Union’s assistance that propelled North Korea to become a nuclear power. Why, with the end of the SovietUnion and the Cold War, is Russia still helping rogue regimes proliferate? The surface answer of course ismoney, in this case in the form of natural resources, but the deeper question remains. Russia is consideredto be a democracy. What would the people of the country think of their leaders giving such help to the likesof the SPDC and Than Shwe?In 1965, the Soviet Union gave North Korea a 2 MW reactor, which was upgraded in 1973 to 8 MW. It alsosupplied fuel through at least this period. North Korea then went on to construct a much larger reactor, andin the 1980s began weapons development. This included building separation facilities to obtain plutonium,and high explosives detonation tests. (We have received reports that the SPDC has already conducted suchtests, in the Setkhya Mountains, aka Sa Kyin Mountains, southeast of Mandalay.) At some point NorthKorea also began its own uranium enrichment program, to produce weapons grade material, and the U.S.confronted the country about this in 2002. This means that the North has two different sources of fissilematerial for weapons, reactor plutonium and enriched uranium.The North detonated a small atomic weapon, with a yield of less than one kiloton, in October 2006, usingsome of its plutonium. It is now reportedly about to disclose its nuclear assets, and also destroy its plutonium producing reactor, but the sticking point has been the enriched uranium. The North appearsunwilling to discuss this (and at this point to disclose its weapons cache), which means that even with thedestruction of the reactor and the plutonium stockpile (for the latter the size of which is subject to seriousdispute), the North would retain the ability to produce weapons with the uranium. At the moment the U.S.appears willing to accept partial disclosure, i.e., of only the plutonium.In addition to Russia, North Korean technicians have been helping Burma with its nuclear ambitions (andother weapons programs), and we have received information that the SPDC has given the North refineduranium in return, which may be destined for the enrichment program.This is all very disturbing, all the more so because of the apparent weakness of the Bush Administration,which has been unwilling to press the North, and which refuses even to mention Burma (its nuclear program). It took North Korea forty years before it detonated a weapon. It will likely take the SPDC only afraction of this period. Once the Burmese junta has atomic weapons, its rule will be entrenched, and itsneighbors, foremost Thailand, will be seriously endangered.
Precision-guided munitions
We have also previously reported that Burma has a wide variety of missile installations, including largequantities of land-based SAMs; ship-launched missiles, both surface to air and surface to surface; weaponsfor its MIG 29s; and even short range ballistic missiles. We have now received information that whileBurma formerly bought anti-aircraft weapons from the Ukraine, in 2007 it purchased four shiploads of suchweapons from Russia. We have also learned that the SPDC has multi-tube mechanized rocket launchersfrom North Korea. (Note: these may be for use with the ballistic missiles, and if so they confirm our earlier intelligence.)Moreover, Burma is researching the production of guided missiles, and with Russian assistance intends to build a rocket factory in Thazi Township. This will mark the latest step in a well-recognized proliferationof Russian precision-guided munitions in the Asia Pacific region. This class of weapons includes surface toair, to attack jets, and surface to surface to attack land-based targets and also ships. Cruise missiles fallwithin the category. We do not know which specific PGMs the factory intends to produce, only that theywill be medium range guided rockets and that production is scheduled to begin within five years.It is clear that the SPDC is intent on developing a strong defense against an international intervention,including foreign jets, helicopters and ships. Perhaps one reason why the U.S. and the French balked atdropping relief supplies following Cyclone Nargis was the risk of missile attack on their helicopters andships.
Military modernization
Leave a Comment