Topic awaiting preservation: North Korea prepared to launch pre-emptive strike? (Page 1 of 2)

So, I just ran across an article entitled N. Korea threatens US with first strike.

And now the pundits are saying this is worse than it was in '93 (when, by the way, most South Koreans had no idea that there was an actual crisis). Everything I know about North Korea is telling me that they're bluffing, but I can't help feeling a little concerned. My biggest fear is that North Korea will back themselves into a corner and then feel that they have no choice but to fight. That would be very bad.

This reminds me... I've been putting off registering at the embassy (for the past, um, seven years or so--it's just one of those things you never get around to doing). I think I'll go do that now...

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-06-2003).]

It's extremely worrying.

I agree with you that this is most likely their attempt at getting as many concessions as they can while they think we're too occupied with Iraq to seriously do anything about them. Everything we're hearing from the Bush administration indicates that a diplomatic solution will be pursued. But now that they have nukes, I'm afraid sooner or later something will have to be done to prevent them from using them or selling them to rogue states or terrorists.

It's extremely worrying.

Hmmm...

Strange, what kind of effects the current stance to Iraq is producing, is it not? Why does this not surprise me...

I think the situation is one of a very grave nature...and I'm very interested in how Mr. Bush intends to deal with it.

If it actually leads to a non-violent solution, then I fear that Nuclear Weapons will be the main focus of almost all lands, afterwards...for it seems that if you have nukes, there will be no war...if you don't, then look out...it's a question of survival.

A non-agression treaty...since when has that protected anybody...hmmm. What I don't see, is the reason why North Korea should get rid of their Nukes (from their perspective)...it's the only thing that is protecting them, at this point...

That's a scary thought...

Does anyone have the link to those propaganda posters that show a North Korean soldier literally throwing nukes onto the U.S. Capitol Building with his bare hands?

WS, why does it bother me that you are pointing out that dealing with a nuclear armed adversary is different than dealing with one that isn't? What in the world would you expect? This is one of the most compelling reasons to do something about Iraq BEFORE they get nukes or they could hold the entire Middle East hostage. What am I missing here?

Well, Bugs, I'm for disarming North Korea...actually, I'm for a regime change...and for re-unification of the two Koreas. I personally feel that the North Korean situation is much more dangerous than the situation in Iraq...which is now slowly starting to dawn on both the people, and Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush's focus on Iraq, in light of the North Korean situation was stupid (IMHO). He should have focused on a clear and present danger. That means North Korea first. This of course, would have meant putting Iraq on the 'back burner' for a minute...not only have I been saying this for awhile now, but many others, as well.

Then, Mr. Bush could have dealt with the crisis...without the 'warmonger' label attached to his collar...which, quite frankly, is literally scaring the world to death, and increasing paranoia...which is a very dangerous thing (as we can now see). Super-paranoid North Korea is getting even more so...and now they have nukes...

As for the nuke question in North Korea...you know very well we allowed that situation to happen...Mr. Bush allowed that situation to happen..because he needed Pakistan on board for Afghanistan. And Pakistan gave North Korea those centerfuges...and data, to do computer explosion tests...we knew that, at the time...and it was 'covered up', because we needed Pakistan at the time...

Acting from the gut, apparently, isn't such a good idea, now is it?

You see, I agree that Saddam has to go...I just don't see it as being as important as the North Korean issue...and that, long before this situation came to light. Saddam is a long way from actually producing Nukes. There was more than enough time, to deal with North Korea first. Then, one could have turned ones attention to Iraq.

Then, it looks like America is actually being reasonable...a diplomatic solution for North Korea (maybe)...and then we don't look like war-mongers in Iraq...interesting, isn't it...and the Nukes are safely out of the way...and North Korea wouldn't have been so 'ready' for an American reaction to the nuke thing...

Now, the situation is really bad...and Mr. Bush is being squeezed. To continue in Iraq...and have North Korea attack at his back...not a good scenario. Or, cave into North Koreas demands (or ignore North Korea totally), which sends the wrong message - get nukes, be safe.

Do you now understand? I'm hoping, that you will see this. Veterans, and generals, have been pointing out the North Korean threat for years...why did Mr. Bush ignore this? North Korea should have been the first on the list!

A side note - remember, Iraq was pre-empted by Israel on that Nuclear reactor...which, as things turned out, was a very good thing. So we prevented Saddam from having nukes in the past. We could have done the same thing to North Korea...and it was even planned, back in 1994. Should have been carried out, IMHO. Look where we are now...

Also, we really blew it on Pakistan...from the beginning (of their nuclear programs) to the end...technology shared with North Korea.

Now that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, it's proving very difficult, to put it back in.

Another thing I would like to point out...the difference between a threat that has nukes, and a threat that doesn't. Which one is more threatening? Which one is more dangerous? I think that is clear, right? So why are we concentrating on Iraq first, instead of on North Korea?



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-06-2003).]

I think I've got to agree with WS on this. North Korea has been a threat for a long time (pretty much ever since the nation came into existence), but the US has never really known how to deal with that threat (or at the least they have never come up with a consistent policy for dealing with that threat).

I hope it is not too late to do something about it this time, but I have a feeling that no matter which way things go we are not going to get a satisfactory conclusion. Every day that goes by, North Korea becomes more firmly entrenched in their position. Every word out Bush's mouth directed toward Iraq finds its way to the ears of Kim Jong-il, where it plants seeds of doubt and fear, feeding the already tremendous paranoia of a nation that is getting more and more desperate.

