hey nlatimer..

thanks for the url on north korea weapons program. that is essentially what i remembered.

i don't know if this helps your understanding. generally, light water reactors are fueled by enriched uranium (less than 3 percent u-235). weapons grade uranium is enriched to more than 90 percent u-235 [though i seem to remember from a college course, a very low yield weapon can be engineered with say 75% u-235...but this is a real challenge.] uranium enrichment is a very difficult technical and engineering problem...requiring massive amounts of money, technical skills, and dedication of resources. i assume that the u.s. technical community advised decision makers in the 1990's that they doubted that north korea's technical and engineering capabilities could enrich reactor grade uranium into weapons grade. as you probably know for all the problems in handling radioactive liquids, the chemical separation of plutonium-239 from uranium is much easier than uranium enrichment.

to experts, i think, this looked like a safer bet. so to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, the u.s. and south korea made a treaty we give energy and you give up your weapons programs. this was not a departure from ongoing policy; it was a continuation of american foreign policy going back to eisenhower.

here again, i ask the question...are you sure that all that say they have nuclear weapons or wmd really do? maybe they do...maybe they don't...maybe the stakes (japan, south korea, and china) are too high to call the bluff. i think diplomacy is still the only way out of a sticky situation...nuclear strikes in that densely populated area might result in the death of millions.

i really doubt a preemptive strike policy serves america's long term interest....and it is my impression that preemptive strikes without cause are defined as agression. the latter of course is against international law.

jay