Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Tension With North Korea Continues To Mount
Aired December 28, 2002 - 07:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The dispute over North Korea's nuclear facilities is drawing world attention because the border between North and South Korea is a potential flashpoint to say the least. There are about 2 million troops massed on both sides, and the South Korean capitol, Seoul, is only 30 miles from the demilitarized zone between the countries, well within artillery range.
Our security analyst Kelly McCann joining us from Washington to discuss some of this. Kelly first of all good morning to you sir.
KELLY McCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Hi Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right. First of all, let's talk about the proximity issues and then let's talk about if that's really what's going on here. The possibility of the north sending nuclear weapons either at the tip of an artillery shell or on some of its ballistic missiles is distinct and it is certainly within range for them to hit Tokyo -- perhaps even some portions of Alaska depending on the range of some of these missiles they have. How real a threat is that?
MCCANN: Well to what end? I mean, that's the question, you know? I mean, normal diplomatic relationships have been difficult with North Korea so I mean they're -- they're basically entering into diplomacy with kind of an embattled mindset.
That being said, the language used by the administration even though it was you know very, very tertiary it was that we could sustain a war on both fronts was immediately grabbed by them as a hawkish statement that pointed the finger towards them and said that we were thinking about military engagement and I'm not sure that wasn't an overreaction.
The Federation of American Scientists states that mathematical models do say that they could range Alaska -- you know -- they could range into Pakistan, India, etc. So I think that all the neighbors of the region are concerned, both from a safety standpoint, what they're developing, where it ends up, ultimately -- and also from a threatening standpoint.
O'BRIEN: All right, but is that the real concern here or is this plutonium that the North Koreans seem bent on creating -- weapons grade plutonium -- could it be used really just to bring in some cash which is what they really need, right?
MCCANN: They're exportable as weapons, Miles -- and I mean they have a history of trading in arms. Just recently with Yemen. I mean, so the concern very much so is what will they do with that material, what is the oversight on that material. I mean, if you think about an analogous situation, when is the last time you ever heard in the United States of any of this material just going missing? Or having some rogue get some and sell them on -- sell it on the black market?
It just doesn't happen because of the controls. Are there those controls in North Korea? No there aren't. In fact, the IAEA has -- you know -- been outed -- routed -- from the country and that's part of their mission is to help safety standards, watch accountability, etc. So it really makes you scratch your head to say then what is their point.
O'BRIEN: All right -- weapons-grade plutonium on the black market -- I think it's fairly obvious but let's go through it. Who are the buyers?
MCCANN: Well those who have the technology or the ability to make a weapon but don't have the material because it is difficult to produce and you need a superstructure to produce it. You know, let's not forget that in fact nuclear weapons have been reduced in size to the size of more or less a suitcase or briefcase bomb as they're called.
Man packable nuclear devices as you know are in the inventory. So if you think about that and you say, OK, well if they did release an amount of weapons grade plutonium you know doesn't that need a transporter or rector launcher system like a scud? No it doesn't. It means that it could be man-packable. So the buyers then become people with money who have the technology, don't have the capability to create the material.
O'BRIEN: All right, so you've led us down the road to Baghdad, haven't you?
MCCANN: I don't know that I've lead you down that road, Miles. The road that I'm going down is basically that we have many entities that are not from in the United States who have money and who are seeking weapons of mass destruction and given that they could get their hands on that material that's crucial it's not unlikely that they would certainly threaten if not use them.
O'BRIEN: I guess there is a lesson in all of this. As you look at how the Bush administration, the international community in general's hands are tied in dealing with North Korea because of the possession of nuclear weapons, if you insert nuclear weapons into Iraq everything changes, doesn't it?
MCCANN: It does, it changes the landscape. I mean, you know, there's several things that change the landscape there. You know, recently -- well, first the ministry of defense had said several months ago take the desert we'll meet you in the city. Number one. That's different from the last war.