Given time, the current North Korean regime would probably collapse under its own weight. It would seem now, though, that we may not have the luxury to wait until that happens. I know this may sound like a call for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, but it is not (believe, that's the last thing I want right now). I'm just saying that WS is right and the US government needs to figure out what to do about the DPRK now.

My hope, of course, is that this will all blow over, as it has done in the past. I would really like to keep on believing that, especially since there is nothing much I can do about it one way or another. It's just that I haven't seen things get this bad in a while...

And this is for PT:

Propaganda Poster (approx. 60k)

The text at the bottom of the poster reads: "Merciless punishment for the United States!"

Lovely, isn't it?

[Edit: While we're at it, here's another version (approx. 20k)

The text at the bottom of this one reads: "We're going to massacre the American bastards first!"

Boy, that was even better than the first one!

By the way, I yanked these off of this thread from metafilter, where they had a discussion on North Korea a few days ago.

If anyone one finds anything else they want me to translate, let me know. I miss translating DPRK propaganda. ]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-06-2003).]

Suho1004: There is another one of those posters (with a large red soldier on it) on the front page of the Guardian today accompanying this scary article:
www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,890907,00.html

Ah following the links above the image is here:
www.philben.net/images/blog/NK3.jpg

from the collection here:
http://corsair.blogspot.com/2003_01_01_corsair_archive.html#88325848

is that translation right?:

quote:

---

A Heavy Blow to Coercion.
Merciless Chastisement to Punishment!

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I think back to the anti-Japanese empire propoganda posters in WWII and see a difference here. Those used to have very ugly characterizations of Japanese soldiers but these just focus on the symbols of the USA like the White House and the flag. Is that because the world generally likes Americans but dislikes the American govt?

[edit] Check these out http://www.snapshotsofthepast.com/war-posters-anti-japanese.html [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-07-2003).]

A week or so ago I watched a round-table discussion with a group of so-called experts on war. one was of the adamant opinon that in approximately 6 months the US would be in NK. While none of the others would totally agree neither did any, adamantly, disagree. It was a very sobering and disconcerting discussion.

quote:

---

I'm just saying that WS is right and the US government needs to figure out what to do about the DPRK now.

---

Why do you label this a US problem?

Looks like more of a South Korean and possibly Japanese problem to me.

I don't see any more of a threat to the US posed by NK than that which is posed by Iraq.

The nuke issue doesn't threaten the US, as they don't have the tech to hurl it this way, nor the tech to make them small enough to hand off to a terrorist.

So why do you label this a US problem?

Genis: Kneejerk comment here. S Korea's enforcer, like it or not is the US. The US will not let Japan get whacked either. Ergo a US problem.

What I see down the road as being a *huge* problem is China sitting on the side lines letting the US go in and do its protecterate type roll in that area SK NK and then when China, as it surely will, decides it's time to assume control of Taiwan which it considers a rogue state... China will say 'hey buddy we didn't say shit when you whacked NK so butt outta our bizness with Taiwan." And in what's left of *my* tiny little mind this is where and when the *very real and very scarey* showdown will come. Hopefully I'm very wrong but with China embracing capitalism in the form of Hong Kong, allowing for backdoor income... it's pretty obvious to me that Taiwan will provide the same type of back door. Then when China decides it is time to increase the cash flow it will go in.... or at the very least aquiece (sp? to a similar Hong Kong/British situation whereby a century from now China assumes control of Taiwan. And no... I ain't been haulin' on WebS's pipe... but I could do with a pull right about now.

Genis - Ok, so we stay away from North Korea...we let them develop full blown nuclear capability...we let them attack and conquer South Korea, we ket them attack Japan...how many other small asian countries do we let them invade and conquer - all the time growing larger and more powerful, pulling more land/people under their sway - before we decide they are in fact a threat to the US, and take some sort of action?

I really don't get your big kick lately...

We have vested interests in both Korea and Japan - on top of any moral obligation to look after *their* interests...

"with great power comes great responsibility"

And as well as what DL has said:

1. They are known distributers of 'restricted technology' - they swapped their long range missile knowledge with Pakistan in return for a kick start to their nuclear program. As they are in dire straits (not the band - that would be bad enough) I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about swapping the products of this progam for something else of use.

2. The North Korean people are ina bad way after years of famine and isolation.

If we can engage them in dialougue and be persuaded to swap their nuclear technology for aid then who loses out there?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps: Well, I suppose that translation is correct enough, although he missed some of the nuance: the original does not really say "A Heavy Blow to Coercion," it's more like "A Heavy Blow for Coercion," as in "in retaliation for." Another important thing he missed is that "chastisment" should be in quotes--which makes a big difference. The guy did mention that he needed to get hold of dictionary before he could translate them, which would leave me to believe that he doesn't translate for a living. But it's close enough.

genis: OK, obviously you have never read anything I have ever posted on this subject, otherwise you would understand why it is a US problem and not a South Korean or Japanese problem. For starters, the Japanese are extremely loathe to get involved in Asian affairs outside of Japan, and for obvious reasons--the last time they did so they earned themselves the undying hatred of the rest of Asia. As for South Korea, well, that's a more complicated issue, but the simple fact of the matter is that South Korea alone does not have the military strength to stand up against North Korea (the only thing that has kept the DPRK from overrunning the ROK is the presence of the US military).

