Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 1

40.659181° 129.659181°

This location (linked to at "Delivery systems") is in the sea. See Google Maps. It does not house "an approximately 50m-long assembly building"...

Maybe its an underwater launch facility? Send in 007.

...and it seems to remain a problem. Suspiciously, everything after the decimal point is identical in the latitude and longitude to eight decimal places -- right now it says 40.65918056° N 129.6591806° E (40°39'33.05" N, 129°39'33.05" E). Looks like someone made a typo. Wesino 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it a little more, since the coordinates given are clearly wrong, I removed the section from the article and pasted it here:

Satellite navigation tools such as Google Earth reveal an approximately 50m-long assembly building at 40.65918056°N 129.6591806°E / 40.65918056; 129.6591806 (40°39'33.05" N, 129°39'33.05" E), with nearby launch, control and engine test facilities.

Also, besides being wrong coordinates, I'm not sure that I'd really know "launch, control and engine test facilities" from a picture on Google Earth. Seems like a reference to more expert analysis (as well as correct coords) would be required for this to be encyclopedic. Wesino 10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think my recent addition of Kim Duk Hong's testimony makes the prior point moot. Regaurdless of any concessions made, North Korea never had any intent on stopping its nuclear weapons program. TDC 04:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

The first sentence in the second paragraph currently reads, "Early attempts plutonium produced by heavy water reactor plants, with a plant at Yongbyon completed". Did something "go missing" during an editing session? I'd try to fix it, but I can't tell for sure what the original meaning was. User:Wfeidt

The use of Time

When quoting a "time", you should quote the local time and then the time in UTC or GMT. You the second quote (the one in brackets) shouldn't be U.S. Eastern Time. Mattrix18 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tests

I recently saw a report that stated North Korea has dug up a huge hole and then filled it back up again, activities consistent with a nuclear test. Granted, my source on this was the daily show, but usually they are truthful as well as satirical. I agree this should be included they also built an observation station a few miles away too.Coviecarbine 04:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Nuke Test Successful? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear 68.126.209.50 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Viewing

In early May 2005 American intelligence officials have obtained satellite imagery showing preparations being made for what may be a nuclear test in the northeast part of the country, with holes being dug and then filled. Construction of a large reviewing stand, an overlooked part of the 1998 missile test, is also noted several miles from the site. Is a viewing platform 'several miles' from the site of the planned test really suitable for viewing a test of a nuclear weapon?

Uh, if someone let off an atomic bomb, I'd like to be pretty far away from the blast. I suppose it depends on the scale of the test and the nature of the test. Some research on American testing and other previous nuclear tests might shed some light on the issue. Of course, now this issue is virtually moot, since North Korea has publicly announced their intention to do a nuclear test. the_paccagnellan 12:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

change title to neutral one (remove phrase WMOD)

Today the phrase "Weapons of mass destruction" is quite a charged one, and just using it in the title makes it sound like a report by the Bush adminstration. Shouldn't we go for something with less loaded, perhaps something like 'Weapon programs of North Korea'. Although I guess if the article is about Western response to North Korea's weapons programs WMOD would make sense.

Any suggestions? Or am I to be attacked by wikicrats for doing this incorrectly. I hope not :p —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.3.246.34 (talk • contribs) .

I think it's fine the way it is.... all the other country's articles are named X and weapons of mass destruction (see United States and weapons of mass destruction), so we're not singling out N. Korea. Sortan 17:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The one-sidedness is still there. Doesn't matter if it is the adopted naming scheme. WMD is a U.S. worldview of state weaponry. And really, it is the U.S. political stance on other states' weaponries. Whether or not the U.S. article is named to fit means zilch.

There is nothing universal about the term, or the vague category it creates. And, honestly, do I need to mention it intentionally draws upon Bush Administration/Iraq War/Axis of Evil? You can't use realpolitik without meaning to color your words with Henry Kissinger. This is how politicized terms work. --Oogje 18:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is politically loaded in many contexts, but if there is one thing that everyone can agree on, it is that nuclear weapons qualify as such.

Sign your comments. The "WMD" in the title is politically loaded, and comes off as one-sided at first. However, since all other articles are named the same way, it's not as one-sided. The titles bug me, but I think they're fine for now. However, would there be a better way to title the article and all others in a more neutral sense? --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the title of Weapon of Mass Destruction is a fair term to use. WMD signifies the difference between the use of a conventional weapon and say a nuclear weapon. The term has also been in use before the Bush Administration, they used the term during their attempt to justify action in Iraq, but it does not mean they invented the term. --SeattleCroat 6:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What would people think of the title "North Korean Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons" ? Djma12 22:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of its political connotations, WMD is a literal and correct term to use. Though the recent test in October was considered a 'failure' by the DPRK (the power/energy released by the nuke was not as much as expected), there is still potential in the DPRK's nukes to literally commit mass destruction.

WMD is a questionable term-- see my note below, and other comments here. Among other problems, how much damage must be done to qualify as a WMD? I think treatment of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons should be independent, since the kinds of effects and delivery mechanisms are all different. Is there any evidence that chemical weapons are any greater in damage scale than conventional explosives? Is there any mass-delivery system for biological weapons? Wcmead3 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

tidying up

This is my first time looking at this article. It's looking pretty good but it seems to me like it still needs some editing and tidying up. What do people think about putting the tidy-up tag on the article?

These are a just few things I noticed:

As it stands, the opening section suddenly jumps from a discussion of how the North Korean attitude has been shaped by the Korean War and what they regard as occupying US force, to bilateral vs. six-party talks. In other words, the prose doesn't seem to flow and link up very neatly at the moment.

Please do not add a (messy) tag. Those are only for embarrassingly messy articles.--Patrick 14:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't quite sure how they worked. This seems like a topic that could make a good featured article so would be great to improve and add some images too.

Six Party Talks

Since the article makes a few mentions of this, it seems like it could do with some clarification about how these were intitiated, when, where etc. What was their original goal and has this changed?

References

Generally seems to need better referencing. For instance, there's mention in the article of a leaked document showing that the U.S. Government was willing to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. As far as I can see, this doesn't seemed to be referenced anywhere yet (unless it's one of the external links - if so, this should be made clear).

Just a few thoughts! Great work so far everyone! --Alexxx1 08:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda section

I think we need a propaganda section, for lack of a better word. The media have gone absolutely apeshit saying NK can strike the US, etc etc yada yada, and all the other white lies. The fact is that they do not have a nuclear program, no warheads, and nothing to carry them except for two Taepodong-2 missles, both of which crashed shortly after takeoff and are capable of reaching the tips of ALASKA! Whilst Alaska is technically the US, anyone with knowledge of the world knows its not exactly where the US is. Here is a map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Ak-locator.png - yes, these pointless and harmless (so far) missiles can technically reach US soil, but to reach mainland US... pffft. I think we need a section that wraps up the FACTS in a BRIEF way. This is a good read too - http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm Timeshift 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are talking about, but I am not sure I agree, first of all, that NK has no nuclear program, and secondly, that the media is blowing up the level of the threat. From the information I received from mainstream media, I have gotten the same impression as you have about the capability, or lack of capability, of NK's ballistic missiles. I'm no more scared than you are that the NK will be able to hit the continental US with any sort of weapon. However, I do believe they have a nuclear program, because numerous reports from different sources confirm this. In addition, unlike Iraq and Iran, the North Korean government actually claims to have these weapons and are proud of it. The actual capability of their bomb(s) if they exist may be difficult to determine, but if they go ahead with this planned nuclear test, then everyone will know. Sadly, it is my belief that the UN will do nothing about it, except possible sanctions, which will do nothing because everyone knows the country is starving and humanitarian aid is all that prevents many thousands of deaths. the_paccagnellan 12:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows the country is starving. Communism tends to lead to that. - Wmgries

Uuhh as a resident of Alaska and a citizen of the United States I strongly disagree with your assessment of Alaska's importantance within the structure of the United States, as well as the effects of a nuclear strike to that region of the US. A nuclear strike on any part of US soil would be a event of dire consequences. For example a strike on Alaska would severally cripple oil supplies in both the US and global markets. Your statement that Alaska is also not part of the mainland US is also incorrect. We are not a part 48 contiguous states, but since we are connected to the North American Continent we are by definition a part of the mainland. However, even if we were an "island" as you contend that would have no bearing on the effects of a nuclear strike. Hawaii is an island, but a nuclear strike there would be extremely devastating. You might want to be more well researched before you make such arguments. To say that media is overstating the damage a nuclear armed North Korea is capable of, shows that you're naive in both the capabilities of nuclear arms and how interconnected the modern world has become.

I agree, it was a dumb statement. - Wmgries

There is little of strategic value in Alaska that a North Korean missile could hit, however hypothetical that missile might be as a threat, so I'm not sure why the media has focused on it (is it simply that Alaska is part of CONUS?). Hawaii is also within range, and Pearl Harbour is - as we well know - a target worth destroying if you want to cripple America's Pacific fleet. (On the other hand, Hawaii's not actually attached to CONUS, so maybe the media aren't as interested?) Whatever, building missiles is difficult, but the learning curve is steep. There isn't much of a physical threat now, I agree: I'm just not sure how long this happy state of affairs will last. With any luck, the political situation in North Korea will get sorted before the rocketry.BlackMarlin (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh...wait...petroleum. Alaska contains a sizeable proportion of America's domestic oil. There's your strategic target. BlackMarlin (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that accounts of propaganda need to be a part of Wikipedia, unless there has been an identifiable historical effect. Propaganda flies everywhere, and is cheap to produce. Let propaganda take its own course. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Paranoia

Has anyone considered the paranoid viewpoint of the communist government in North Korea? Is it possible they are seeking to develop nuclear missiles in an effort head off the threat of invasion? Of course we know we would never invade another country :-)) --192.156.102.7 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Considered it? It's the only motive. They've clearly stated they do not have a first-strike policy, unlike the United States and are simply acting in self defence due to the situation outlined at the top of this discussion page in relation to the fact that the Korean War has never been cessated officially.

The media whitewash has begun, in Australia news articles are popping up dropping Kim Jong in with Sadam Husein by name association. The US/AU/UK alliance will jump in and pwn NK because they have 'WMD's and everyone will forget that, like all the other invaded countries, they had every right to develop weapons in an effort of self defence. You don't see the US/AU/UK disposing of their WMD's.

We live in a bipartisan world. We have the 'allies' and the 'axis' again. When a world is at war it is united, leaders become entrenched, economies become strong, it's exactly what any leader would want. So this constant witch hunt for 'rogue states' with 'wmd's will forever continue. Heaven forbid if the US/AU/UK have a disagreement and one of them be classified a rogue state and are turned on, like from a societal point of view the French have been turned on my the Americans because they wouldn't take part in the arbitrary invasion of a third world country. The outright labelling of them as cowards is amusing given that the French have won hundreds of wars throughout history and the United States has still yet to actually win one conventional war alone. 211.30.71.59 01:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The US doesn't have a first strike policy AFAIK. --WikiSlasher 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"[T]he only motive"? Yeah right, and Hitler just wanted to unite austria. They "clearly" used a first strike policy when they invaded South Korea. (It's is interesting that you know the Korean War never ended, but forget to mention that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on broken cease fire stipulations, because no treaty had ever been signed.) If you really feel that every country has a right to develop nuclear weapons, i would be interested to see if you think every citizen of a country would be entitled to carry a gun, regardless of any historical affinity to violence. Confounded bridge 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC) confounded bridge

Missile Assembly building on google?