Number two he said that he's going to have basically raising his own territories, setting the oil fields afire, contaminating the environment, making it difficult to support people who might engage in combat in Baghdad. Then you look at the most recent model, Chechnya and Groznyy you have you know a situation where they've been clear of you know Chechnya Groznyy since 1996 still today you have the Marine Beirut bombing kind of situation. Add to that the capability of having a tactical nuclear capability and it certainly changes the landscape.
O'BRIEN: Final thought here. 37,000 U.S. troops on the Korean peninsula. There as a tripwire to stop kind of a Cold War type threat is really what it's there for -- the old domino theory is what we're talking about. Is it an anachronism and -- really -- the South Koreans would just as soon see the U.S. go -- it certainly makes it more difficult for the Bush administration, for the Pentagon, to engage in any sort of planning on how to take out this nuclear possibility and potential in the north.
MCCANN: Well, having been deployed over there when tensions were very tight when I was still in the service the days of the tunneling into South Korea that the North Koreans used to engage in -- the days of the coastal kind of incursions that they used to engage in consistently -- has been replaced with the Sunshine Policy of the South Koreans wanting to enter into diplomatic relations. So, that is the big question -- are we in the way, are we necessary any more, or are we kind of a -- a spark in a tinderbox?
It's interesting stuff right now but people should remember also that the whole Axis of Evil discussion -- there isn't a forming coalition of nuclear proponents against the U.S. Certainly there's anti-American sentiment out there, but sometimes the media makes us feel like there's an overwhelming sense that we're looking at a nuclear threat and people should be cautious consumers of the news.
O'BRIEN: So there's not an open line between Pnyoyang and Baghdad?
MCCANN: I don't -- I don't think that they would close relationships with them as they might with other people like us for instance slam the door shut, but by the same token what level does that go to and would they engage in something that certainly would be a spark in a tinderbox, I'm not so sure.
O'BRIEN: Kelly McCann, always a pleasure, thank you sir.
MCCANN: Sure Miles, see you soon.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 28, 2002 - 07:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The dispute over North Korea's nuclear facilities is drawing world attention because the border between North and South Korea is a potential flashpoint to say the least. There are about 2 million troops massed on both sides, and the South Korean capitol, Seoul, is only 30 miles from the demilitarized zone between the countries, well within artillery range.
Our security analyst Kelly McCann joining us from Washington to discuss some of this. Kelly first of all good morning to you sir.
KELLY McCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Hi Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right. First of all, let's talk about the proximity issues and then let's talk about if that's really what's going on here. The possibility of the north sending nuclear weapons either at the tip of an artillery shell or on some of its ballistic missiles is distinct and it is certainly within range for them to hit Tokyo -- perhaps even some portions of Alaska depending on the range of some of these missiles they have. How real a threat is that?
MCCANN: Well to what end? I mean, that's the question, you know? I mean, normal diplomatic relationships have been difficult with North Korea so I mean they're -- they're basically entering into diplomacy with kind of an embattled mindset.
That being said, the language used by the administration even though it was you know very, very tertiary it was that we could sustain a war on both fronts was immediately grabbed by them as a hawkish statement that pointed the finger towards them and said that we were thinking about military engagement and I'm not sure that wasn't an overreaction.
The Federation of American Scientists states that mathematical models do say that they could range Alaska -- you know -- they could range into Pakistan, India, etc. So I think that all the neighbors of the region are concerned, both from a safety standpoint, what they're developing, where it ends up, ultimately -- and also from a threatening standpoint.
O'BRIEN: All right, but is that the real concern here or is this plutonium that the North Koreans seem bent on creating -- weapons grade plutonium -- could it be used really just to bring in some cash which is what they really need, right?
MCCANN: They're exportable as weapons, Miles -- and I mean they have a history of trading in arms. Just recently with Yemen. I mean, so the concern very much so is what will they do with that material, what is the oversight on that material. I mean, if you think about an analogous situation, when is the last time you ever heard in the United States of any of this material just going missing? Or having some rogue get some and sell them on -- sell it on the black market?
