David Albright and Jackie Shirer have a really excellent op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that North Korea has significantly met its commitments to disable its plutonium production facilities and declare past nuclear activities. (For recent blog posts on disablement and the declaration, see Its All About (Water) Chemistry and NORKs Miss Deadline, Slow Disablement)
In particular, Albright and Shire coin an apt phrase to describe North Korea’s uranium enrichment program (UEP): “a footnote in the context of its plutonium production.”
On the subject of apt phrases, Albright and Shire also indirectly pay homage to Arms Control Wonk.com, referring to the suspect Syrian facility near Dayr Al Zwar as the “box in the desert”:
As for the “box in the desert” that Israel bombed in September, it is gone now and whatever has replaced it is almost certainly not a reactor.
Regular readers will remember that I coined the phrase Box on the Euphrates to allow myself and readers to refer to the facility without prejudging its purpose.
My inclination is to be flattered that they adopted the terminology, although certain correspondents suggest I ought to be miffed at their having avoided using the original formulation and, therefore, direct acknowledgment.
I recognize, however, the possibility of potential improvements. Although I think “on the Euphrates” is a more accurate description of the box’s location, the acronym “BID” has certain advantages. For example, we could could refer to the study of the characteristics and purposes of the facility — heretofore known as “boxology” — as “BID-ness” as in “Taking Care of BID-ness.” It’s a tough call.
What say you, loyal readers?