In the Delivery Systems section, it states: "Satellite navigation tools such as Google Earth reveal an approximately 50m-long assembly building at 40.65918056° N 129.6591806° E (40°39'33.05" N, 129°39'33.05" E), with nearby launch, control and engine test facilities." Those coordinates, however, are in the water! Does anyone have the actual location of this building?Checkguy 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybee it is underwater. :) Dudtz 10/5/06 6:59 PM EST

Sure the co-ords aren't the wrong way around? Scan about. 211.30.71.59 01:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The coordinates are off the East coast of N. Korea. They're about 30km from the closest bit of land and that's a pretty big haystack to be looking in. Checkguy 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Those coordinates are off, the exact site of the assembly site is roughy 10 NM due north of the one's given here. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/nodong.htm - IKONOS Sat Imagery. DonMuttoni 10/5/06 6:59 PM EST

This Is a Bad Article

Sorry to say this, but for such an important topic, this article is not a good summary.

To start with, it is biased, clearly. This article purports that the NK nuclear missile crisis is almost entirely a US vs. DPRK affair. This is false. As the article correctly notes, the US and DPRK are "technically" still in a state of war. South Korea is as well, if I am not mistaken. Yet, the article focuses on the DPRK's propaganda claim that it is building a nuclear deterrent to counter US "aggression".

The fact is that not a single country on the planet has a vested interest in seeing DPRK conduct a nuclear test and this article glosses over this fact. Japan and South Korea for example would immediately feel threatened that a hostile neighbor has gone nuclear. There is absolutely no shortage of bad blood between the three countries. China realizes that a nuclear test would trigger a new wave of sanctions and penalties against one of its main trading partners. This would raise the risk of a collapse of the DPRK government and the influx of millions of North Koreans into China. China does not want that. Russia would see another neighbor on its east possess nuclear weapons and would surely be concerned.

This article suggests from its opening paragraph that NK withdrew from the NNPT and allegedly produced nuclear weapons because the US did not furnish light water reactors as promised. Conspicuously absent is the accepted notion from US govt officials and independent analysts that the real reason NK produced the weapons is because they wanted to use them as "bargaining chips" in exchange for aid, security guarantees, etc. This article implies that the reason the NK produced weapons is only that the US withheld light water reactors when that is simply not the case. Example: [1]

The issue of money laundering and counterfeiting in DPRK is not addressed at all. This is often mentioned by the US as reasons for not holding bilateral talks.

There is a very incomplete analysis of US nuclear policy and use of nuclear weapons as a first strike in this article as well. Again, the quote by VP Cheney is used to support the flawed argument that the DPRK has built nuclear weapons to counter US aggression.

The fact is that the US is barred, by US law, to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. If NK were to go nuclear, then US law technically "permits" the use of nuclear weapons. Hence, Cheney's comment and the leaked document. That does not mean to say that the US will use nucelar weapons. Not at all actually. During the Cold War, US policy was based on MAD so that although the US "could" use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, it did not.

President GW Bush has moved US nuclear policy away from MAD. (Full disclosure: I am an American.) The US formerly relied on MAD as a deterrent because it assumed its enemies were rational. According to current US policy, terrorists and rogue states are not rational and therefore MAD cannot necessarily work as a sole deterrent. The US has always had a policy of pre-emptive strikes (Many people forget this. Take for example, President Reagan's strikes against Libya and Grenada. This is not a "Bush thing".) What Bush believes, rightly or wrongly, is that nuclear weapons in the hands of more or less irrational people like dictators on the brink of economic collapse or terrorists who have already demonstrated that they want to kill, is a problem too big to confront. It must be stopped beforehand. [2]

I wish that the preceding few paragraphs were signed. They make a strong argument, however, saying that "The US [sic] has always had a policy of pre-emptive strikes" is basing "always" on what is actually only about the last fifty years. It is ignoring, for example, Pearl Harbor(WWII), The USS Maine (Spanish-American War), Fort Sumter (Civil War), and more recently, I think there were a couple of buildings that some crazies flew jumbo jets into in New York or somewhere on the East Coast, but I could be wrong. The important thing to remember is that Bush, in his characteristic astoundingly deft logic, considers his attack on Iraq part of his counterattack to the World Trade Center attacks and part of his campaign to prevent another major terrorist attack, fact that Saddam wasn't even friends with Al-Qaeda be damned. It is truer to say that the U.S. has always had a policy of offering up a few hundred or thousand of its citizens to die unprotected in an attack it knows is coming so that it can mobilize the survivors for a war of retaliation. I promise that if you start looking at the history of American Wars, you'll see this happening more often than it doesn't, and every time it happens, there is always "doubt," over how much the government was forewarned of the attack, never an explicit confirmation that it was or wasn't. If you are the sort of person who looks at history as a series of patterns indicative of things to come (which I'm not saying it necessarily is; that's just one way to read it), this implies scary, scary things about North Korea. Especially if you look into pre-WWII U.S. activities in the Pacific and see just how far we pushed Japan into feeling like its only hope was a single devastating attack that would incapacitate us, and how Bush isn't the most reliable guy to trust to avoid the tragedies and Great Errors of history. By they way, has anybody seen Bin Laden lately? I could have sworn that I heard he was responsible for the whole whatever it's called attack wherever it was. --Your Friendly Neighborhood American-who-is-still-awake, Techgeist 09:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself. It opens with the statement that NK has nuclear weapons but later states when referring to US claims that NK had a nuclear weapons program:

=It is worth noting that the added claim — "they acknowledged they had a secret nuclear weapons programme involving enriched uranium," — was never =substantiated.

Sounds substantiated to me considering that NK is going to conduct a nuclear test.

The article is poorly referenced. It is entirely POV with a definite bias towards NK. Unsubstantiated statements like, "However, the United States never built the promised light water reactors and in late 2002, North Korea was forced to go back to using their old reactors," imply that the US "forced" NK to build nuclear weapons. Not only is this POV, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the country was building nuclear weapons all along not in response to US actions.

