International attention is usually focused on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. But Pyongyang’s growing chemical and biological weapons capabilities are worrying Seoul.
North Korea’s latent nuclear weapons program is rightfully the main point of concern for its neighbors and the international community. But far less publicized is Pyongyang’s ongoing efforts to build upon its capabilities to produce and maintain chemical and biological weapons (CBW).
North Korea’s expansion of these programs is no secret to intelligence agencies around the world, and there are a number of reports detailing sites across the country dedicated to the production of CBW. The question, though how, is has Pyongyang been able to circumvent the international CBW regime so easily?
On the question of chemical weapons, this problem is easier to understand – North Korea isn’t a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and has never been subject to inspections of its chemical industry facilities or sites believed associated with its CW program. Regardless, there’s little debate about the existence of the North’s CW program, with intelligence assessments from Russia, Britain, the United States and South Korea all indicating that Pyongyang continues to produce CW stocks.
Much less clear is the scope of the CW program and its level of advancement. Most assessments concur that the North has produced all of the main chemical agents such as nerve (including VX gas), blood, blister and choking agents. There’s less certainty regarding the amount of chemical agents stockpiled by the regime, although estimates range from 1,000 to 5,000 tons. However, even if the North’s program is at the low end of estimates, its capacity is bolstered by the fact that its military has a variety of sophisticated delivery vehicles for CW attacks including missiles, artillery and airborne bombs.
While Pyongyang publicly denies the need for transparency on its CW program, its production of biological weapons is muddied and concealed by weak international non-proliferation standards. Unlike the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which has robust verification standards, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is plagued by the failure of its members to agree on a universal verification mechanism that would adequately ensure that all state parties are held to account for their treaty commitments.
States at the BWC have been engaged in talks to come to an agreement on a suitable verification arm, but these efforts were cut short after the United States withdrew its support back in 2001. At the time, George W. Bush’s administration insisted that such a mechanism would require considerable financial capital with little pay off in security terms. The Pentagon also stressed that it was concerned about diverting precious resources on combating BW to a multilateral organization that would in turn take away funds from its successful biodefense programs. But perhaps the largest hurdle is to overcome U.S. and other members’ concerns that a strict verification regime may impose heavy restrictions on the biotech industry.
Photo Credit: Uniphoto Press
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Bilbo Baggins
We only have to invade if they have oil don’t worry we don’t actually care about people ROFLFORLFOLLLLOLL.
bigbadjohn
is there some kind of agenda here. this story comes out at the same time the government is finaly talking military cuts…….hmmmm.
Guy Smiley
North Korea? So what? We’re more worried about America creeping all over the globe, not a North Korean attack.
ac
Are there any citations or links or footnotes to show us what assessments you are speaking of?
Major Lowen Gil Marquez, Phil Army
Till there’s no reunification in Korea, North Korea will remain a potent threat to humanity that their chemical weapons program and nuclear arsenal should be monitored at all times for the sake of mankind, there should no rebuttal on this for the political interest of some homogeneous nation which aiming the personal interest of one nation only, we must think of universal approach not on attacking the personality of the writer or the contributor. . . we should solved the problem in our own little way. . . not to fight the problem..
Raphael Winters
On December 19th, 2003 Libya announced it would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles program. Since then, U.S., British, and international officials had inspected and removed or destroyed key components of those programs.
On March 19th, 2011 NATO began attacking Libya and on October 20th 2011 Muammar Gaddafi the former leader of Libya was captured unarmed, beaten, and shot. Muammar Gaddafi was an American ally in the war against terror and refused to provide support for Al-Qaeda. Muammar Gaddafi was at peace with America before he was attacked and members of the cabinet had visited him in Libya.
It took 7 years, 10 months, 1 day after the beginning of the removal of weapons of mass destruction of that country before its head of state was killed.
In 2002 Iraq allowed UN weapons inspectors into the country. In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq posessed nuclear weapons or an active program.
On March 20th, 2003 the United States Military invaded Iraq and on December 30th, 2006 Saddam Hussein the former leader of Iraq was taken unarmed, beaten, and hanged. Saddam Hussein refused to provide support for Al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was also at peace with America and had not attacked America before he was attacked.
It took 3 years, 11 months, 3 days after the announcement that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction of that country before its head of state was killed.
The lesson of history that remaining at peace with America is not enough. The lesson of history is that refusing to provide support to Al-Qaeda on a national level is not enough.
The lesson of history is that once a head of state begins to remove weapons of mass destruction is is that it takes roughly one to eight years to be invaded by a Western Power.
Furthermore the lesson of history is that it takes about three to seven years after the removal of weapons of mass destruction begins that the head of state of that country is executed.
The consequence of providing support to invading, occupying, and overthrowing countries which have participated in disarmament is that countries will no longer be interested in disarmament.
The consequences of overthrowing regimes that have have cooperated with us in keeping Al-Qaeda out of their country is that regimes will no longer be interested in keeping Al-Qaeda out of their country.
The long lasting geopolitical consequences is that regimes will pursue weapons of mass destruction programs. This decision has not occurred in a vacuum, the foreign policy decision of the United States leadership has made it so.
The leadership of the United States attacked foreign regimes once they disarmed their weapons of mass destruction regardless of their cooperation in keeping international terrorists out of their country and regardless if they had been at peace with the United States.