There are other things involved as well, most of which make sense if you think about it. As I'm sure you're aware, the Korean peninsula is a very small place (a fraction of the size of Texas, for example)--if the DPRK were going to use nuclear weapons, it would be anywhere but on the Korean peninsula. You also have to remember that, despite being two countries, the North and South are still one people, and both sides dream of reunification one day (although their proposed methods are rather different). The South Korean government's position at this time is one of tolerance, and whether or not that is really in their best interest (I'm not sure anymore, to be honest with you), they cannot afford to take a hostile stance toward North Korea. Having the US play the "bad guy" allows South Korea to continue to pursue its policy of tolerance--kind of like "good cop, bad cop."

This leads me to my next point: the issue of whether the US is the "world cop" aside, the DPRK nuclear issue became a US problem the minute the US took a hostile stance toward the DPRK (symbolized by the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric). Let me ask you this: if the DPRK does use nuclear weapons, where do you think they're going to go? And you think the US should sit back and let South Korea and Japan deal with a problem that they have no interest in dealing with?

Believe me, if anyone wants a peaceful solution to this, it's me. War here would suck immensely. I was talking with my wife about it the other night, and she said, "If war breaks out, we should go live with my parents." (On a side note, this sort of conversation is not uncommon here. We've been talking about what we would do if war breaks out ever since I got here.) Her parents live south of Seoul, in the countryside. The remainder of the conversation went like this:

Me: "Are you crazy? If war breaks out we have to leave the country!"
Wife: "Why? North Korea is targeting Yongsan (US military base in Seoul), we'll be safe outside of the city."
Me: "What, you think they are just going to take out Yongsan, stop there, and go home again?"
Wife: "Oh, it won't be like the Korean War. Wars aren't about land acquisition anymore."
Me: "Wars are always about land acquisition. That's why mere bombing runs don't work. And North Korea is not going to stop at Yongsan. If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, North Korea knows that it's do or die, and they are not going to stop until they reach Busan (the southernmost port city in Korea). Once they start, they're not going to stop."
Wife: "..."

And that's the truth. Do I think North Korean troops would attack unarmed citizens? Probably not. In fact, they would probably view themselves as "liberators." But that doesn't change the fact that they won't stop until every US soldier and allied Korean soldier is dead.

Of course, North Korea would never survive a war on the Korean peninsula, even if they did manage to "win" (which is highly unlikely in itself). They know this, which is why they are pushing their nuclear program--in their eyes, that's the only thing that can save them.

I wish I knew how all this was going to end. I wish I could say with certainty that North Korea will fold under threat of military action. But they may very well become a cornered beast and fight to the death. I really hope it doesn't come to that. There is a third option, of course, but I'm not sure how likely that is. That third option is a rebellion in North Korea against the current regime--an implosion, basically. But no one knows how it is going to play out. Right now I'm just waiting and praying, and going on with my life as I have these past years.

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-08-2003).]

Emps managed to sneak in a reply while I was typing (yup, that must have been real difficult).

One comment: I don't think North Korea will swap nuclear technology for aid, not know that they believe the US is out to get them. If they give up their nuclear technology, they give up their only bargaining chip.

That being said, North Korea may not be as paranoid as they appear. The government is deliberately trying to scare its people into believing that the US is the Great Satan (to borrow a phrase) that will not stop until it has slaked its thirst with the blood of the Korean people. Do they really believe that themselves? To an extent, maybe, but I think they also understand something of the reality of the situation. Most of the current rhetoric, though, is merely an attempt to set the DPRK up as the oppressed underdog and the US as the big bully.

Whether they are truly paranoid or whether they are just putting up a front, though, they're still not going to be too eager to trade away the only thing that makes them a power at this point.

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-08-2003).]

Thanx for filling in my knee-jerk. Now just remember what I said about china. I'm 55 years old. I will be dead within 20 years I am sure. The overwhelming majority of the inmates here (actuarily) in the year 2025 will have about the same 20-25 years before they (you) are dead. ( i don't care what science comes up with)
I put it to you that no matter how much (the collective/Royal) *WE* might not want it, there is NO avoiding a showdown between the most populace and the most affluent. Just who do you suppose that comes down to??? Say what you will about Capitalism but know full well that NOBODY loves money more than a socialist. eg. Hong Kong... Taiwan... bla bla.

Well when dealing with Kim, if you don't want a pre-emp right now, there's nothing much the US can do about them.

We've tried appeasing him with aid, we've tried containing him so he couldn't get nuke capability, nothing has worked.

If you would like a pre-emp, then US will be there, as soon as we are done with Iraq.
Or, of course, if NK attacks the DMZ or any other country, NK will become our top priority.

Because, like it or not, the US will do what is best for the US first, our mainland, protectorates and bases, etc.

And I just don't see NK as any more of an imminent threat to the US than Iraq.
Biological and chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists are the driving thought for pre-emp on both of these countries, from the US perspective.

So, we'll take out the one we have easiest claim over first... which is Iraq, as it has broken multiple UN resolutions as well as having broken our ceasefire agreement.

Obviously, pre-emps are a hard sell to the world community.. that much we've seen for sure.
And it's not like Saddam is a teddy bear or something.

And since pre-emps are such a hard sell on a country as boldly defiant of the world community that kicked its ass 12 years back, like Iraq, then NK would be muuuuch tougher.

They are a sovereign country over which we hold no claim due to their past aggressions, unlike Iraq.
Except for some tunneling under the DMZ, NK has upheld their end of the Korean War armistice.

