+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/24/2018 12:51 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.431 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/10/2005 02:49 PM ID: 46004 Permalink   

North Korea Officially Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons


North Korea publicly admitted to being in possession of nuclear weapons for the first time. The leadership in Pyongyang said the arsenal was necessary to protect it against the US, which it says is getting increasingly hostile.

US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice has told the Koreans not to worry about an invasion. The general belief is that the the 'axis of evil' country currently has only one or two nuclear bombs but is intent on increasing that number.

The state-run Korean Central News Agency said "We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the [North]."

    WebReporter: Flashby Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  i thought...  
they came out and said that a wicked long time ago? Maybe not?
  by: robbob     02/10/2005 03:04 PM     
  What's scary...  
they are crazy enough to use them.
  by: lurker     02/10/2005 03:53 PM     
  Crazy enough  
as are most people
  by: ec5618   02/10/2005 04:13 PM     
  What’s scarier is....  
that the U.S. might use this as *reason* for a preemptive strike!! I hope no one has read the news to GW this morning!
  by: sour_craig   02/10/2005 04:17 PM     
  Like we didn't know  
They've only installed massive posters on their borders for years saying in not so many words "bring on the USA because we've got nukes" .....

  by: rory182     02/10/2005 04:20 PM     
  Scarier still...  
Is that every country with nuclear weapons is crazy enough to use them. Why have them if you'd never use them? And almost all have used them.. at least in testing
  by: acg   02/10/2005 06:42 PM     
  Actually the scariest part is  
The only country that has ever used them, more over on civilians, on a country wich tried to surrender before getting nuked. Is the country with the most nukes, and is the most agressive country.

After all ;
You are with us or against us. (And dont forget, we have so many nukes we can blow earth a couple of time).
  by: NookieNookie   02/10/2005 07:33 PM     
First off, the u.s. warned japan before we used the bombs and if you remember we had to drop 2 bombs(3 days apart) before they finally gave up. Secondly, the majority of nuclear weaponized(declared and not) nations have NOT tested their weapons.
  by: skibum   02/10/2005 08:42 PM     
  Most Interesting Parts...  
Whats S.Korea's stance going to be? Theyve said that they would end all relations with N. Korea if they ever publicly admitted having nuclear weapons. The real confrontation may be when that Kim guy gets on his death bed with the button in hand. I say that because the older he gets the more aggressive he gets.
  by: skibum   02/10/2005 08:46 PM     
Sorry, but Japan offered to surrender 3 time days before the bomb got droped. And the US bombed anyway, civilians, no military. Then after the bomb were droped youve stoped ignoring Japan to accept its surrender.
  by: NookieNookie   02/10/2005 09:08 PM     
and ill bet your one of those that think diana's death was an accident too. its very well documented exactly what happened before their formal surrender, with the near coup and the first recording/broadcasting of the emperor's voice.
  by: skibum   02/10/2005 09:16 PM     
I find it funny that the americans in all their glory and technological advances were not able to see or pickup any of japans planes as they came into pearl harbour in the first place.. seriously.. that is the conspiracy if i have every seen one.. only came into the war because they had too.. they wanted the war...
  by: |roach|   02/10/2005 09:31 PM     
  NK... or Iran?  
So... where's Condi's tough talk toward NK? Oh I forgot... there's nothing the US can gain by invading NK for their admitted nukes versus going to war in Iran over alleged and denied nukes.
  by: sheniferous   02/10/2005 09:34 PM     
  WW2 and surrendering  
Actually, you guys are both right, sotra.

"On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs."

Also the terms the US game for Japan's surrender was an unconditional surrender but instead of being unconditional, the Japanese Government added a condition that the Emperor must remain in power.

The broadcast of the Emperor's voice actually helped cause more confusion, because the people weren't sure if they were surrendering or fighting more.
  by: tellgar     02/11/2005 01:36 AM     
  That's ok...  
we still got more. Also, GW can wave his in front of kim yelling "mine's bigger!" lol
  by: RomJeremy   02/11/2005 02:20 AM     
  hell even i would keep nukes...  
with bush on power, i mean the dude is in a rampage, i need a little assurance.
  by: rampulstinski   02/11/2005 04:30 AM     
  WW2 radars  
LOL technologically advanced? The radar systems of hte day were ultra primitive to todays standard. It is documentated aht we had A radar station in hawaii, but it really wasnt to good.

And anyway, back then it took nearlya day to get any communicaitons back and forth form hawaii to Washington DC.

The fact that we used nules in the past to end a war doesnt mean we would use it to start one. Bush isnt to smart, but I dont hink he would use one out right. Cuz even though our reputation with other counties is poor at the moment, everyone would simply hate us for using it then.

Unless NK had first strike, then at would be different.
  by: hunt3r   02/11/2005 11:56 AM     
  Take a break  
...and look at Rumsfeld holding some invisible guy's balls in this pic.:"

And this one, telling the world how large his johnson is:

  by: the_duke   02/11/2005 12:23 PM     
  There is no way they can protect themselves  
with what they have now. The missle range will not reach the continental US. They may have the ability to hit Hawaii...but I am not sure about that. The missles they are creating are for sale.
  by: TOBYKIETH     02/12/2005 07:05 AM     
  defense from NK missiles  
... missiles can reach Hawaii and Guam, plus many allies. I wonder if Alaska is reachable?

andyway, Japan won't help us with any defense:

(is a link to an article I posted earlier. the link to the japanese paper explains alot.)

  by: theironboard     02/12/2005 07:26 AM     
  FINALY a country....  
what says 'NOT with US!'
Take that crazy Bush!

4 years are gonna pass fast... I hope!!!
  by: eisefr   02/12/2005 07:00 PM     
I don't care if you hate the US or not, but if you cheer the fact that this nutcase gets nukes, well you must be one uneducated mofo. Go study up on north korea and then tell me you would like to live in that country.
  by: RomJeremy   02/13/2005 10:46 PM     
its none of bushes or ANY americans buisness what they are doing in n. k.
ANd btw... bush has nukes as well!!

BUSH is the biggest danger in this world.. not n. k.
  by: eisefr   02/14/2005 07:08 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: