N Korea threatens US with first strike (AGAIN!)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Airwolf

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
630
Location
Southern PRK
N Korea threatens US with first strike

Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up

Jonathan Watts in Pyongyang
Thursday February 6, 2003
The Guardian

North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday. Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.

"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."

His comments came on a day when tension was apparent in Pyongyang, with an air-raid drill that cleared the city's streets and the North's announcement that it has begun full-scale operations at the Yongbyon nuclear plant, the suspected site of weapons-grade plutonium production.

Since reopening the plant in December, the North has kicked out international inspectors and withdrawn from the global treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Anxiety in North Korea has been rising since Washington announced plans in the past week to beef up its military strength in the area. Additional bombers will be sent to the region, along with 2,000 extra troops who will serve alongside the 17,000 already stationed on the North-South border. USS Carl Vinson may also be deployed.

According to Pyongyang, the USS Kitty Hawk has already taken up strike position in waters off the peninsula. The US says that reinforcements are needed to warn Pyongyang that it should not try to take advantage of Washington's focus on Iraq.

North Korean officials fear the extra forces are the start of the build-up for a full-scale confrontation - a dangerous assumption that could push the peninsula over the edge.

During the last crisis, when the Pentagon planned a surgical strike on the Yongbyon nuclear plant, American generals were convinced that the North would rather launch a surprise attack than wait for a US military build-up.

Mr Ri said today's stand-off is more dangerous: "The present situation can be called graver than it was in 1993. It will be touch and go."

The crisis erupted in October when a US envoy to Pyongyang confronted the regime with suspicions that North Korea was engaged in a uranium enrichment programme, in violation of the 1994 agreement which ended the last crisis.

To punish the North, the US cut off supplies of 500,000 tonnes a year of heavy fuel oil, a severe blow to a nation that is desperately short of energy. The north of the country is worst hit but power shortages are apparent even in the capital, where temperatures have fallen as low as -21C recently.

The North claims that the Yongbyon nuclear plant is being used for peaceful purposes. "The US stopped our oil so our country faces a critical shortage of electricity," Mr Ri said. "Our nuclear activities will be confined only to producing electricity."

Both sides say they are committed to finding a diplomatic solution but remain far apart in their demands. Pyongyang wants a non-aggression treaty but Washington has said it will not reward blackmail and has hinted only at a written guarantee of the North's security.

Concern about the crisis has prompted South Korea and Japan to pressure the US to take a softer line. In a sign that this may be working, the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage said for the first time yesterday that the US would definitely hold direct talks with the North. "It is just a question of when we do it and how," he told the Senate.

A breakthrough stills looks distant. The European Union plans to send a high-level delegation to North Korea later this month to mediate, but similar envoys from Russia and South Korea achieved little because the North insists that the issue is a bilateral matter with the US.

The North has shown a willingness to open up to other na tions. In an important development, a new road link to South Korea was used for the first time yesterday.

But the North know that the nuclear issue stands in the way of progress, prompting a request that Britain intercede. "The US must sign a non-aggression treaty," Mr Li said.

"I hope that Britain can help to persuade them to do so."

· Japan may deploy two destroyers near North Korea to detect missile launches, the Kyodo news agency reported on yesterday. Quoting unspecified government sources, it said Tokyo believes it increasingly likely that ballistic missiles will be test-fired as part of the North's brinkmanship.
 
commies over in n.korea are just a little fish in a big pond strutting their stuff.their first strike would be followed by "payback" an alot of it.
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen:

Let us not forget the last time we got into a little dust-up over that rugged peninsula. There is a certain large neighbor of Pyongyang that views western encroachments into its sphere of influence with a very jaundiced eye.

This is not so simple a matter as 'bye bye commieland.' :rolleyes:

Mike
 
ahhhhh.the neighboring bear.all neighboring countries should be concerned about the nukes n.korea has.by the way,whats left after everyone that gets the idea that they too now "need" nukes -gets one?then everyone gets to set around waiting for the other guy to flinch.it has to stop.i dont know the true intentions for wanting a nuke over there,but,why now?
 
