NK Believed to Have 6 Nukes Email This Story Print This Story

North Korea is believed to possess as many as six nuclear weapons, a former chief of the U.S. military in South Korea has said.

In an interview with the Joongang Ilbo on March 31, retired Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, former commander of the United States Forces Korea (USFK), reiterated the significance of maintaining a solid South Korea-U.S. military alliance capable of deterring any aggression by a nuclear-armed North Korea.

North Korea had up to six nuclear weapons in 1994 when it agreed to freeze all related programs, but the number is likely to have risen, LaPorte told the vernacular daily. Under the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework, North Korea promised to freeze its nuclear activities in return for a set of light-water reactors financed mainly by South Korea.

Citing the North's 1.2 million-strong armed forces equipped with advanced, long-range missiles that could reach Japan and parts of U.S. soil, LaPorte said the North's military threat in the region remains despite the inter-Korean exchanges in recent years.
This is something we don't need, another country sporting nuclear weapons. Hopefully this situation won't escelate and can be resolved peacefully. Although they went back on their word once already, who says they won't again.

Read the full story.

posted at 09:02:22 on 04/05/06 - Category: All Branches

Article Opinions

nottellingyou wrote:

the world is just fucking crazy.....if we mess with those guys DAMN......just my opinion....
04/05/06 15:48:37

Elias wrote:

Are you in the military? If not, thank God, we sure as hell don't need someone like you fighting this war.
04/05/06 19:31:19

Elias wrote:

I heard that in the Army bootcamp you are given as much time to stuff your faces and cell phones to cry home to mommy whenever you want. Is that true?
04/06/06 11:29:21

nick wrote:

boot camp is hard! if u have a problem with it don't join it
04/06/06 12:55:55

Elias wrote:

But is what I said true?
Fox news is reporting that Army bootcamp has gotten softer: all you can eat, 8 hours of sleep, Drill Sergeants offering "quiet encouragement." What the hell?!
An exact quote: "Freedom for requits to use their cellphones to call home or their sweetheart during their nine-week ordeal."
-You've got to be kidding me!
04/06/06 14:14:16

Elias wrote:

If its a quota thing, why are the Marines meeting their recruiting levels after making their bootcamp even tougher?

Thank God for the USMC.
04/06/06 14:16:54

Elias wrote:

Sound off soldiers!!
04/06/06 19:52:51

deathat20 wrote:

thats bullshit!!! all the NonInfantry Bootcamps are like that. But thank GOD for the US INfantry!!! Hooah!!
04/07/06 17:41:49

Mike wrote:

Just what we need another country with bombs.
IF we dont stop them we are going to be screwed!!
04/10/06 12:02:15

Elias wrote:

Hey death,

you know what you said about all "NonInfantry Bootcamps" being the same? First of all, in the Marines, there is no such thing as "NonInfantry Bootcamps." Every Marine whether your an infantryman, sniper, cook, journalist or a admin guy has got to go through the same bootcamp as everyone else. Why do you think every Marine has the same cocky attitude no matter what field they come from.

Secondly, because they do not put Marines in catagories like the Army does with its patches and barrets and "NonIntantry" and (I assume) Infantry bookcamps, etc. they require bootcamp to very, very difficult. And they require it to be noticeably more so to every recruit who dare join the Marines from any other branch in the Armed Forces.
04/11/06 11:17:33

Josh wrote:

Basic sure as hell wasn't easy when I went but a friend of mine who just got back from ait told me that new people coming in were given the weekend off and allowed cell phone privileges. What the fuck?? They fill out stress cards and shit too. Sounds like more work for the DS's and more catering to the Sick-Call Rangers. Just what we need, more soft-ass soldiers.
04/20/06 08:28:09

Stan wrote:

thats pritty shitty that infantryman and a sniper goes to the saame training as a cook. that makes me feel safe. Ya bull shit. o and the USMC, the reason they are all cocky is because they all got a dick shuved up their ass in boot camp.
04/21/06 12:34:07

Stan wrote:

i do agree that if boot camp is getting softer they need to step it up. i go soon to Fort Benning and i will be disapointed if they allow that sort of shit
04/21/06 12:37:48

Elias wrote:

For the record, the Marine Corps does not have "cook" as an occupation, thats the Navy. I was purposely trying to exaterate.

