hiroshima-type device. The group concluded that the bomb failed to detonate correctly, but that still in that case the potential of this weapon should not be dismissed.[27]
[edit]Lack of radionuclide confirmation
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.[30][31]