I could go on.

Sorry, I am not some ultra-patriotic American and I know that Bush has seriously damaged my country's reputation, but I also know that it is fashionable to bash the US these days and this article is doing just that. Wikipedia is growing to become a first choice means of information. As such, it is vital that articles written here do not have an agenda and provide both sides to controversial issues. Right now, this article reads like the DPRK is the kid in the playground getting bullied by the US. State both sides of the issue. Why did the US withold the light water reactors from NK? The below is copied verbatim from the wikipedia article on the Agreed Framework. Note how it explains both sides of the issue as to why the Framework collapsed. And it is referenced.

Not trying to be a jerk here. This is an important topic and needs to be treated as such. co94 Oct 7, 2006

=There was increasing disagreement between North Korea and U.S. on the scope and implementation of the treaty. When by 1999 economic sanctions had =not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between U.S. and North Korea had not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear =research unless the U.S. kept up its end of the bargain. U.S. has repeatedly stated that further implementation would be stalled as long as suspicions =remained that the North Korean nuclear weapons research program continued covertly. =Construction of the first LWR reactor began in August 2002. Construction of both reactors is well behind schedule. The initial plan was for both reactors =to be operational by 2003, but the construction had been halted indefinitely in late 2002. =In October 2002, a U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly visted North Korea to confront the North Koreans with the U.S. =assessment that they had a uranium enrichment program [12]. Both parties' reports of the meeting differ. The U.S. delegation believed the North Koreans =had admitted the existence of a highly enriched uranium program [13]. The North Koreans stated Kelly made his assertions in an arrogant manner, but =failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos, and they responded denying North Korea planned to produce nuclear weapons using enriched =uranium. They went on to state that as an independent sovereign state North Korea was entitled to possess nuclear weapons for defense, although they =did not possess such a weapon at that point in time [14] [15] [16]. Relations between the two countries, which had seemed hopeful two years earlier, =quickly deteriorated into open hostility.

"The fact is that the US is barred, by US law, to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state." - Actually, the US can only use WMDs against a WMD-equipped state. Therefore, could the US have legally nuked NK before they developed a working bomb? Actually yes: NK's chemical weapons constitute a WMD. Not, admittedly, a strategic one (Nuclear and Biologic are, thus far, the only strategic WMDs) but nevertheless, the US would have been within its rights to launch a nuclear strike in retaliation for a chemical attack.BlackMarlin (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The North Korean perspective section is by definition excusenary and npov. --mitrebox 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

=There is no section that counters the "North Korean perspective". This makes the article POV. Dont' know what the word excusenary means. co94 Oct 8, 2006

To make excuses for without trying to find any actual cause or responsibility--mitrebox 06:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two sides to a controversy. There is a section that explains the NK side. There is not a section that explains the side of the US, Japan, China, :::rest of the planet, etc. This article is definitely POV. Looked in three different dictionaries. "Excusenary" is not a word in any of them.

Yes it is not a word. If I repeat it enough I'm bound to see it used in an argument between pundits.--mitrebox 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Work on POV

I have made a few changes that will hopefully make the article a little more neutral. First, I have placed North Korea's withdraw from the Agreed Framework within historical context. However, I have left in the North Korean rationale for doing so. Secondly, I have removed the section about a "leaked document" with the United States threatening nuclear attack. Until citation from a reasonable source can be provided, such an inflammatory statement does not belong in a peer-reviewed article. Finally, to claim that the United States is stalling on diplomacy because it does not agree to bilateral talks is incomplete. North Korea, for its part, has refused to speak in any context other than bilateral talks with the United States. Both sides need to be presented.

Djma12 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Missile Test

Yeah, they just did one, figured I'd say something about it. Check out the news on basically any page on the Internet.

This news article [3] reports that North Korea has successfully conducted a 'nuclear test'. No mention of a missile, though. Iramoo Bearbrass 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

USGS Quake Information looks like it's underground. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Seems like much of this article should be merged with the 2006 North Korean nuclear test article. There is quite a bit of overlap but information here (such as the chronology of events) that would best be presented together.

I still think this article should be merged with the nuclear test article. Much of the information in this article belongs in the nuclear test article. Plus, this article isnt that good. The first sentence says that NK claims to possess nuclear weapons. Later it says that NK conducted a nculear test. No sense. The chronolgy listed in this article seems very thorough (but unreferenced). It looks like it should be in the same article.

And the analogy of Gettysburg and the Civil War is ludicrous.

• This article contains information about the whole program. The other article is mostly about a single test (with some background info that was derived from this article). They are better as separate articles, in the same way that Trinity test and Manhattan Project are two different articles. --Fastfission 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Nuclear Security

I have removed the following paragraph:

"Security of the nuclear defense was formally lost. http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/584/5495.html And so the reality of the USA today revelation in 2003 is to begin to see the outcome of failed security. In 2003 the Congress authorized news coverage of low enriched uranium as useful in nuclear weapons triggering. As low as a neutron security system lost, allows. Highly efficient triggering systems allow very low amounts of fuel to be utilized. The world has altered and common nuclear watchdog websites do not warn of this change."

I have removed this, not because its not relevant or b/c its not cited, but b/c it has poor grammar and makes little coherent sense. If someone can clarify what they are trying to say, this could probably go back in.

Djma12 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone vandalised the whole text to haha so I've reverted to the last change. Can someone please update with the newer information? And can someone slap a protection on this?

