Whom I Should Believe on Al-Kibar
Image via Wikipedia
Joshua at OFK must be one of the few intelligible pundits on the planet who still seriously takes the CIA at its word. From Total Wonkerr: «Too bad there isn't some international agency with the capacity to provide an independent assessment of this sort of thing…»
Well, perhaps ACW can give us some technical details?
Despite early press reports that the fuel channels atop the Al Kibar reactor core were identical to Yongbyon, I and others — including Geoff Forden, Cheryl Rofer and Richard Wendland — see some pretty significant differences that suggest Al Kibar might have been quite a bit smaller than its North Korean cousin.
To be clear, I don't doubt that Al Kibar was a reactor and, although I think the evidence of North Korean involvement is less impressive than early press reports suggested, that's my working hypothesis too.
But I don't understand the claim that Al Kibar is a copy of Yongbyon in the strict sense — in particular, I don't understand how the IC concluded that Al Kibar is the same size as Yongbyon.
Noah Schachtman is still calling it a 'mystery'.
So, there's something to wait for. If, that is, you don't just believe the CIA!
Barrapunto
CoRank Español
Delicious
Enchílame
Fresqui Ocio
Furl
Google Bookmarks
Menéame
Netscape
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Technorati Favorites
Yahoo MyWeb
2 comments
No trackbacks
RSS 2.0
Bloglines
Live
MyAOL
Netvibes
Newsgator
Rojo