If the leadership of the United States had given peace to countries that had participated in disarmament and had kept international terrorists out of their countries then North Korea probably would have disarmed by now.
educatedindividual
@Raphael Winters
You need more than 2 data points to make any meaningful conclusion, at best what you have is coincidence, and the timeline you give is meaningless. You are using bad/misleading facts, you should be ashamed.
callum
The US army got involved in Libya due to Gaddaffi killing civilians whilst trying to bomb rebels like he had no care in the world.
and unless you agree that its fine for saddam hussain to commit mass murder and genocide on ethnic minorities then your right america had no reason to invade because what do we care about inoccents being killed! and also this little thing called the first Gulf war (not sure if youve heard of it) was when America and Saddam crossed swords after he invaded Kuwait.
Leonard R.
@Raphael Winters: “It took 7 years, 10 months, 1 day after the beginning of the removal of weapons of mass destruction of that country before its head of state was killed.”
—
You lay out the dates and facts very precisely. It makes your analysis worth reading. I wish more posters
would pay attention to facts, dates, maps & little details like that.
Your conclusion here though is bogus. It was the citizens of Libya who overthrew and killed (in gruesome fashion, their head of state. First came the revolt. Next came NATO assistance, after that, the assassination. Note, their revolt began on 18 February, about thirty days prior to the date you cite for NATO’s attack.
Your conclusion at least on Libya, demonstrates the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
But your recitation of facts is first-rate. That makes your post worth reading.
It’s so tedious sometimes, wading through the childish appeals to authority arguments the Wu Maos* post here. It’s good to encounter a coherent argument.
(*paid 5 Jiao to post. Or if they’re twice as good, wu wu Mao Maos, paid 10 Jiao.)
Peter
@ Leonard R.et al.
Research which enables a country to wage war successfully against potential enemies is the right of a soveriegn state. Just because a country chooses to pursue this power, one should not assume that it will use it.
The US has an immense arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, it is extremely unlikely that it will actually use a single one of those weapons. Why should we view China according to a different standard?
I don’t know what China is planning. However, the thought that Beijing would use biological weapons in the US is absurd. It would mean retaliation to an extent that China might never recover.
It makes sense that China is developing (or has been) chemical weapons and I would be very surprised if the US didn’t have similar secret “black budget” programs.
North Korea complicates things a bit, because of their apparent disregard for rational self preservation, particularly in terms of their populace. However, the same ideas still apply. If they want to develop these weapons, nobody can stop them. That is, unless you are talking about an invasion of the DPRK, something nobody would seriously consider at this point.
Leonard R.
@Peter,
Either the General (named to receive China’s 2010 ‘Peace Prize’), said those words or he did not.
If he said them, this would be evidence on which one can begin to base an assumption.
If he didn’t say them, someone can come forward with some proof.
Until that happens, those words are out there. And every American ought to read them IMO.
To merely assume the general did not say those words without evidence is sloppy reasoning. One should not assume generals are incapable of saying dangerous, idiotic things.
But if one gets past General Chi Haotian’s words, then we can move on to the words of General Zhu Chenghu & after that General Xiong Guangkai.
Eventually, this stuff starts to add up.
Yang zi
Well the general himself said he didn’t say those words. What else do you want? Let see you still think he said it, so what? US has many generals and politicians saying worse.
Leonard R.
Links YZ?
Yang zi
@Leonard, I can’t find a link for you. For what it worth, keep in mind this general is 81 years old, plus the article you referenced is totally different in style of his writings. It is a fake article to insult him getting a peace prizes general Chi was the defense minister during 1989 tiananmen incident, so he has many enemies.
Yang zi
Leonard, I can’t find the link. So feel free to draw conclusions.
Keep in mind, general Chi is 82 years old, has been in retirement for more than a decade. This article has a different style than his usual writings. These old generals can only write revolution style articles. He was the defense minister during 1989 tiananmen incident. So he has many enemies, when the news came that he got some kind of peace prize, someone made this article to insular him.
In the end, believe what you will.
Yang zi
I should say some made the article to insult him
John Chan
@Leonard R,
Framing someone with fabrication thru the thin air, then asked the victim to disprove the fabrication is a standard trick used by the Nazi and the McCarthyism to eliminate people they do not like. Leonard R is showing us how that trick works, publish a fabrication then ask the accused to prove he is innocent. Probably Leonard R has never heard of “presumption of innocence” which is the foundation of western civilization. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Leonard R said “To merely assume the general did not say those words without evidence is sloppy reasoning.” he must feel he has the divine right to prosecute anyone at will, Kangaroo court seems too troublesome for him to convict someone. To Leonard R everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Only dictator will possess such mentality.
Just look at the style of the writing Leonard R quoted, it most likely written by a guy watched too much Rambo or is close associate with General BURWELL B. BELL III.
Leonard R.
North Korea is China. It is a midget stalking pony, a sock puppet, a proxy.
China will not stop it from developing biological weapons because China intends to use biological weapons itself.
Chi Haotian of the PLA has already told the world (1) China is developing bio-weapons and (2) China plans to wage biological warfare inside the United States. (You might remember Chi Haotian. Last year he was named to receive China’s first annual 2010 Confucius Peace Prize).
***
@ Chi Haotian:
“There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of ‘cleaning up’ America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focused instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. “
bamf-schtte
I think it’s about time US and China do a NKorea and Taiwan swap and end this game
Yang zi
Korea’s ultimate goal is come out on top of Japan and China. This explains why N. Korea is not serious about its alliance with China. It is just using it to survive for now. I bet my money S. Korea want to keep N. Korea’s nuclear and chemical weapons after reunification. We will see how persuasive US is in forcing Koreans give these weapons up.
John Chan
Wow, I didn’t realize S. Koreans are that smart and treacherous. They are ready to sell USA down the drain; they surely can sell snakeoil to the original snakeoil salesman.