China likes money. China likes trade. A war by North Korea scares all the wealth away. China says stop and North Korea says no. It takes but a week for Kim Jong Il to go!

Where is the interest for the Chinese? Maybe they want a war with us? WW III just a few airstrikes away? Stay tuned ladies and gentlemen.
 
There is a certain large neighbor of Pyongyang that views western encroachments

Perhaps we should borrow a rule from their playbook. Inform China that any attack by North Korea on South Korea or the United States will be viewed as an act of war BY CHINA. Let China to straighten them out.
 
The DPRK has it's back to the wall. The end of “Dynastic Communism†is in sight and it’s pretty well left the country a basket case. Instead of providing for the people the government has drained the country for the sole benefit of building up the military and keeping those privileged few in power comfortable while the rest of the population suffers and starves to death.

Let’s face it, Kim Jong-Il isn’t playing with a full deck. Something like Michael Jackson living inside a protected, surrealistic bubble.

Saddam Hussein is worrisome but somewhat predictable. He came to power by getting his hands dirty, a street thug type. Kim Jong-Il didn’t. He was groomed from birth to lead and as such doesn’t have a true frame of reference as to North Korea’s place in the world. Is he crazy enough to take the country with him when it’s clear that the party is over? I think he is.

Remember, even the Soviet Union played with the idea of the a Doomsday Device (almost exactly like the “Dr. Strangelove†concept except it was to be a ship, not bombs buried on an island). Good old Nikita Sergeievich was properly appalled by the idea and put a stop to the plan. I think Russia was more important to him than Communism. The Rodina comes first, in much the same way we here see America above the politics of Democrat vs. Republican.

Kruschev could see a world beyond Communism but not one where Russia didn’t exist. Can Kim Jong-Il see something similar? I doubt it.

North Korea’s bombastic rhetoric could be a prelude to a “suicide by cop†scenario played out on a grand scale.
 
Red Chinese evaporate the same way N.Koreans do when the "Big Sylvania Blue-Dot"tm in the sky goes off.

I'm with Hkmp5sd on this one.


Lisa: "Nuke the Whales?!?"

Nelson: "Gotta nuke sumthin'."

Lisa: "Touche!":rolleyes: :D ;)
 
Oh, Man, I don't need this right now! I just put my son-in-law on a plane at BWI headed over to Seoul for a year flying Blackhawks. NK is scary, but China is moreso. 'Course we gots a different President now.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
My main point is that the North Korean issue is not as simple as USA v. North Korea. It is USA v. North Korea with China as a very large loose cannon rolling around on deck. China is obviously as leery of Pyongyang as we are- witness the fact that China has no interest in supplying them with any nukes, lest the nutjob decide to lob a few their way. However, China is EVER leery of western influence increasing in what they perceive as "their" slice of the Pacific Rim. This makes defusing this particular powderkeg a difficult proposition. It will make Iraq look like a cake-walk.

Mike
 
Does anyone think China will step in to stop retaliation after a N. Korean first strike?

I doubt it.

N. Korea can only expect Chinese support so long as they don't make an aggressive move, particularly not at actual US territory.
 
North Korea scares me more than it apparently scares the administration. At least with Saddam, he doesn't have nukes (we think), and he's kind of predictable in a thuggish, power-crazed kind of way. Kim Jong strikes me as much more unpredictable, and he's already got nukes. And making more. And not exactly shy about it. And threatening first strikes. And by all accounts a possibly in-bred alcoholic. This is not comforting.

If he does go off the deep end and start something, will China be there to protect him? Short answer: "No." Now, if we start some preemptive thing, it's a bit more dicey, but I still can't imagine China would get involved militarily, so long as our objective was to remove an immediate threat and not to establish a 51st state on its border. The problem, of course, is that even a preemptive strike may well trigger a whole lot more deaths than anyone is anticipating in Iraq.

This worries me.
 
Airwolf:

I am a self-declared "old Korea hand," and I must say that your analysis of Noth Korea was extremely insightful.

