CIA says North Korea nuclear test a failure: report

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

CIA says North Korea nuclear test a failure: report
Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:57PM EDT

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea's nuclear test last October was a failure and
gives no credence to Pyongyang's claim to being a nuclear weapons state,
U.S. CIA Director Michael Hayden was quoted as saying by a South Korean
newspaper on Wednesday.

North Korea said in October it had successfully conducted an underground
nuclear test. U.S. and South Korean officials and experts have said the blast
produced a relatively low-yield explosion, and some questioned the North's
nuclear capability.

"The United States does not recognize North Korea as a nuclear weapons
state," Hayden was quoted as saying by a South Korean defense official
in the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper. "It's because the nuclear test last year
was a failure."

-snip-

South Korea's Defense Ministry declined to confirm Hayden's comments but
said Hayden had visited Kim on Tuesday. The U.S. embassy declined to
comment.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSSEO15521620070328

[BayCityProgressive]

1. The CIA

is probably just baiting them into trying it again so that we can go back to threatening them..

[Just-plain-Kathy]

2. Boy, and we dumped so much money into helping them with their nuclear program.

[babylonsister]

3. Lots of blather, signifying nothing? As usual? And what if it were true?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=514609

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/03/a_quarter_of_th.h...

Rain KO'd Interceptors During Korea Missile Tests (Updated)

Torrential rains wiped out a quarter of the U.S.' intercontinental ballistic missile interceptors in Ft. Greely, Alaska last summer -- right when North Korea was preparing to carry out an advanced missile launch, according to documents obtained by the Project On Government Oversight.

Bmdoalaskasilobg "The flooding occurred during a three-week period between the end of June and early July 2006," POGO notes, in a statement. "The flooding damaged 25% of the U.S. interceptor missiles’ launch capability. These silos house the interceptor missiles that would be used to attempt to intercept a missile aimed at the United States. No interceptors were in the flooded silos."

An internal assessment by Boeing, the silos' chief contractor, shows seven flooded interceptor silos, out of the 26 at Ft. Greely. Two silos have more than 62 feet of water; a third has more than 50. Estimated times of repair range from four to 14 months. Boxcar like structures called Silo Interface Vaults (SIVs), adjacent to the interceptor silos, were also flooded, "two of them by as much as 15 feet of water," POGO says. "Three SIVs must have all electronic and mechanical systems replaced. Four other SIVs have partial damage. One SIV was so damaged that it shifted vertically in the ground like a house shifting off its foundation." It's a strange turn of events, considering "an environmental impact study of the facilities at Ft. Greely notes there is 'little rainfall in the region.'"

The "water intrusion... resulted from the confluence of several unanticipated and highly unlikely events," the Missile Defense Agency said in a statement . "In particular, totally unprecedented rainfall created a rapidly rising ground water condition coincident with steps of construction when the SIVs were susceptible to damage. The Missile Defense Agency allocated resources to repair the damage and recover from the event. Furthermore, steps have been taken to prevent recurrences in the future."

POGO blames Boeing for being "at least partly responsible for failing to protect the silos" from the elements. Nevertheless, the watchdog group observes, the company "will most likely still receive an estimated $38 million to repair the silos and a $100 million no-bid contract to build more silos. Boeing would also receive a $7 million award fee added to the contract."

But the larger issue at work here is: What exactly are we getting, for the $9 billion a year we're paying for missile defense? And why can't it take a little (ok, a whole bunch of) rain?

[FogerRox]

6. 62 ft of water, LOL

[daleo]

4. Yeah, right.

We believe you, CIA.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Darn good intelligence

Heckuva job on those Iraqi WMDs, too.

[BushOut06]

7. The CIA has their best people working on North Korea

They don't want the same kind of embarrassment they had with Iraq, so now they have their absolute best analysts working on North Korea. Don't believe me? Here's one of them!

[Tempest]

8. Why is this news coming out after we agreed to resume aid?

So in effect we're paying N.K. to stop making something they never had.