onthebottom said:
Sucks,
Why don't you burden us with that source....
OTB
Here is an article from Yonhap News, a South Korean wire service:
U.S. nuclear strike on N.K. plant may claim 550,000 lives: expert
Complete excerpts from the article:
U.S. nuclear strike on N.K. plant may claim 550,000 lives: expert
SEOUL, May 2 (Yonhap) -- A British expert claimed Monday that a U.S. nuclear strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities in Yongbyon could create up to 550,000 victims, including South Koreans and Japanese, citing the results of a simulation test by a U.S. non-governmental organization.
John Large, an independent nuclear consultant who has advised governments around the world, said in an interview with Yonhap News Agency in Seoul that the U.S. has adopted a new "first strike" policy in its dealings with North Korea, claiming the policy also endangers the lives of South Koreans and Japanese.
"The fallout would be considerable and spread -- depending on weather -- over South Korea and parts of Japan," Larger said.
The estimated number of casualties would range from 430,000 to 550,000, he said.
He cited a nuclear simulation test by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S. environmental organization that opposes the proliferation of nuclear weapons and waste. In its "After the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review" published early this year, the organization estimated the possible impact of a U.S. nuclear strike on North Korea, using recently declassified government documents, the British expert said.
With the wind blowing in a southeasterly direction, a B61-11 strike with a 300-kt capacity would have a radioactive fallout zone that extended over one-third of South Korea and parts of Japan, the expert quoted the U.S. magazine as saying.
"The use of a single B61-11 Earth-Penetrator would kick up huge amounts of contaminated soil and debris," he said, adding that the U.S. would be likely to choose a time when local winds were blowing toward South Korea rather than Russia or China.
He said Washington could be expected to deploy the nuclear bunker buster if necessary because North Korea has buried its military facilities dozens of meters underground. It is also difficult for the U.S. military to launch a large-scale strike on the North, he said.
Bunker busters, also called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, are U.S.-designed bombs that penetrate deep into the earth before exploding to destroy buried targets.
He said Washington has seen its options for dealing with North Korea dwindle recently, as tension mounts over North Korea's remarks on its nuclear capability. North Korea issued an official statement in February claiming possession of nuclear weapons and has since raised the possibility that it may be preparing nuclear weapon tests.
Pyongyang conducted a short-range missile test toward the East Sea on Sunday, South Korean intelligence officials and U.S. authorities confirmed.
"The U.S. have increased nuclear strike capacity against North Korea. The thing is that the U.S. cut down the options for dealing with North Korea," Large said.
Large is an internationally recognized nuclear consultant, having advised on Taiwan's nuclear waste disposal and Japan's transportation of plutonium.
His claim on the possibility of a U.S. nuclear attack on North Korea was refuted by South Korean nuclear expert Kim Tae-woo, who said a decision by Washington to deploy its nuclear arsenal on the Korean Peninsula is "unlikely."
"It would be a difficult decision to make for the United States to strike Yongbyon, in consideration of international political circumstances. And it is also unrealistic (that they would) send a nuclear weapon rather than a conventional one into a tightly packed region like the Korean Peninsula," he said.
Yongbyon, 90 kilometers north of Pyongyang, is the site of North Korea's nuclear complex. The communist state recently stopped running a 5-megawatt research reactor there in what many speculate is a bid to reprocess nuclear fuel, a move that has raised the stakes in its nuclear standoff with the United States.
(END)
The study presented at the University of Maryland (PDF):
US Nuclear Planning After the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review
... cut him some slack already, I haven't heard anything like that since the left brayed about Reagan in the 80's ...