However, I do think that perhaps you underplay the role of self-preservation in your thoughts. Because Hitler was such a looming figure of the early- to mid-20th Century, we tend to see many dictators as being given to the ideas of self-imolating Götterdamerung in the Hitlerite fashion.

But Hitler was a "visionary," however twisted. I don't see Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il as visionaries. Provided that we leave an avenue out for personal survival, no matter how small, we can discourage self-immolation, provided, of course, that we stare these weaker powers down in the game of chicken.

I think, despite the rhetoric, what will affect the North Korean regime is not our own rhetoric but our demonstrable actions vis-a-vis Iraq. How that turns out will have the most relevant bearing on how WE and THEY will act in the aftermath.
 
I'm sure we're equipped to blow NK off the map. but where's that going to leave us? Forces in Iraq, NK, somewhere around (?) China and Afganistan, sounds like there'll be not alot of forces still in the U.S. Thats when we'd be ripe for homeland trouble. Guess they'd be bringing in UN forces here then to keep the peace. Complete with martial law, abuses and destruction.:(

It doesnt bode well even if we do well.
 
I'm sure we're equipped to blow NK off the map. but where's that going to leave us? Forces in Iraq, NK, somewhere around (?) China and Afganistan, sounds like there'll be not alot of forces still in the U.S. Thats when we'd be ripe for homeland trouble.
We can't be sure, but I do not think that post-Saddam Hussein Iraq will require such a large American military presence.

North Korea will NOT require any American presence. If the North Korean regime implodes or is toppled, South Korea takes the responsibility for it (as West Germany did with East Germany).

Afghanistan is tricky because it never really had a strong tradition of a single nation-state. This is a potential problem.

Forces near China? That's what we have Taiwan and the 7th Fleet for! :)
 
These sneaky sh*ts aren't THAT crazy; maybe they're just looking at what hapened to Japan and Germany, and thinking "Hmm, if we LOSE a war, maybe we'll all get Barcaloungers, 21" TV's, and all the McDonald's we can eat, instead of being forced to march in those godforsaken uniforms".
 
I'm not sure if my thinking will make sense. This however the following just a mere observation from our past......

Seems to me that in the beginning of WWII as we were finally envolved in the European campaign that we got back doored by The Japanese. Has anyone seem the similarity in today's situation? Thinking back then I see Japan was a greater threat than Hitler. Though todays scenerio is different I tend to agree with everyones thinking here. N. Korea is more of threat and demands (like babies) the need for more immediate attention.

Saddam isn't going anywhere. He's boxed in so to speak. If he is producing such weapons we can take care of hime latter. One must admit he has a great poker face with that cigar crammed in his mouth. (I dream of cramming it elsewhere---Bill Clinton)

However I'd like to see the look on Kin Jongs face if we transfered all (or most) of all the troops we have on Saddams doorstep over to the Korean theater. Then we send Kim a message (fed-ex style) that reads something like "whats all this talk about about your making a first strike?" and include a case of John Wayne toilet paper. (don't take no S*&t off nobody).

I'm sure americans would be more willing to spend money on helping N.K. than to see its lower class innocents obliterated due to ones mans stupidity.

Wanna talk............we're willing to listen. Drop the saber rattling hosh posh, grow up and be a part of an ever increasing world of nations filled with fruits and nuts.

:banghead:
 
Your probably right Mr. Mitch. My apologies if I erred in a small way. I'm not a historical brain child for sure. But I think my other point was pretty appropriate for sure. ;)

I should do more reading on history before I open my big fat mouth so I can back up what I say. Duh.:scrutiny:
 
Actually, the US doesn't need to transfer troops to south Korea.

South Korea already has 650K troops right there, and there are 37K US troops there, plus those in Japan etc...

Lots of handy US friendly forces already in place, so no need to build up like for Iraq.

Not to mention the carrier group, and all those submarines....


I expect China and Russia are looking at Kim Il Sung and saying "You moron!, don't DO that...".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top