It just doesn't happen because of the controls. Are there those controls in North Korea? No there aren't. In fact, the IAEA has -- you know -- been outed -- routed -- from the country and that's part of their mission is to help safety standards, watch accountability, etc. So it really makes you scratch your head to say then what is their point.
O'BRIEN: All right -- weapons-grade plutonium on the black market -- I think it's fairly obvious but let's go through it. Who are the buyers?
MCCANN: Well those who have the technology or the ability to make a weapon but don't have the material because it is difficult to produce and you need a superstructure to produce it. You know, let's not forget that in fact nuclear weapons have been reduced in size to the size of more or less a suitcase or briefcase bomb as they're called.
Man packable nuclear devices as you know are in the inventory. So if you think about that and you say, OK, well if they did release an amount of weapons grade plutonium you know doesn't that need a transporter or rector launcher system like a scud? No it doesn't. It means that it could be man-packable. So the buyers then become people with money who have the technology, don't have the capability to create the material.
O'BRIEN: All right, so you've led us down the road to Baghdad, haven't you?
MCCANN: I don't know that I've lead you down that road, Miles. The road that I'm going down is basically that we have many entities that are not from in the United States who have money and who are seeking weapons of mass destruction and given that they could get their hands on that material that's crucial it's not unlikely that they would certainly threaten if not use them.
O'BRIEN: I guess there is a lesson in all of this. As you look at how the Bush administration, the international community in general's hands are tied in dealing with North Korea because of the possession of nuclear weapons, if you insert nuclear weapons into Iraq everything changes, doesn't it?
MCCANN: It does, it changes the landscape. I mean, you know, there's several things that change the landscape there. You know, recently -- well, first the ministry of defense had said several months ago take the desert we'll meet you in the city. Number one. That's different from the last war.
Number two he said that he's going to have basically raising his own territories, setting the oil fields afire, contaminating the environment, making it difficult to support people who might engage in combat in Baghdad. Then you look at the most recent model, Chechnya and Groznyy you have you know a situation where they've been clear of you know Chechnya Groznyy since 1996 still today you have the Marine Beirut bombing kind of situation. Add to that the capability of having a tactical nuclear capability and it certainly changes the landscape.
O'BRIEN: Final thought here. 37,000 U.S. troops on the Korean peninsula. There as a tripwire to stop kind of a Cold War type threat is really what it's there for -- the old domino theory is what we're talking about. Is it an anachronism and -- really -- the South Koreans would just as soon see the U.S. go -- it certainly makes it more difficult for the Bush administration, for the Pentagon, to engage in any sort of planning on how to take out this nuclear possibility and potential in the north.
MCCANN: Well, having been deployed over there when tensions were very tight when I was still in the service the days of the tunneling into South Korea that the North Koreans used to engage in -- the days of the coastal kind of incursions that they used to engage in consistently -- has been replaced with the Sunshine Policy of the South Koreans wanting to enter into diplomatic relations. So, that is the big question -- are we in the way, are we necessary any more, or are we kind of a -- a spark in a tinderbox?
It's interesting stuff right now but people should remember also that the whole Axis of Evil discussion -- there isn't a forming coalition of nuclear proponents against the U.S. Certainly there's anti-American sentiment out there, but sometimes the media makes us feel like there's an overwhelming sense that we're looking at a nuclear threat and people should be cautious consumers of the news.
O'BRIEN: So there's not an open line between Pnyoyang and Baghdad?
MCCANN: I don't -- I don't think that they would close relationships with them as they might with other people like us for instance slam the door shut, but by the same token what level does that go to and would they engage in something that certainly would be a spark in a tinderbox, I'm not so sure.
O'BRIEN: Kelly McCann, always a pleasure, thank you sir.
MCCANN: Sure Miles, see you soon.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