For bootcamp in the Marines, snipers and admin guys (for a better example) go to the same bookcamp for the purpose of making sure EVERY Marine is trained to kill. Your logic is backwards if you think bootcamp is easier because sinpers are sent to a bootcamp that trains "cooks", it is the "cook" who is sent to a bookcamp that trains men (unlike the Army who trains men and women together).
04/22/06 13:31:28

Elias wrote:

Stan,

have you ever thought about doing a little investigative work on your own before going to Fort Benning? It should be as easy as asking your recruiter if that sort of stuff is going on.

Its like trying to figure out if an airport your flying into has rental cars available and instead of calling to find out, you say to yourself "well I guess I'll find out when I get there."
04/22/06 20:43:41

Stan wrote:

i have asked about Fort Benning but dont you think things maybe change its not going to be the same next year as this year. o and the reason they train men and women together is because they need a chance too. i would hate ro go to a boot camp with all men but maybe thats why the marines are called the (Glorified Navy)
04/28/06 11:37:35

Elias wrote:

Stan,

I think you (like the Army of today) have the wrong concept about what the purpose of bootcamp is for. Bootcamp should be (and is in the Marines) for the purpose of training men to fight and kill an enemy that is training to do the same to them, NOT to "train men and women together is because they need a chance too" whatever that means.

There are obvious reasons that should not have to be explained (especially to men) why training men and women together is not a good idea. For you (and the Army) not to understand the obvious differences between the way men and women are made, is beyond me. I mean, you do understand there is a differnce don't you Stan? You do know you are stronger than most women don't you?

And why exactly would you "hate" to train for war with men? Maybe your thinking that Army bootcamp is going to be like going to college where your going to have the chance to meet chicks. If your thinking that thats how its going to be, son, you've got another thing comin'.
04/28/06 15:29:08

stan wrote:

i dont have a problem training with men i said it would be gay if it was all men. the reason i said women need a chance too is because their are a loot of real smart and qualified women out there. not letting a women go to the same boot camp as men and training with men just because of their sex would be like saying black people cannot join because you cant understand what they are saying most of the time and you dont want to get the wrong messages when in battle. their are a lot of scronny ass guys out there too and they get to go through camp and learn the same thing us big guys do. so you cannot base this on physical strength or ability. that is the purpose of bootcamp, to train you and make you stronger.
05/02/06 12:35:46

Elias wrote:

Stan, just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that men and women are made the same physically? I've never met anyone (male or female) who believes that!

What I am about to tell you might come as a surprise: Did you know that even in the Army, men and women have different physical qualifications they are required to pass?

This might really shock the hell out of you: Did you know that the physical qualifications for men are harder than the physical qualifications for women?

Look, this is not a question of whether America has qualified women ready to serve their country or not, nor is a question of whether they are being given the opportunity to do so. Obviously there are smart and capable women out there who are needed in the Army, many who are probably smarter than you, Stan. However, we are not talking about mental capacity but physical capacity. What I am talking about is whether it makes more sense to train men and women separately based on obvious physical differences.

I have a question for you Stan: Do you have any older family members who fought in either Vietnam, Korea or WWII? Don't you know that the Soldiers who fought in these wars went to all-male bootcamps? You wouldn't call their training “gay,” would you?
05/02/06 13:12:17

stan wrote:

you know if you read the shit and think about what people are saying you wouldnt sound so stupid when you talk back
05/08/06 12:45:42

stan wrote:

no just calling you gay by the way. why would we spend that much more money to open boot camps just for women that
would be stupid. so we might as well train them together and save the money and put it torwards something that makes sence
05/08/06 12:50:16

Elias wrote:

“you know if you read the shit and think about what people are saying you wouldnt sound so stupid when you talk back “

And this coming from Stan the caveman: “i go soon to Fort Benning”

Learn to use spell, Stan, then talk: “their are a lot of scronny ass guys out there too”
– its not “their” but “there” and “scrawny” not “scronny” and “to” not “too.”

“thats”

“pritty"

“saame"

“o”

“shuved”

“i"

“ro”

“torwards"

“sence”

“dont you think things maybe change its not going to be the same next year as this year”
– huh?