=== name-bias : the link that is on wikinews , at the repeatedly(?!) reported control of a N-korean vessel (don't think it will be controlled on 2 consecutive days) is named North Korea Nucleair Programme. well I was interested. But it links to the WMD page without further reference. I think this is purely bias and propaganda. Most country's have a nucleair program. None of them with the intend to (defensivly) use wmd. The linking system promoting fear and political views shouldn't be. If i knew how to do that i would undo this link. put wmd under disambiguous, link to a list of country's with nucleair research facilities and labs, courses. And from there to a page : accused of wmd agression by the usa. seems fairer... moreso because there is not actually a page about the nucleair program. 80.56.39.16 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline doesn't extend back far enough

The first date on the timeline is 1989 which is when, according to the article, the US first spotted N. Korea's nuclear weapons, but the Yongbyon nuclear center was under construction since the early 1980s. Just look at the wikipedia article on Yongbyon to see that. Not only that, but apparently they had research water reactors for two decades prior to that courtesy of the Soviet Union. All of this should be included in the article. here is the url of a site with some information: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.67.6 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Future events in weird place (?)

In the topic that tells about this year (2007) I noticed this: December: South Korean presidential election. The opposition party, the Grand National Party, has been effectively using the North Korea issue to gather support for their candidate. I don't understand what a future even does on this list that seems to handle present and past matters. If South Korea holds elections this December then add this when/if it still is relevant. Right now it just feels weird, it really got me puzzled and I even cheked my computer date making sure that it is 2007 :).--DerMeister 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld & North Korea section

I don't think the Donald Rumsfeld & North Korea section is significant enough for this article, and the subject should be left to the Donald Rumsfeld#ABB and North Korea article. Is there a consensus for me to delete the section? Rwendland 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I didn't know anything about it until I read it here.--EarthPerson 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - a link to the other article would be sufficient. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

rachi mondai

Don't forget Japan's ruchy ("rachi mondai") business. It's much more important - in Japan - than several other problems Japan has with North Korea or with itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.120.203.93 (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2007

Note - I did a search on "rachi mondai" and found it in North Korean abductions of Japanese. That's what 218.120.203.93 is referring to. --EarthPerson 05:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference 1 is a broken link

Just saying. -VDZ (not logging in on public computer)83.247.27.126 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Plutonium

Dear NP guy pls discuss & Dialogue before you revert. If you recognize the article is not acurate please show your proof by link. --221.249.20.154 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

At first I tried to rewrite the revised Plutonium section into good English, but there was so much wrong that I found reverting to the original was a better way to fix it. The changed version is not only in very bad English, but contains irrelevant (missile information in the plutonium section) and inaccurate (the status of the 50 MW and 200 MW reactor sites) material.

But most important, please don't rewrite whole sections of the article if you can't write in good English. NPguy 03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear NPGuy If you need revert please show your proof It is not Fair that you does not show your proof or news source and just you depend on your advantage of Native english speaker

BTW I showed my proof/news source of my articles for Ex NK aiming 200 Rodong-1 to Japan& 600 Huasong6 to SK for Ex current status of the 50MW/200MW reactors for Ex NK may have 3deliberable Nuke warhead

these source are analyst reports,and more credible than newspaper articles. I cannot understand how you can say inaccurate??

anyway we should discuss based on materials. pls show your materials you should keep neautral ViewPoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.239.229.7 (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My objections to the added text are mostly editorial. It is in bad English and largely irrelevant to the section where it was added (Plutonium). If you want to contribute to an English language online reference, you need a better command of the language. NPguy 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taepodong1.jpg

Image:Taepodong1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Deterrence

Hi. I have edited the Nuclear Deterrence section quite substantially, but within an extremely limited framework. The section does not have anything like enough sources, relying far too heavily on weasel words, and structurally it is suspect: there is no reason to discuss power shortages in a section on deterrence. I have not made any attempt to redress these errors (I leave that for the original author) but hopefully it should now appear better-written from a purely grammatical point of view. If I have caused any problems, or if you can help with citations, please let me know. Many thanks. BlackMarlin (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Missile carrying capability

I was under the impression that any nuclear device North Korea could produce would be of several orders of magnitude too large to be carried on a missile of theirs, no matter the distance or the accuracy. It would be like fitting a yacht on a compact car for a trip across the country. Does anyone else have a cite for this? I just remember hearing about it after their nuclear test. Cs302b (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to ballistic missile section

There have been several recent changes to this section, which are poorly referenced and dubiously sourced. I'm inclined to revert, but it's probably better for someone who knows the subject to rewrite. NPguy (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Some sources truly aren't reliable, although much of the information is correct. The section should be a bit shorter in my opinion, though. - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if cited informations are correct "Truly aren't reliable"is just your biased private opinion,isn't it? Please do not breach articles just based on your private opinion. --Jack332 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pulutonium

Hi NP Guy

• Regarding the article I really un satisfied following things
• 1)History and Facility should be devide
• 2)Current Article does not figure out annual Pulutonium production ability of each 3 reactors.And 2reprocessing Lines.
  • It may be decision RED line between diplomatic nego and Surgical strike ,wheater DPRK produce 1Nuke warhead/year by current toy 5MW reactor, or resume construction of 2Big reactor(50MW/200MW) and start production 50Warheads/year.
• 3)Current Article negrect the history before 1994, and Current Article negrect the Famous General Kim Jon-il's Blackmail "If US strike our Pulutonium Production Facilities ,then we will change Seol to Burning Field by our 10,000 canons"
  • It is important because the difficulties of this probrem is NK take Seoul as the Hotage
• 4)Current article negrect that NK breached Flamework agreement by they recognize the existance of prohibited Uranium Enrichment Project.

• Please show me your rewrite proposal until end of this month. Otherwise I recognize that you agreed to revert the article.
• Sorry for your busy moment Thank you!