So far, NK has done nothing but threaten us from within its own borders and broken an economic pact with the US, which we upheld already by ceasing economic aid when they confessed to clandestine Nuke research ops.


So I say, if the world just gets up and says "Please US, please pre-emp NK for the sake of the world." then we can immediately turn our attention away from Iraq and take out NK first.

But as it is, we started the Iraq thing before we knew of NK's clandestine nuke operations, and Iraq is still the easiest target to sway world opinion to do a pre-emp on.

I think the only people who could disagree are those who feel an attack on Iraq is not justified in the first place, which is totally wrong, but by now if they still believe that, debating with those people is a lost cause.

So where am I wrong on this?

I just believe that NOBODY outside the US even thinks of the possibility of preemptive war against North Korea. Call me naive. Preemptive wars are SUPPOSED to be hard to sell. They are for a reason.

quote:

---

Except for some tunneling under the DMZ, NK has upheld their end of the Korean War armistice.

---

Oh boy, you'll have to give me a moment to stop laughing here.

OK, I think I'm good to go now. First, I'd like to clear a few things up. For starters, I don't know nearly as much about Iraq as I do about North Korea, so I'm going to stay away from that issue. This thread was supposed to be about the DPRK anyway, so I'm going to stick with that.

You asked where you are wrong on this, though, so that's why I quoted that sentence above. You obviously do not know all much about North Korea and the history of Korea since the Korean War if you think that the only thing North Korea has done wrong is "a little tunneling under the DMZ." I guess you haven't heard of the spy subs that North Korea sends over all the time (and one of which ran aground a few years ago). Or what about the naval clashes that started with North Korea violating the NLL. And forget the numerous spies that live and operate in South Korea. Oh, I guess I shouldn't mention the fact that the DPRK interferes in ROK politics all the time.

OK, I've got to go to bed now, but I just wanted to set the record straight on that point. Not that I necessarily think we should go for a pre-emptive strike, but North Korea is so far from innocent it's not funny.

Before I go, though, I'd like to say that I do not favor a pre-emptive strike. Given our apparent inability to launch a pre-emptive strike these days without giving a few months notice (and given North Korea's already high state of alert), a move like this on our part might drive North Korea to launch its own pre-emptive strike. Do you know where this pre-emptive strike is going to fall? No, not the US--the fury of North Korea will fall on the US military base in Yongsan, Seoul. Needless to say, this would pretty much suck for me and everyone else here.

So, if at all possible, I would prefer a peaceful solution. Does it seem possible right now? Well, I'm not sure, but as a famous personality once said, "Not even the wise can see all ends." I can only hope that everything works out in the end.

Now, I'm getting kind of tired, and my brain isn't working too well anymore, so I'd better be going.

Eventually, the ultimate end to all conflict is submission from one side.

Submission from Saddam or Kim can obviously only be mete out by force.

The US isn't some magical wizard that can make things go away without the threat and, if needed, use of force.

But if the world community feels like playing out their eventual downfall through the same thinking that caused WWII, I say the US should lock up tight for the night, build up defenses, and just wait for the rest of the world to implode upon itself.

We should wipe our hands of the world that no longer remembers its savior.

We sleep safely in our beds
because rough men stand ready
in the night to visit violence
on those who would do us harm.
- George Orwell



[This message has been edited by genis (edited 02-09-2003).]

This is an interesting lecture I found through some news site. I've not made my way through all of it yet but it's a good read. Certainly not mainstream thinking but so far I tend to agree with a good chunk of it.

quote:

---

Eventually, the ultimate end to all conflict is submission from one side.

---

Well, yes, that's true. But the remainder of the post seems to indicate that you believe the world will collapse without US intervention. Let's just stick with North Korea for the moment, OK?

At least in the case of North Korea, waiting for North Korea to collapse is not the same as the policy of appeasement employed prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe in WWII. North Korea will most likely collapse, sooner or later, without external pressure. Do I think we can afford to wait for that to happen? I don't know, to be honest with you. But I think the US should carefully consider all the options before acting. And I will say this: if we're going to launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, our best bet is for it to be swift and sure and without warning, otherwise things will get ugly. As we have seen in Iraq, though, launching a pre-emptive strike these days is not something that can be done in secret. This is why I think such a strike may not be our best option right now.

So what is our best option? I wish I could tell you. I do have some ideas, but I think I will keep them to myself until I have had a chance to think about them some more.

quote:

---

We should wipe our hands of the world that no longer remembers its savior.

---

If we were in fact that world's savior, and if we could survive without the things we get from the rest of that world...perhaps we could afford to have that limited and infantile attitude Genis.

As it stands, we cannot.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-10-2003).]

I honestly hope this thread is not going to de-evolve into a 'ruckus', like another one did...that would be unfortunate. Maybe giving well reasoned and thought-out responses to the topic might help.

As always, Master Suho, I've been listening to you...you actually being there, and having a much better idea, than we, of what is actually going on, is a great resource. Thank you for that. The light of reason, so to speak.

Onwards, with the topic.

I don't think we should launch a pre-emptive strike. I also don't think we should give in to their blackmail. It is evident that we can't simply ignore them until the govt collapses. Therefore, I think we should tell them publicly and in no uncertain terms that since they choose to make nuclear threats if they launch any sort of strike against us or our allies, sell weapons to terrorists or whatever bad, deadly things they may come up with that we will then launch some of our nukes. Maybe from that sub off their coast, maybe from the middle of Kansas, maybe from space (OK, I don't know that we have nukes in space but it wouldn't suprise me, seems like space shuttles would excel in that respect). Hello cold war. No oil, no food, no money, no technology, nothing from us but tolerance so long as they remain peacefull. Eventually they'll have to find legitimate ways to support themselves.. which smells like capitalism.