Stan, even though “loot” is a word I think you meant “lot”
05/08/06 18:38:37

Stan wrote:

hahaha what r u a fucking college professor. nobody cares about spelling. and thats pritty sad that u have enough time out of the day to pick shit apart like that. get a life kid
05/10/06 12:06:43

Elias wrote:

Stan, even though it took me less than 2 minutes to do, I do regret making your spelling an issue. I just got pissed off at you for saying I wasn't listening when its obvious its you who are not listening or making sense.

Are you saying I'm not understanding what your saying or that I'm reading to much into what your saying? Can you show me where I'm not getting what your saying because I fell like I've responded to your every point as accurate as possible.

Can you clarify what your point is?
05/10/06 17:49:49

stan wrote:

i was just that women may not be as physically qualified but we do still need them to do some of the jobs they do. and im not saying anything bad about the Marines either but i think its fine to train women and men together as long as it doesnt slow things down. 5 of my best friends are in the Marines and only one has gone through training but the opthers let it go to there head and got real cocky and shit about it and they havent even left for boot camp yet. the one whosdone training is prolly one of the best people i know now and is alot more respectable. i hope the others get there ass handed to them and learn from it. You are in the Marines right
05/11/06 12:01:58

stan wrote:

and i think you pritty much just read into it to much
05/11/06 12:04:24

Elias wrote:

I was. I joined right out of highschool back in 1993. I've been out for almost 10 years now. It is because I've gone through bootcamp and Marine Combat Training that I don't believe it's possible for things NOT to slow down when training with women.

I hope your friends do make it. When I got to bootcamp, we had about 74 guys in our platoon. When I graduated, we had about 55 from the original group.

Stan, here is something very important to know about the Marines - something you can tell your buddies who have not yet been to bootcamp: When you say "5 of my best friends are in the Marines and only one has gone through training" you need to know that calling someone a Marine before even graduating bootcamp is blasphemy. When your in bootcamp you are only recognized and identified as a recruit. Until you are handed the Eagle Globe and Anchor (the Marine emblem) at graduation and are told the words "congradulations Marine" are you to be called or even considered a U.S. Marine. It's a sacred thing to those guys.

Not everyone makes it which is
one of the reasons why you aren't called a Marine until you graduate. Another reason is to keep you humbled.

Stan, where are you from?
05/11/06 12:51:17

Stan wrote:

im from Wisconsin and i did mean that they joined the Marines not that they were yet sorry bout that. like u were saying about not being a Marine untill you pass tho, the one friend of my who has gone and is now a Marine he got the Marine emblem tattood on hie chest before he even went to basic. he said they wooped his ass every day for that
05/11/06 13:00:00

Elias wrote:

Thats gotta be one of the craziest things I've ever heard someone do before going to bookcamp. I'm glad he survived and is now a Marine. That's actually kind of a cool story to tell his buddies in the Corps. Most guys get the tatoos after bootcamp (most of whom regret it later). What your friend did sort of shows his dedication to the Marines even before fitting into his uniform!
05/11/06 14:34:42

Stan wrote:

ya he was real set on the Marines. He said that was most important thing is wanting it bad enough. That is why i respect him so much because before he went to bootcamp he was pretty much a sally, but when he came back after graduation for a couple days he was so much different. he still like to do all the fun stuff but doesnt take things for granite.
05/12/06 11:39:00

Elias wrote:

Stan, when do you leave for bootcamp?
05/12/06 19:12:08

stan wrote:

I LEAVE SEPTEMBER 6TH i wanted work the summer
05/13/06 16:33:28

Stan wrote:

hey Elias i was wondering how your experience in the Marines was. One of the Five guys i said joined the Marines is also waiting till summer is over. i was thinking of dropping the National Guard and going in the Marines with him. i figure if im not doing it for the signing bonus i might as well get the better training. what was it like for you
05/15/06 11:38:32

Elias wrote:

They won't like me saying this but recruiters do their best to paint as nice a picture as possible of the military no matter what branch you’re considering (it’s their job to do so). Sometimes, one of the things that gets lost in the excitement and adventure of joining is the fact that it is the U.S. MILITARY that is being considered which not only involved in the War On Terror at the moment but which will require your absolute commitment until your contract ends (probably in the year 2010)! I’m sure you know this is no game.