--Jack332 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you realize, but he is not the only editor to this article. The information you added was poorly sourced & poorly with, and was full of grammatical errors. As such, I do not agree to a revert. I suggest you read the articles over other nations with WMDs, such as the one of The United States, or Iran. You will see that they do not have the type of information you seek to add to this article, as it isnt absolutely nessecary to include such information. You are welcomed to create new articles with the information you seek to add, and offer "see alsos" at the top of the proper sections. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

• As　Forbes mentioned GlobalSecurity.org is famous as one of the"Best of the web" directory."of Military. And "Gensuikin" is one of the world biggest anti Nuke NPO. Much more reliable than Newspaper because it is written by the experts.
• And It is Big defference "1Nuke warhed/per year" or" 50Nuke Warheads/per year." Because even Iran/NK loanch several Nuke Missiles to German/Japan, German/Japan will not over by first strike. But if Iran/NK loanch 320 Nuke missiles to German/Japan then she will over by first strike. (I think Iran is not aiming 320 missiles to German but North Korea is aiming 320 Rodong-1 to Japan and it is increasing 120/5years)
  • "North Korea’s tested and apparently reliable Nodong missile can already carry a nuclear warhead as far as Tokyo. "[4]International Crisis Group
  • "On 15 June 2005 Kyodo News reported that North Korea had informed a visiting American scholar in late May 2005 that it had resumed the construction of the two nuclear reactors that was halted under the 1994 Agreed Framework. --- The two reactors (50/200MW Big reactors)could produce about 275 kilograms of plutonium annually, enough for about 50 atomic bombs."[5]=300 Nuke missile within several years
  • User:Onopearls you can try your compromise plan of the new article until end of this month otherwise I will revert(ofcourse check spel mistake again)--Jack332 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Without a consensus, you are not to revert your poorly written, grammatically incorrect version of the article. If you do change it without a consensus, it will be reverted back to its original form. Wikipedia is not somewhere for you to push your POV and add information to articles that doesnt help to explain the topic better. Your information (which is incredibly hard to read, and bordering on illegible) makes it a more tedious task to read this article. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

If you have good English skill then please cooperate to propose your compromise plan, I do not believe current" very poor knowledged,Left biased, un-Cited, Facility-History Mixtured Messy article" is best for wikipedia

And if you breach the Cited article just on your One side of View ---isn't it against NPOV? And If you say "DO NOT revert until I agree" then only your leftside biased Artecle remain & it is not fair to rightside people----So dialogue & complomaise Plan please! if you prefer democracy than dictatorship.

So I think if you cooperate by your HighLevel English,then we get much better quality article than current one. Hope your cooperation--Jack332 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is well cited. It isnt "very poor knowledged", "left biased". It does have a historical lean to it, as any good article should. The North Korean WMD program has been going on for quite some time, so adding only recent information isnt good. I take offense to your accusing me of breaking NPOV. I am in fact fighting for a NPOV, by keeping your biased, poorly written information out of the article until such a time that it is relevant. I am not saying "DO NOT revert until I agree." I am saying YOU are trying to force the other editors to live with what you agree. So, in all reality, you are saying "DO NOT revert my poorly written information, because I want it in there." Please dont try to push an agenda on Wikipedia, it isnt the place for it. Thanks, Ono (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Target

Which country/countries are North Korea's likely targets? I realize the issue is debatable because North Korea's goals are so vague, but I think a discussion of its foreign-policy grievances would be helpful. Brutannica (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestion without a source would be original research, but if North Korea decides to launch a first strike, without doubt the main targets will be Japan and the US bases in the region. I guess they would also target South Korean military installations with highly accurate conventional weapons, but I doubt they would go against civilians, it's their own people after all. - Tourbillon ^A ? 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about North Korea, you know. I don't think it's possible to determine what in the name of god goes through their heads. Who knows if they would go against civilians. Zazaban (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

General propoganda tone of the article

Hi all. I just read the article through a link on the wikipedia main page today, which seemed to be a news article link. As a general tone, it reads like a Bush administration propopganda tool. No I'm not in any way saying NK should have nukes, or that they're not dangerous etc. But the article is quite obviously written from a paranoid US perspective, and it's just annoying. It is written from a greater emotive point of view than an objective one. Must each explanation of a missiles' range be followed by an equivalent US target? If an article on US nuclear weapons (of should I say WMD) kept on mentioning their capability to strike at New Zealand, it would sound biased too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.163.125 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes?

In February 2005, they officially announced that they "have manufactured nukes for self-defense"

They actually said nukes? This strikes me as one hell of a slang word... --Josquius 16:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• LOL indeed, but in my opinin it may have to do with the game StarCraft...the South Koreans are extremely professional at the game created by Blizzard Entertainment, and one of the three races is Human with a devastating technology labelled 'build nukes' from the add-on of the command center, the weapon is basically a 'futuristic' nuclear bomb that has a range of 9x9 blocks on the map and will wipe out any unit within range or leave buildings with 1/4 hitpoints. But it could also be that they just want to sound 'hip' and up-to-date.
• lol, just kidding. But ya, you can tell how silly they sound in their 'official statements'. I cannot believe that there exists a country where the conditions of the book 1984 are met in every possible way...and then some more. The average North Koreans have been brain washed in thinking their leader is like a god...sigh....and even if the dictator is overthrown somehow, a unified korea would be very weird...it's impossible to imagine what would actually happen....anyways, DOWN WITH KIM JONG IL!!!!! 142.58.181.84 21:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apparently so: [6].

While I'm here, I was wondering why "crisis" is included in the first paragraph. Why is it a crisis that NK has nukes? The U.S. has nukes, and far more than anyone else. Is that a crisis? Some people would probably say so, but that's beside the point. Anyway. - Vague | Rant 00:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

A crisis is "an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty"[7]. As the United States is willing to use nuclear weapons on North Korea, and tension being high as is between the two nations, I'd say that this is an unstable situation of extreme danger. -drivinghighway61 05:13, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

or more accuratly the Reds are now shitting themselves, its a good thing(Undeadplatypus (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

cri·sis (krī'sĭs) n., pl. -ses (-sēz).

1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point.
2. An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.
3. A sudden change in the course of a disease or fever, toward either improvement or deterioration.
4. An emotionally stressful event or traumatic change in a person's life.
5. A point in a story or drama when a conflict reaches its highest tension and must be resolved.

So yes, this is a crisis, even without the hyperbole about the US using nuclear weapons, which I don't think many people think is a serious threat.

On the other hand, this is far from being a new situation, since North Korea extracted enough plutonium for somewhere between 3 and 18 nuclear weapons prior to 1994 (range depends on estimates of extraction, and amount required for the design of weapon), and therefore almost certainly already has nuclear weapons. In addition, Seoul is within range of North Korea's conventional artilliery, so anyone who wants to know why military action against North Korea is not an option has more than one possible answer.

In short, we can't stop them extracting plutonium because we are 15 years too late, and we can't bribe them to do so because they will take the bribe and do it anyway. Economic sanctions seem to be the only way of getting them to even talk, and they are not noticably loosening the grip of the regime.

What to do?

Could the word 'nuke' have been introduced in the process of translation? Any Korean speakers out there willing to find the original statement written in Korean and find out if this colloquialism was present in that source? Who made the translation? Was an English statement actually issued by North Korean government, or was this done by a Korean Journalist, or a Western Journalist, or someone else? --Bletch 19:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the conditions of 1984?!............ what are you talking about. it may be a currupt dictatorship but it is not even close to the horrors described in 1984. also to point out something else the U.S government long ago violated all the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. but then again america is not a threat we never invaded anyone unless they struck first..... wait never mind iraq.L337wm2007 18:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't give you a source for this argument (yet), but it occurs to me that there is a danger of a non-democratic, poor state possessing nuclear weapons: namely, that it might sell those weapons to, or have them stolen by, militant groups. The risk of corruption or incompetence amongst Kim Jong-il's staff are too great for my personal comfort. Wozocoxonoy 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why WMD?

It sounds idiotic to use this term coined by Bush. It is used in popular language as a parody of the president. We should proboably change it to somthing that relates more to the nuclear nature of the weapons, or at least title it North_Korean_Weapons_Development. FirefoxMan 13:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The term was not actually coined by Bush, but has been in use since the 1930s; see Weapons of mass destruction#Historic use of the term WMD. I believe the intent is for the article to cover North Korea's extensive chemical warfare program as well, although the emphasis is somewhat inevitably on the nuclear side. -- Visviva 14:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that use of the term "WMD" should be minimized. The term has severe negative emotional baggage associated with the intelligence errors at the start of the Iraq war. In addition, it is not well defined-- how much destruction is required to constitute "mass destruction". In particular, application of the term to chemical and biological weapons seems questionable since (I think) the ability to deliver attacks using these weapons at large scale has not been demonstrated. Finally, the need for the term seems questionable. What's wrong with using the term nuclear weapon when that's what is meant? Wcmead3 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I also don't believe that Delivery systems and Missile testing should not fall under the auspices of this article. Missile/Missile Tests/Delivery Systems are just that, irrespective of their payloads. Grouping them under a WMD article could be deemed bias, as you wouldn't place a US Missile Test under a WMD banner, even if that missile could be used to carry a WMD payload(Nuclear, biological, chemical, etc). Vampus (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont concur. Delivery systems for one are a blatant attempt to create warheads for use against the free world. NK is likely a proxy for china to nuke the USA and various other places illegally and cripple them to aid in its world conquest agenda(Undeadplatypus (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

also WMD is the name for ALL of these pages (including USA one linked above)(Undeadplatypus (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

Peoples Reaction at Japan

• Hi regarding the article for above Wikipedia English's View Point seems to be not Neautral. In Japan 80%of peoples does not believe NK & very deffernt from US Democrats Viewpoint. I wanna ask you if DPRK going to aim 200 Movil Nuke Missiles to Your Wife& Children can you laugh?

• And a Japan Defence Ministry's analyst is warning hat "General"Kim Jonil's intention of Nuke Armament is "Unification war",do you remember how Korean War occured? I dont think the View Point (which under-estimate NK people's Desire of Unification) is "Neautral".

• And Flankly speaking "Nuke deterrence" sometimes does not work
  • Terrorist's Nuke cannot deterrent
  • Losing Ruined Country's Nuke cannot deterrent
  • Poor Side of Devided country's Nuke cannot deterrent
    • As you know NK's Tank is very old fashioned one, so if NK go Unification War,they'll Nuke SK Army and invade SK by near 1Million Troops,And if US Nuke NK, NK will retaliate to Japan by 200 NukeRodong-1,Ended up both NK& Japan will back to Stone Age,and Gen.Kim JonIl get Seoul Pusang HyudaiMorter SamsungElectric instead of poor Pyonyang and become Real Hero of Unification,and Japan will over. (and My wife & Kids will be burned by NK's Nuke.) If US's(or Some multinational) Nuke cannot burn Seoul/Busang then it cannot stop Kim& no-point as a deterrent security system for NK Nuke.
  • Definitely deterrentless 200MovalIRBM is dreadful.NUKE,AGAIN!?GOD!)
  • Pls teach me why KJI does not renuwal Oldfasioned Tank,and use money for purchasing 200Moval MRBM to Japan? If he need deterrent US bases,then 10-25Missiles will be enough as China doing. Why 200 Massive Quantity? And Y2015 Kim will get(Movil?)ICBM & several handreds of Nuke warheads,US president may Madam Klington & SK president may Madam Park,so what will happen?

• So I feel its better to show both optimist's Opinion and peshimist Opinion,US continental viewpoint and Japan's(Inner Range of 200 Deterrentless Missiles) viewpoint.For keep Neautral POV at Wikipedia English
• Unfortunately Article Noth Korea Fixed under One side Viewpoint,but it seems to be against pluralism& democracy,And especially Military/National Security Page should need more expertise and Security sensitiveness.