We cannot give in to their blackmail again. They've made it evident that they cannot be taken at their word, and that sends completely the wrong message to the rest of the world. The day is coming when *everybody* will have nuclear capability and expect a free ride for it every time the chips are down. Seems to me that cold war is the best case scenario with these sorts. It worked with Russia, Europe is still Europe. The question is, could we invoke a cold war without the threat of actually using our nukes? Well, that's my question anyway. Seems like a reasonable alternative. It's a very risky approach but I think it stands about the best chance for non-violent resolution. They must realize that they're threatening a grizzly bear with a pocket knife, they might draw blood.. but is it worth it?

Does that make sense to anybody else? Eh, I'm going to sleep now. There's a reason I have no desire to be a politician..

cyoung: you mentioned blackmail twice in your post there. Would you care to elaborate on that? What sort of blackmail are you talking about?

quote:

---

Therefore, I think we should tell them publicly and in no uncertain terms that since they choose to make nuclear threats if they launch any sort of strike against us or our allies, sell weapons to terrorists or whatever bad, deadly things they may come up with that we will then launch some of our nukes.

---

First of all, you are aware that North Korea only threatened pre-emptive strikes when the U.S. made it clear that they were prepared to use military force, right? It seems to me rather hypocritical to threaten a pre-emptive strike and then try to take the high road and claim retaliatory strikes if North Korea does end up launching a pre-emptive strike.

Secondly, I'm glad to see you are so willing to use nuclear weapons, and that you see them as the ultimate solution to the problems here. Remind me to drop a nuclear bomb in your backyard someday.

[Edit: I missed this the first time around... when did the DPRK make nuclear threats? The "pre-emptive strike" threats are aimed at U.S. military bases in South Korea, and would not use nuclear weapons.]

You also make it sound like the Cold War was a strategy employed by the US, and that we can just "invoke" another Cold War at will (whatever that means).

Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit pissy here, but your post strikes me as somewhat uninformed and not fully thought out.

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-11-2003).]

Taken from CNN- dated 11/21/02
Blackmail. Who knows who really renigged on the deal but that's blackmail in my book. Now they want a non-agression treaty and who knows what else if they're allowed to bargain over it. I see a pattern forming that goes something like "give us stuff and we won't develop nukes until we feel like developing nukes. Just don't cut off our aid or we'll develop nukes".

quote:

---

Under a 1994 agreement, the North promised to freeze its nuclear weapons program in return for fuel oil, paid for by Washington, and two light water reactors that cannot easily be converted to produce atomic weapons material.

But recently North Korean officials admitted to having a nuclear weapons program, insisting they have a right to produce nuclear weapons because the United States has not fulfilled its obligations under the 1994 agreement.

The United States and its allies, including Japan and South Korea, decided to cut off the oil shipments to penalize North Korea for not fulfilling its part of the agreement.

---

I was under the impression that the US had not threatened any pre-emptive strike. Seemed like that was NK blowing smoke when we started to push hard to go into Iraq. I don't believe we had made any comments regarding military forces going into NK before then, though the plans were drawn up in '94 they say, when we decided the above agreement would be better. Perhaps I am ill-informed? That was my understanding.. they wanted us to sit down before Iraq since they percieved a compromised US military at the time was my impression. I had had also heard over the radio the same day that they had threatened a pre-emptive strike on a US airbase in Japan, not in SK. I would take that as potential nuclear threat, since we know they posess nuclear weapons. The implication is certainly present given the posters etc. There has been talk of NK selling nukes to terrorists, though I'm sure that's not coming directly from NK but from our media/politicians.

Regarding my willingness to use nuclear weapons. I failed to make my point. I have no desire to see them used.. ever, but I have no problem with using similar or even stronger language to put the point across. I was pondering a non-violent solution that involved the use of big threats. I understand if that hit a little close to home.. sorry bout that. I'm not hoping for anybody's annihilation, quite the contrary.

cold war
n.

1. often Cold War A state of political tension and military rivalry between nations that stops short of full-scale war, especially that which existed between the United States and Soviet Union following World War II.
2. A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation.

I have to work in 5 hours and I really need to sleep this time. No flames intended.

North Korea is notorious for not holding up their end of bargains. I wouldn't trust them any further than I can throw them. That being said, going back on a deal is not "blackmail." It may be shifty and underhanded, but it is not blackmail:

blackmail - 2 a : extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution b : the payment that is extorted

(The first definition, by the way, has to do with an ancient Scottish thing, so I figured it could safely be left out of the discussion at hand.)

As for not threatening a pre-emptive strike, well, the US did not specifically say that they were going to launch a pre-emptive strike, but look at the situation from the DPRK's point of view. The US hasn't had its way in Iraq, so now they are launching a strike. And Bush made it clear that the US would "deal with" North Korea next. So what are they supposed to think?

And yes, North Korea may very well target US bases in Japan, but you can be sure that if they are going to start a war they will be aiming for US bases in South Korea as well. I would say that ROK bases would be a good bet as primary targets.