I don't care how gung-ho someone claims to be, there will be times that will really (and I mean really) suck in the military. There will be times that you'll find yourself asking "did I make the right decision?" and "how long did I sign that contract for?" I think only a few people who join ever receive exactly what they expected. To some it’s worse than they ever thought; to others, it’s the best decision they ever made!

What I would say to you Stan is do not spend too much time imagining what the military will be like since more than likely you will be disappointed. What I would do if I were you is I would look in the mirror and honestly ask myself why I am considering doing this? Is it because of money (money for school) or adventure? You need to be honest with yourself. Are you thinking about joining to get away from something or someone (i.e. parents, the city)? Even though those might be important reason, the most important reason for joining the military is out of service for your country. If joining the military for the purpose of defending the country you love is NOT at the top of the list somewhere, that I would say you need to reconsider because when things are going bad, you’re not going to say, “I guess this is definitely worth my paycheck.” No, you’re going to be saying “some adventure” IF that is the reason why you joined! But if the reason you joined the Army or Marines is to serve the country you love, then when times are at its worst, you’re going to remember who you are fighting for and know that it is worth it.
05/15/06 16:58:03

Stan wrote:

I know what u mean. i have been thinking about it a lot and its definently not for college cause i dont plan on goin to any real expensive one. i am worried about a couple of my friends that joined the Marines because they were against joining anything untill Josh got back from boot camp (he is the one who is now a Marine) and they just went right up and signed on. i think they did it just for the title. i do not think they really know what they are geting into. the only reason i think that is cause wen we wewnt to parties they would tell everybody that they were inthe Mrines and they would try to get girls by saying that and stuff. One more reason i think Josh is so respectable is because he never talked bad about any other branh of the service and he didnt brag about being a Marine. the other boys would say how the Army is for Pussies and the other branches were gay. i hope they dont get into anything they cant get out of. i am not in it for the money tho i amin it more for the part wen i get to shoot some dot heads. lol but you still never know how you will take it till you get out there. what was your MOS
05/16/06 13:10:37

Karen wrote:

You know, I am surprised that you men haven't evolved yet. I am a female soldier and take offense that you would think after the training that we also go through that we are not equal soldier wise. The reason we have different physical standards is because we are built different. Look at your basic anatomy. Our standards are not that far from yours if you would do your research. If you dont think women are worthy to be soldiers tell that to the women who have died over in iraq protecting this country.
06/06/06 21:56:50

Elias wrote:

Karen, you shouldn't get offended at what has been said since in a way, your actually agreeing men and women aren't "equal" when you say, "The reason we have different physical standards is because we are built different." I couldn't agree with you more!

No one is saying women sodiers aren't worthy, they are very much needed. My only point to Stan was I didn't believe training men and women together was good because of the obvious differences in the way they are made which confirms your point.
06/15/06 14:25:09

Robert wrote:

all i can say is that the u.s should make more effective missles to blow threatening nuckes out the sky then attack
06/16/06 17:27:13

Robert wrote:

also emerika should just make more nukes
06/16/06 17:28:55

yfubdvhchs wrote:

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! bwutowovxsbrg
06/20/07 23:50:18

jakob wrote:

hey i went to army bootcamp in november 2006 and it was pretty hard. now im an airborne ranger assigned to 75th ranger regiment so who ever said army is for pussies is wrong. also, there is alot airborne females out there and airborne school is tough. marines bragg about how they are better than army but, where do the marine recons go for training. they go to army airborne school then army ranger school. so dont talk about a branch you dont know anything about.
04/10/08 17:12:44

Add Your Opinion

:

:
:

Want to discuss it? Sound Off in the Forums



Recent Items
» Military Rules On Political Activity
» Kid Rock, Earnhardt In Guard Ad
» Preparing The Military For Defeat
» Russia Not Afraid of New Cold War
» Iraqi PM Demands Pullout Timetable
Most Popular Items
» Transfer GI Bill Benefits To Spouses
» Gangs Using Military For Training, Experts Say
» Retired colonel says military entrance exam should have Spanish option
» U.S. Army Transitions New Combat Uniform - U.S. Department of Defense Transformation Story
» What in the World is a "Fobbit"?



      Copyright 2004-2008 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Army.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.