--202.239.229.7 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are various logical falacies within your statement, for one japan is not a important area other than the okinawa military base to the NK as Japan does not pose a real threat OR is it the most important ideological target, on another point dont you already have a Shitton of chinese nukes aimed at you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Undeadplatypus, maybe most people cannot grasp the geo-political significance involved in this, but maybe I can educate. The Coprofreid that Japan would pose to North Korea is evident in the way that the North Korean leaders have used it to rouse their population on occasion. The propaganda with regard to actual or perceived conditions in South Korea would outweigh the use of such antagism on them, which brings in Japan as a clear target. I assume that this should conclusively clear the air in this regard. Let me know if it answers your question. Satanclawz (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous paragraph opening

"Korea has been a scruffcake since 1945, when it was liberated from the Japs after dubya dubya 2."

- This is absolutely awful. Somebody please correct this. It is racist and infantile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.69.46 (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What Proof Is There?

What proof is there that a successful nuclear test took place other than, you know, just taking North Korea's word for it? So the United States Geological Survey and Japanese seismologists detected a minor earthquake, this could have easily been caused by large quantities of conventional explosive. No one has any actual proof that a nuclear test took place, North Korea has every reason to lie, yet the entire world just accepts this without any fact?

I expected more in-depth investigation by Wikipedia. At the very least, there should be an equally contributed article debating that North Korea faked its nuclear program for show using conventional weapons and underground tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.106.16 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear 71.15.106.16, I really need to understand how such a thing can be added, so that I can help add it. Will you assist me in this investigation? Satanclawz (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Background Section is Propaganda

Ok, I see the crony cypher on this article.. and I want to know if it is going to bother anyone if it gets removed in the process of making this article meaningful. Vote? Twillisjr (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Korean War section

This section is terribly written and could do with a clean up, if for no other reason but at least present the text in such a way as could be expected in a reference article.

I will make the changes and await comment.

Jon.Newell666 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Section: Aims

The "Aims" section should be deleted. It sounds very much like someone's personal speculation, and is clearly biased against North Korea. 069952497a (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It can be re-added if it can be affirmed by quality references.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Stockpile Estimates

For 2013 and 2016 stockpile estimates, I used Table 5 of http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/dprk_fissile_material_production_16Aug2012.pdf. If someone knows what ISIS considers a "nuclear weapon equivalent" for plutonium, please fill it in. (Disclaimer: I am not an expert.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of nuclear fuel?

Where does/did North Korea get the fuel for its reactors and weapons? This seems like an important detail to include in the article (and I'm curious).--Wikimedes (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

They have large amounts of uranium ore in their own mines. It's one of the few fields that they are completely self-sufficient in. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/ -- Alyas Grey : talk 10:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the information to the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Structure

This article is about the "North Korea and weapons of mass destruction", however, it seem to be structured as "North Korea Nuclear weapons" one. I think that something similar to Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction would work better. --PLNR (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The current "History" section should provide the rational/motive for developing weapons of mass destruction(i.e. deterrence etc, big portion of it should be moved to "background"). While actual account of the various programs should be inside each respective section. As oppose to the current mix.--PLNR (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This ridicules the current "history" section:

• Starts with "Korean War"(1950-1953) covering 1945-1990, 2006-2011.
• Jumping to "North Korea – United States relations" covering 1994-2012.
• Then provide an analysis on NK Nuclear deterrence.
• Then back to "Reactivation" covering 2008-2009.

Additionally the Nuclear weapons "Plutonium" and "Enriched uranium" which are history sections by large, covering similar periods. Overall this article makes no sense at all, including some of the content which seem to wane anything but the topic at hand.--PLNR (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:PLNR, If there's no objections, I'll remove the main "History" section altogether; as you say, it's disorganized; and everything in it is either redundant, off-topic, or both. There's also a lot of POV speculating why North Korea is pursuing WMD; contrast with United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction, which just lays out the programs, and wastes zero words speculating why the U.S. has nuclear weapons. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several lines and paragraphs that we can keep. But overall I agree, most of it is redundant/off-topic and can be summarized in few sentences.--PLNR (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. The section isn't really about history but about the geopolitical context. It's useful to have a section, but it can be brief. NPguy (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I shortened the main History section considerably, probably still some redundancy though. If someone wants to re-add any speculation on North Korean aims, keep in mind that we need to maintain NPOV, cite reliable sources (not a Wordpress blog) and avoid giving WP:Undue weight to fringe theories. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Claimed copyvio from globalsecurity

I recently removed a paragraph claiming it was a "copy&paste from globalsecurity", but have been challenged over this, and the text was reinserted. Here is a textual analysis of the globalsecurity text and that added to the article, using overstriking for show the differences:

Text in globalsecurity:

The nuclear program can be traced back to about 1962, when the DPRK government committed itself to what it called "all-fortressization," which was the beginning of the hyper militarized North Korea of today. In the mid-1960s, it established a large-scale atomic energy research complex in Yongbyon ...

...

The North Korean nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. In the 1980s, focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication and conversion. It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon, respectively, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests.

Text added to the article:

The nuclear program can be traced back to about 1962, when North Korea committed itself to what it called "all-fortressization," which was the beginning of the hyper militarized North Korea of today. Established a large-scale atomic energy research complex in Yongbyon. While the nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. Focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication, conversion, and conducted high-explosive detonation tests.

I would welcome opinions on whether this is a copyvio for the purposes of WP, and the inserted text should be deleted again. Rwendland (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with NK motivation so didn't touched the first sentence. Other than that its just a good summary of everything else I worked with. If you can phrase it better go ahead.--PLNR (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say re-delete or reword. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It was already little bit "re worded" check again. if there still objections, I can replace most of it with other sources.--PLNR (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)