Finally, I do know what a cold war is, thank you. My problem with your post is that you suggest we can start a cold war (and, more importantly, stop at only a cold war) at will. The international scene and the ideologies involved have changed since the first Cold War, and it is dangerous to assume that we can start another one and keep it under control. There is the potential here for things getting out of control so fast it would make your head spin.

By the way, neither this post nor my last post were flames. I just happen to know a bit about the situation over here and the mindsets involved. I am by no means an expert in the area, but it just aggravates me to see people form opinions based solely on Western media. I hope you don't take any of this personally.

quote:

---

Why do you label this a US problem?

Looks like more of a South Korean and possibly Japanese problem to me.

And I just don't see NK as any more of an imminent threat to the US than Iraq.
Biological and chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists are the driving thought for pre-emp on both of these countries, from the US perspective.

So, we'll take out the one we have easiest claim over first... which is Iraq, as it has broken multiple UN resolutions as well as having broken our ceasefire agreement.

They are a sovereign country over which we hold no claim due to their past aggressions, unlike Iraq.
Except for some tunneling under the DMZ, NK has upheld their end of the Korean War armistice.

So far, NK has done nothing but threaten us from within its own borders and broken an economic pact with the US, which we upheld already by ceasing economic aid when they confessed to clandestine Nuke research ops.


I don't see any more of a threat to the US posed by NK than that which is posed by Iraq.

--Genis

---

North Korea and actions it has undertaken, to undermine South Korea and its allies.

The Second Korean War

quote:

---

During the early morning hours of 2 November 1966, while US President Lyndon B. Johnson was sleeping at Walker Hill Resort near Seoul, ROK, North Koreans attacked a United Nations (UN) patrol south of the DMZ. The ambush signaled the beginning of a "Second Korean Conflict" that would last through 1969.

Newspapers around the world carried the story: "A few hours before President Johnson left Seoul for home today at the end of his Asian journey, six American soldiers and one South Korean of a United Nations Command patrol were killed by North Koreans. . . .This is undoubtedly the gravest incident in the series of clashes near the uneasy zone . . . it was believed to be the rnosl; brutal incident since I953."(2) ". . . the Communists charged into the United States sector lobbing grenades, using submachine guns, and finally coming to grips in a brief but savage hand-to-hand combat...."(3) ". . . the Communists fired 40 to 50 bullets into the bodies of the dead Americans and mutilated and bayoneted the corpses.

. . .The patrol ambushed by the North Koreans fought back so fiercely until it was wiped out that one of its members ., . PFC [Private First Class] Ernest D. Reynolds . . . who had been in Korea only 17 days . . . will be nominated posthumously for the Congressional Medal of Honor. The only survivor of the patrol was PFC David L. Bibee . . . 17 years old. He was wounded but escaped death by playing dead. "The only reason I'm alive now is because I didn't move when a North Korean yanked my watch off my wrist."(4)

The communist follow-up was a rapid acceleration of military attacks, amphibious landings by commandos, sabotage and guerrilla actions that would test US resolve to honor its commitment to the security of South Korea.

During the 12 months beginning in November 1966, more than two dozen Americans were killed and scores more were wounded in combat. Artillery fire was used by ROK troops in April 1967 to repel a communist incursion in a battle that involved more than 100 men. In June of that year, a US 2d Infantry Division barracks was dynamited. September saw two South Korean trains blasted, one carrying US military supplies. In October, North Korean artillery fire sounded for the first time since 1953 when more than 50 rounds were fired at a South Korean army barracks. (5)

The action was by no means limited to the DMZ. In June 1967, four South Korean police and a civilian were killed in a battle with North Koreans near Taegu.(6) South Korean intelligence information indicated the communists were preparing an elaborate infiltration program for guerrilla warfare in the south and were hoping to enlist the masses for a full-scale subversive movement.(7)

In response to the urgency of the situation, US Army Special Forces teams, based in Okinawa, were inserted into the rugged mountain areas of South Korea and fought against the North Koreans during the summer of 1967. During the nine-month period from May 1967 through January 1968, in the US sector of the DMZ alone there were more than 300 reported hostile acts during which 15 US soldiers were killed and 65 wounded.(8)

--Korean War Org

---

That should shut up those saying that North Korea has never 'violated' the UN agreements...get your facts straight!

DMZ Incidents - all documented cases along the DMZ.

Once again, get your facts straight.

North Korea launched a medium-range "test" missile over Japan in 1998. Here, a clear violation of national airspace - and in light of the above evidence of aggression, a very worrisome situation.

In conclusion, one can clearly see, that North Korea is a danger now (especially now that they have Nukes...they have had chemical and biological weapons for some time now) and always has been.

And another interesting link, over North Korea North Korean Army Mobilizations

Oh, and as for the chemical and biological weapons, this WMD Amounts, esp. this

quote:

---

North Korea has a stockpile of 2,500 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons and is believed to be capable of producing 1 ton of biological weapons annually, South Korea's Defense Ministry said yesterday.
The communist state's stockpile of chemical weapons consists of 17 different types that can be used to dispense nerve gases, the ministry said in a report presented to the National Assembly. North Korea can produce about 4,500 tons of chemical weapons every year, it said.
Pyongyang's army also has biological weapons involving 13 different lethal germs and viruses, the ministry said.
Mike Moody, president of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Washington, said the South Korean estimates represented "a significant amount" of chemical weapons.
By comparison, Russia had 40,000 tons of chemical weapons when it was forced to declare the numbers by the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty. The United States had 30,000 tons before it began to dismantle its reserves.
Mr. Moody noted that the production of an agent does not always translate into an effective chemical or biological weapon. Its effectiveness depends on several factors, including the quality of production, means of dispersal and intended target.
North Korea signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987 but has been called a leading violator of the international treaty that bans germ warfare.

