N. Korea threatens to restart nuclear reactor

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

North Korea said Tuesday it would restart a nuclear reactor that makes plutonium and refurbish a uranium-enrichment plant to produce fissile material for atomic weapons.

The announcement did not give a date when the work might be completed, and scholars say the severity of the new threat depends on how much progress North Korea has made toward building a bomb small enough to fit atop a missile warhead.

North Korea has carried out three underground nuclear tests, in 2006, 2009 and last month.

“There is still a long ways from underground nuclear tests to deliverable nuclear weapons,” said Bruce Bennett, a political scientist at the Rand Corp., a Santa Monica, Calif.-based think tank with historic ties to the U.S. military.

“I would still argue that North Korea is a nuclear experimenter, not a nuclear power,” he said.

Others disagree.

“To agonize over exactly what stage of the weaponization process they have reached is to misunderstand the problem,” said Henry D. Sokolski, the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.

The real issues, he said, are the intentions of the North Korean leadership, headed by an untested 30-something commander in chief who has been in office for less than a year.

“Nobody has a good read on him,” Mr. Sokolski said.

Moreover, estimates of technical progress by Pyongyang might be inaccurate or misinformed, he cautioned.

“I believe that we don’t know as much as we think we do about what their [nuclear] capabilities are,” he said.

The North Korean reactor, which generated only five megawatts, enough electricity to light about 2,500 homes, was closed down and its cooling tower demolished in 2007 as part of an energy-for-disarmament deal that Pyongyang later reneged on.

By some estimates, the reactor could be brought back online in as little as six months and produce up to two bombs’ worth of plutonium a year.

The plant was never intended to generate electricity, said retired military intelligence analyst John McCreary, now with Kforce Government Solutions.

“The site does not have huge pylons carrying high voltage wires leading away from it that are associated with large scale power generation,” he told The Washington Times.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

About the Author
Shaun Waterman

Shaun Waterman

Shaun Waterman is an award-winning reporter for The Washington Times, covering foreign affairs, defense and cybersecurity. He was a senior editor and correspondent for United Press International for nearly a decade, and has covered the Department of Homeland Security since 2003. His reporting on the Sept. 11 Commission and the tortuous process by which some of its recommendations finally became ...

Latest Stories

Latest Blog Entries

blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks