Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 2

Lead
The lead says that NK:
 * declared in 2009 that it had developed a nuclear weapon, and is widely believed to possess a small stockpile of relatively simple nuclear weapons. The U.S. Department of Defense believes North Korea probably has a chemical weapons program and is likely to possess a stockpile of chemical weapons.[5]

According to the "Biological and chemical weapons" section, more than just the US believe that NK possess a stockpile of chemical weapons and if understand correctly US also suspect that they possess a biological weapons program. Additionally while NK demonstrated its nuclear capability in 2006, announced its nuclear test way before its declaration in 2009, and how much "a small stockpile" is?

How about something like: "NK have nuclear capabilities and is widely believed to possess a stockpile of relatively simple nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. It is suspected to maintain a maintaining a chemical and biological weapons, by U.S. Department of Defense"(others?)

While the later 3 paragraph will cover the specifics i.e. NK declaration, tests and IAEA assessments.--PLNR (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just now modified the lede to use direct statements. The lede doesn't have to get into who believes what, as those details are covered later on in the article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually I would agree. However, I think that we need to mention the biological angle here to note its existence in the article, even if its very small. One sentence for chemical\biological per the 2 out of 3 types of WMDs discussed here should be enough --PLNR (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Chemical weapons as part of normal doctrine
I was watching a documentary about North Korea titled "Nuclear Nightmare" and I heard that the North Koreans themselves do not view their use of chemical weapons as WMDs, but instead as part of their normal doctrine. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060911024348/http://militaryhistory.about.com:80/od/currentconflicts/a/koreanmilitary_3.htm to http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/currentconflicts/a/koreanmilitary_3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119102935/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=show_article=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512235502/http://www.free-lebanon.com/lfpNews/2009/June/June3/June3d/June3d.html to http://www.free-lebanon.com/lfpNews/2009/June/June3/June3d/June3d.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101204052853/http://www.wisconsinproject.org:80/countries/nkorea/north-korea-miles.html to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/nkorea/north-korea-miles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.csndmc.ac.cn/newweb/secondpage.jsp?id=1146

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup - structure
The structure seems to have got muddled at some point. Information about nuclear tests has been placed under "Delivery systems", and then a sub-section called "Delivery systems" has also been created.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Added NK Orbital Launch Test
Just letting all you guys know, I have added a section on the recent North Korean Rocket Launch. I'm a bit new, so if I screwed up, let me know. Thanks! Uberlyuber (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council's New Resolution
UNSC passed new Resolution about North Korea nuclear programm yesterday. Accordingly, the article must be updated. M.Karelin (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair use policy
It doesn't make or break the article, but I've opened a discussion on Talk:Kim_Jong-un to try to clarify whether the images of alleged warheads are usable under Wikipedia policy. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been bounced back here. I am not completely sure it satisfies #8 of WP:NFCCP. Anyhow, if nobody minds, let it stay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102214248/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22944/Hecker-Lee-Braun_North_Koreas_Choice.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22944/Hecker-Lee-Braun_North_Koreas_Choice.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js4053.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp220.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1359.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804003613/http://opencrs.com/document/RL33590/ to https://opencrs.com/document/RL33590/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

9/9 nuclear test PGH in opener
I'm not sure about the necessity of the information in the paragraph on the September 9th test in the lead section. It's overly specific to South Korea's miscalculation of the weight of the bomb as compared to the other tests outlined in the same section. I don't know the article so well that I feel comfortable moving all the sources to another spot, though. Any ideas? Amphytrite (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, that's undue weight to a relatively minor point. More generally, the lede seems entirely too long. NPguy (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Range of the Hwasong-14
An editor here is repeatedly claiming that the Hwasong-14 has a range of 9,700 km, citing this source, in spite of me telling them that it's not what the source says. This is what Schilling says in the source: "[The Hwasong-14] ... might have reached a distance of 7,000-8,000 kilometers if launched on a maximum-range trajectory. If the Hwasong-14 is put together the way we think it is, it can probably do a bit better than that when all the bugs are worked out. The figure below shows the estimated reach of a fully developed Hwasong-14 as a function of payload weight, with the missile fired in a northeast direction from North Korea. The North Koreans won’t be able to achieve this performance tomorrow, but they likely will eventually" (my emphasis), i.e. very far from claiming that the missile "has a range of 9,700 km". Which is why I have removed it again... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone else beat me to it when I was typing my post above... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the July 4 firing close to the simplest possible trajectory? Have been unable to find any source for such a claim. But perhaps you can? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Two missiles blew up right after launch
Any ideas on how to incorporate comments or speculation - by reliable sources only! - about whether the two recent launches were:
 * 1) deliberately programmed to self-destruct
 * 2) sabotaged by rogue North Koreans
 * 3) hacked by USA or allies
 * 4) simply the random failures of an inept or over-reaching program

The NY Times favors the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ideas - I've seen no mention of the first.

Maybe we could check source's like Jane's Defense Weekly or newspapers that cover the Pentagon. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The other possibility is that failures are a normal part of missile testing.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102193525/http://www.znf.uni-hamburg.de/MasterSchoeppner.pdf to http://www.znf.uni-hamburg.de/MasterSchoeppner.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130222062608/http://www.norsar.no/norsar/about-us/News/NuclearExplosionDPRK12Feb2013 to http://www.norsar.no/norsar/about-us/News/NuclearExplosionDPRK12Feb2013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427110003/http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-04-26/North_Korea__return_of_the_nukes.html to http://www.russiatoday.ru/Top_News/2009-04-26/North_Korea__return_of_the_nukes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209210034/http://ifri.org/downloads/pp33pollack.pdf to http://www.ifri.org/downloads/pp33pollack.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210031841/http://ifri.org/downloads/Proliferation_Paper_Michishita.pdf to http://www.ifri.org/downloads/Proliferation_Paper_Michishita.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111207163919/http://ifri.org/downloads/Prolif_Chung_Min_Lee_NK.pdf to http://www.ifri.org/downloads/Prolif_Chung_Min_Lee_NK.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Problems

 * There is a large amount of overlap between "History" and "Nuclear program". Perhaps the way to go is to distribute the history about the other sections and provide an overview in the lead.
 * Information about missiles has crept into the "Nuclear program" section, whereas it belongs in the "Delivery systems" or "History" sections.
 * "Delivery systems" has the subsections "History", "Status", and "Operational delivery systems". There is no clear differentiation here. I assume "status" means capability, but this is assessed under "Operational delivery systems".
 * Clearly this structure creates confusion among editors. (See my comment from 2016.) Perhaps we should adopt a simpler structure.
 * Much of this is out of date: for example, it quotes a source from 2005...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is now a solid section on 2017 missile tests under "Nuclear weapons".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent missile and Ukrainian plant
North Korea’s Missile Success Is Linked to Ukrainian Plant, Investigators Say --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine's space agency: North Korea engine identical to ours

North Korea likely can make missile engines without imports: U.S. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Fissile material from where?
Where does North Korea currently get its fissile material? According to the article, it could be at the 5MWe reactor at Yongbyon or the fuel spent fuel reprocessing facilities (also part of Yongbyon?). The same article says that NK has 6 to 10 plutonium warheads or 13 to 30 nuclear equivalents for plutonium and uranium stockpiles. But the article doesn't say where they're producing it right now.

Where does NK manufacture fissile material? Or have they stopped and are relying on the old material that they already have? Have the North Koreans ever built a nuclear warhead? If so, where? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, if you work for the CIA, I think you're asking questions in the wrong place. We know they've got a reactor; we know they've built nuclear bombs. If by "nuclear warhead" you mean a bomb that can fit on a missile, we don't know. Opinions differ. The Defense Intelligence Agency says yes. As to the location of their nuclear weapons facilities, those are secret, for obvious reasons.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Informations
U235 is enough for atomic and fusion bombs Pu239 not needed. 1 A-bomb placed in small submarine with much easy makeable L-6D around again U238 near zara bomba and test was likely wanted only with little Li-6D fusion & quake dependent on room around always increasing again fission ratio also because moderating and again U238 natural U is fissionable reflector with fast fusion neutrons maybe also landside placed in USA over small boat from submarine with remote control or inside torpedo or tank/artillery munition. Rockets from submarine can also reach USA etc. but not needed. Fission ratio Hiroshima was less 1% increasable by moderation also with LiD and L-7D for escalation up to 100% with more power than fusion bomb same volume only 4 times fusion power same mass with much more volume because much less density of LiD compared with uranium. All long time known and published also in WP. Li in battery isotope separating easy in melting centrifuge and D2 out of water after electrolysis in masses.

2000 gas centrifuges for enrichment likely enough for much nuclear bombs. Also melting centrifuge likely possible for enrichment using the pure uranium.

Atomic and fusion bombs easy done also without theory like demon core. Critical mass 22.8kg as pebble without reflector or moderator less 2l so also not difficult for making small A-bomb for example in steam cooker size in center silver rod turn out explodes also thin steel mantle but Li-7D add or U235 granulate between absorber going out forward at impact between reflector maybe added Be or Li-7D for tank munition before secured with screw block spring W-flap finished zsable also for 3 fall down warhead parts like watched at last rocket test? Actually submarine places unknown or near USA coast or in underwater caves or exploding as zara bomba far from coast still destroying New York and Israrl having already submarines and A+H-bombs like russia, india&pakistan. Uranium also extracable from water & fertilizer phosphates everywhere in world so spreading near unstoppable also controlled but not all making it. Two bombs only are justified for ending WW II exploding in New York & Israel & whole USA in case of any counter attack from ciast with 400++km rockets from submarines or remote control preplaced also from or in other countries in world or from small groups or single person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.248.209 (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What is this non sense?
On July 28, North Korea launched a second, apparently more advanced, ICBM, with altitude around 3,700 km, that traveled 1,000 km; analysts estimated that it was capable of reaching the continental United States.[58] Can someone correct this? I doubt it flew to 3700km altitude and then crossed another 1000 km... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.136.66 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The altitude is about 3,700 km and the flying distance is about 1,000 km. It is estimated that it was a more advanced type of an ICBM compared to the previous one based on the range," a statement to CNN said." . Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And on a point of order comraid, nonsense is hypenated.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is hyphenated Dobrichev (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. That spelling mistake was intentional.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Haha. Well spotted! I guess that source just went ballistic? Not credible. Surely there must be other (credible) sources to the specific trajectory out there? RhinoMind (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to put things in perspective for those who easily gets confused over numbers: The International Space Station orbits around 400 km above ground. RhinoMind (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fun Fact: If the ICBM was to reach a height of 3700 km, it would need to attain a speed way in excess of 24,000 km per hour (15,000 miles per hour). I based my calculation on a strict vertical launch, without air resistance or other effects, and the basic formulas on escape velocity (see "Height of lower velocity trajectories" specifically) RhinoMind (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * These comments are themselves nonsense. This apogee and distance traveled is completely consistent with a test of an ICBM in a lofted trajectory. NPguy (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

History
One excuse after another to justify removal/censorship of information which anecdotaly the concecus among wikipedia users it to support it for this subject. Its issue with copyright then sources and now its labeled as opinion in history section involvong quote of historian who bases "his" opinion thus by those standards everything about history is solely opinion despite evidence. Also generalization of sources as "bat-shit crazy" (see my talk page) is just paintbrushing single color. Chernobog95 (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally coming to the talkpage. You're not making a very good case for inclusion of your preferred quote, though. Perhaps a little courtesy, along with a reasoned argument explaining why that particular quote you've been adding should receive special emphasis?  Acroterion   (talk)   02:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bruce Cumings is one of the leading scholars of Korean history, so his opinion is noteworthy. I see, however, problems with the format and the tone of that inclusion. The quote or something like it could be included in a balanced section discussion why North Korea wants nuclear weapons, which is sorely lacking in this article, which has a morass of technical details and a dearth of background information - apart from the paragraphs stashed under 'Overview'.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The main problem is presenting opinions as facts. I think this citation fits not as a factual summary of this history but as part of a balanced analysis of the underlying factors.  I emphasize "balanced," as this would need to be balanced with a range of views on North Korean motivations and the motivations of other key players. NPguy (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * His "opinions" as you and others label them is him telling facts and not his interpretation as United States has made threats of use of nuclear weapons/arms/assets against North Korea and has placed such in South Korea from bombs to missiles capable of reaching Pyongyang. Logical fallacies are being used to remove facts including ones not related to Bruce Cumings quotes such as from Scientific American. The content wasn't the issue initialy as the sources were and when more viable ones were put then the masks were off and fact is you people have issues with facts that go against narrative involving North Korea. Nobody except Bruce Cumings mentions that South invaded North by occupying Kuksa-bong mountain peak which wad strategicaly important and ROKA 2nd infantry regiment was there, that was in 1949. It seems to me from my personal experience that anything that goes in favor of North is challenged and facts don't matter in case them as it goes against narrative set since 1950's when crimes by US and ROK were blamed on DPRK. You people prefer one sided history of good versus evil. Chernobog95 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2017 (GTM 1+ )
 * we quite obviously are not going to present statements such as "United States has used nuclear threats and nuclear blackmail" in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:NEWSORG, which is guideline: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." You are much more likely to achieve consensus for inclusion of this material if you propose a wording that attributes the statement to the author and that complies with WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP NEWSORG guideline is guideline of generalization/blanket labeling and the way I inserted it is likely issue the content and facts should not be if truth and facts are actualy valued. I will try to revise and make it neutral as possible. I just dont want to do disservice to facts anf truth. Chernobog95 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2017 (GTM 1+)
 * If we were to include this on wiki would it not be better on the North Korea–United States relations page? While it does need some NPOV wording, we can certainly say that some analysts are critical of the US policy on NK. Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons types
The new section titled Nuclear weapons types seems out of place in this article. First, it is not necessary, as links to existing articles on Nuclear weapon design and Thermonuclear weapons would be sufficient to cover the subject matter. Second, it has the potential to introduce inconsistencies and errors among the various articles that address this topic. I recommend deletion of this section, but want to discuss first. NPguy (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, delete. While it's well-intentioned, it's unnecessary and out of place. If people actually want to know what a hydrogen bomb is they can go to that article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I removed it with a "See also" to Nuclear weapon design. VQuakr (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