--Washington Times

---

and then this :

North Korea threatens nuclear disaster

quote:

---

“The DPRK will not remain a passive onlooker to the Bush administration’s inclusion of the DPRK in the seven countries, targets of U.S. nuclear attacks, but take a strong countermeasure against it,” the KCNA said. “If the U.S. intends to mount a nuclear attack on any part of the DPRK just as it did on Hiroshima, it is grossly mistaken. A nuclear war to be imposed by the U.S. nuclear fanatics upon the DPRK would mean their ruin in nuclear disaster,” it warned.

According to news reports by the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, the classified Pentagon report, which was provided to Congress on January 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria. The secret report, called “the Nuclear Posture Review,” which was signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now being used by the U.S. Strategic Command to prepare a nuclear war plan. It says that the weapons could be used in three types of situations: “against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; and ‘in the event of surprising military developments.’” The “surprising military developments” include “an attack from North Korea on the south.” While the report proposed building a new generation of atomic weapons designed not to destroy the nuclear arsenals of Russia or China but to attack underground command posts and biological weapon facilities.

--Korea-NP

---

The Evidence

quote:

---

SIZING THE NUCLEAR F0RCE (p. 16)
“In setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among the contingencies for which the United States must be prepared. Contingencies can be categorized as immediate, potential or unexpected."

“Immediate contingencies involve well-recognized current dangers… Current examples of immediate contingencies include an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan."

"Potential contingencies are plausible, but not immediate dangers. For example, the emergence of a new, hostile military coalition against the United States or its allies in which one or more members possesses WMD and the means of delivery is a potential contingency that could have major consequences for U.S. defense planning, including plans for nuclear forces.” (p. 16)

Unexpected contingencies are sudden and unpredicted security challenges," like the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Contemporary illustrations might include a sudden regime change by which an existing nuclear arsenal comes into the hands of a new, hostile leadership group, or an opponents surprise unveiling of WMD capabilities." Ibid.

'North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies. All have longstanding hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD and missile programs." Ibid

--Congress on 31 December 2001 from Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

---

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-11-2003).]

Thanks for the links, WS. While the fallacy of such statements as "What has North Korea ever done wrong" is laughably obvious to me, it may not be so to others. Those links should set the record straight, though.

Damn, this just in Nato, Iraq and Korea

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the standoff with North Korea is eroding the traditionally close U.S. relationship with Seoul. And in yet another unexpected development, Rumsfeld has reportedly informed Seoul that the U.S. military is prepared to gradually withdraw the 37,000 troops based in South Korea. The soldiers will first move back from current positions close to the demilitarised zone (DMZ) where they are intended to act as a "tripwire" in the event of a North Korean invasion, and will then leave the peninsula altogether.


The administration claims that its offer was prompted by perceived South Korean displeasure at Washington for failing to promote detente with Pyongyang. In the words of one official, "We don't go where we're not wanted." But some experts say the move is designed to "raise the stakes" for incoming President Roh Moo-hyun, whose softer line toward Pyongyang has irritated administration hawks.


"It's a no-lose proposition," noted one hawkish Congressional staffer. "If we get our troops out of range of the North's guns, our freedom of action for acting against the North is greater. And if Roh gets worried about being left to the tender mercies of (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, that gives us more influence."

--Alternet

---

I must say, I'm terribly disappointed in Mr. Bush, and his administration. It will become a book of 'How to do everything wrong, on an international scale', IMHO. Didn't he learn anything from his father?

I would disagree with that last statement, Webshaman. I think that everything said in the section you quoted is correct. We should remove our men if the South Koreans no longer wish us to protect them from the North.

The South Koreans will either do just fine without us, or be attacked by their Northern neighbors and realize that they really did need us.

Either way the U.S. wins.

______________

The Koreans aren't infants. If they wish us to remove ourselves from their territory, the consequences of those actions are their own. It would be their President putting the Korean people at risk not ours. We only have an obligation to protect them because we have agreed to at their asking. If they no longer want us, we should go.



[This message has been edited by St. Seneca (edited 02-11-2003).]

Fine. In that sense (though it leaves other questions, certainly), that is quite correct. However, one doesn't do this type of stuff in the Public eye. Otherwise, it leads to things that cannot be undone, without lose of face. It also encourages the other side...in this case, North Korea.

That's called diplomacy...

On the most recent postings above, I agree with St Seneca.

But since we're quoting posts from a ways back, i'll get back into it.
I knew you'd come through for me. =)

I knew that "a little digging under the DMZ" remark would eventually lead to a crapload of allegations about the DPRK.
It's a nice trick on those who try and focus on one fallacy (all the damn time), but miss the actual point of the poster.
But by replying you have reinforced my point, as well as my ability to bring it back to the point.
hooray!

So let's get back to that point, shall we?

Well now that you know what NK has done in the past over many years, can you still not definitely say that a pre-emptive strike is in the world's favor?
.. and totally justified.
.. and the right time, given the limited number of nukes (if any, deployable) already in their possession?

And moving back to Iraq (sue me), can you still not say we are justified and should strike pre-emptively, when the allegations against Hussein are of much recent history and equally unfavorable? (IMO)

Hmmmm? (simple question really.)