History and overview
Shouldn't the two sections be combined in some way?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I now see that History is the history of WMDs and Overview is an overview of nuclear weapons in particular. But this is unnecessary duplication.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224231755/http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS0912.pdf to http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS0912.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 bomb test
The article currently says: "In September 2017 the country announced a further "perfect" hydrogen bomb test. The same uncertainty as to the type of weapon tested applies, as it did to the 2016 test." There is no citation for this, and no more information in the body of the lead nor the article on the test. It doesn't really make sense because the 2017 test was estimated as having a 250 kiloton yield and the 2016 test only 6-10. This states that the 2017 test leaves "less room for doubt". I will remove the second sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Flower of Reunification
I've removed this from "Nuclear weapons: Overview":
 * During the 13th World Festival of Youth and Students, which was held in North Korea in 1989, South Korean activist and "Flower of Reunification" Lim Su-kyung implied that North Korea should not seek nuclear weapons, saying: "The slogan 'Let us build a new world free from nuclear weapons!' will not be materialized by words alone. I'd like you to resolutely struggle against the anti-reunification forces, and give us support and encouragement. I, too, want to live in a country free from nuclear weapons; in my own land, and not infested with foreign forces and foreign army troops."

This has been tagged for the reliability of the source since April last year. I don't know about that, but Lim is a South Korean, and her comments were directed against the American forces in the South. I don't think this is very relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

North Korean nuclear capabilities, 2018
Latest updates for 2018 at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1413062?src=recsys for use in updating this wiki as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

correcting an editor's blunder ...
" There is little of strategic value in Alaska that a North Korean missile could hit ... BlackMarlin (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC) " - hmmm, two airbases with 6,000 personnel at each base, three major army bases, SEAFAC ... 50.111.48.95 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, Alaska has some obvious strategic value. No source was presented for this claim and it never made it into the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A wrong phrase
"based off Korea Meteorological Administration" I've changed it to "based on", but I'm still not sure whether it's a viable phrase. Something can be based on a material from somebody, but not on somebody. Should it be improved further?--Adûnâi (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK. "Based off" is colloquial.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Article should praise DPRK and its leadership for preserving their nation through obtaining MAD and not becoming past-tense states like the nuke-less Lybia, Iraq and Syria.
The blatantly negative attitude of this article is not encyclopaedic, but rather oozes of amero-zionist propaganda! All of us had seen what happened to the nuke-less nations of Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Lybia and what has been happening to Syria: all of them trumpled underfoot by imperialist invasions, hundreds of thousands of people killed, entire cities ruined by the dozen, anarchy of religious hatred and violence created. In contrast, the DRPK which successfully armed itself with nukes and IRBM/ICBMs has been living peacefully and is even respected by the imperialist-in-chief US president. Thus North Korea should be praised for becoming a nuclear power through perserverance, thereby using MAD to protect its citizens from My Lai style extermination and also preventing a war from breaking out in far-east Asia!

The american NRA says every single day that a well-armed (pistol carrying) society is a polite society. Yet, the capitalists who rule the world with their financial and military might condemn those who say a nuclear armed world would be a polite world and thus every nation, small and large, rich and poor must follow in the footsteps of the DRPK to arm themselves with nukes. Nuke-less countries are invariably razed from the face of Earth sooner or later, because their nuclear-armed invaders are immune to any counter-move by the international community. That is the truth coming from recent fate of the Ukraine and Karabakh-Armenia or in other words the NPT was a farce to begin with! In light of these developments the article shall praise DPRK and the wisdom of their Kim leaders for securing the present and future of their country. In contrast, the war to raze non-nuclear armed Iran bck to the stone ages is just about to break out before 20 Jan 2021. 84.236.83.221 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral: see WP:NPOV. The article should neither condemn nor praise. Please identify the text that you think is unencyclopedic or biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)