Oh my goodness, we have all once again fallen victim to the great wit and cunning that is genis!

If you read my post (the one that you are referring to), you'll see that I gave my opinions on a pre-emptive strike on North Korea. Those are my opinions. If they do not satisfy you, too bad.

By the way, I love the way you were able spin a careless post into a cunning "strategy" to catch us all off guard. Brilliant. So when are you going into politics?

St. Seneca (and others): I've said it before and I'll say it again: no matter how many anti-US demonstrations you may have in South Korea, the ROK government understands the need for US troops in Korea. It should be clear from what WS posted above that the removal of US troops is a ploy to get No (that's his name--I don't know why they insist on spelling it "Roh") to dance to the US' tune, not an attempt to "give Korea what they want."

Hehe...laughable. Really. I can hardly write this for laughing so hard.

quote:

---

I knew that "a little digging under the DMZ" remark would eventually lead to a crapload of allegations about the DPRK.
It's a nice trick on those who try and focus on one fallacy (all the damn time), but miss the actual point of the poster.
But by replying you have reinforced my point, as well as my ability to bring it back to the point.
hooray!

So let's get back to that point, shall we?

Well now that you know what NK has done in the past over many years, can you still not definitely say that a pre-emptive strike is in the world's favor?
.. and totally justified.
.. and the right time, given the limited number of nukes (if any, deployable) already in their possession?
--Genis

---

Hehe...you stumble over your own remarks...lol!! Take a look

quote:

---

...eventually lead to a crapload of allegations about the DPRK. It's a nice trick on those who try and focus on one fallacy... Well now that you know what NK has done in the past over many years, ...

--Genis

---

*Gasp* Ok, first they are allegations, then fallacies, now they are what NK has done in the past over many years...can you make up your mind, please?

This is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous, that it isn't worth debating further. Uninformed, unresearched, unexperienced opinons.

Master Suho, don't worry about it...you just can't reason with some people. Irregardless of what facts, experiences, or actual evidence that is presented, they will not acknowledge it. They are set in their mind-frames, and will not budge. Like a jack-in-the-box, you know? You turn that crank, the music sounds, and sooner or later, the head pops up. You slam the head back down, close the lid, and it continues from the start. Best not to crank that handle...and throw the jack-in-the-box in the corner. Who needs it?

Ok so whats the problem with NK doing a pre-emptive strike against a possible agressor, that may attack them???

seems to me its exactly the sdame as what the bush adminsitration is trying to do when you get down to the basics...

ie attack first just in case the other guy is thinking about attacking you...

and do we honestly think that attacking somone because they might attack you is right?

hell at this rate anyone that doesnt match bushes ideas of a perfect nation could be on his target list, what next the arab nations that havent got a democracy in place?

Just because a nation has a different ideolgical grounding does not give the us a right to challenge its sovriengty, all it does is make the nation more pissed off with the USA and more likely something will happen..

So what if they have nukes, does it mean they will use them???? the only power ever to use them was the USA, TWICE AND ON CIVILLIAN TARGETS...

Yes they are by wetsren standards a bad regime, having nukes makes them a potentially dangerous enemy, but why up the ante and make them a nation likely to use them, just because we dont like them?

Well Tom, all good points, certainly. And well worth delving into. When is right right? Where is the line, that by crossing goes into wrong? I think we are getting a good history lesson on that, currently.

But back to North Korea - officially, the Korean War is not over. It's a cease fire agreement, really. And the same regime that was involved in the war, and the 'incidents' since then, is still in power.

So we have some options here...and things are being done about (though they are kinda being kept quiet).

Opiton 1 - as St. Seneca has pointed out, we leave SK. Period. And forget about NK. I'm pretty sure, that would give NK just the incentive that they have been waiting for...can we live without SK? Painfully, yes. However, a war in that area, would be disasterous, I think. And a very hostile united Korea, would definately make Japan think about changing it's stance militarily, esp. if the US abondoned SK...Japan could only think the same would happen, in the case of an attack on their country...And China would be encouraged, to take Hong Kong...after all, the Americans don't look like they have the nerve to do anything about it, or will.

Option 2 - we negotiate the situation. It will be very difficult - NK is infamous for breaking agreements, and just plain ignoring them - the only option that we have (other than militarily), are sanctions. Won't help all that much, really. NK has been under sanctions for years...however, stopping that little that does get in, and totally closing things down, would probably also result in a war - NK would probably start it. Certainly the situation would just continue...they would probably build more nukes, and try to sell them.

Option 3 - a pre-emptive strike. Dangerous, yes. Hard to actually do, yes. Gathering support would be very difficult, to nigh impossible (China would surely veto any UN security council resolution).

Of course, there is Option 4 - we just ignore NK. Everything stays the same (they got nukes, so what?), and wait for the eventual collapse. Problem is, we have done that before (see posted articles in my post above) - the Vietnam war. North Korea 'tested' the waters, so to speak...the second 'conflict' there...during the Vietnam war. So, just 'ignoring' them is not a very good option, IMHO.

I do consider NK just under Al Qaida as serious threats. They have proved, through the years, that they are dangerous. And one has to remember, we did not create NK. We did not put them in power. They have been our enemies from the start. We would do well, to remember this.

Would it be in the interests of NK to sell nuklear weapons to terrorists? I think if they thought they could get away with it, yes. Anything that would hurt the US, would be good, from their standpoint. And the money for such a weapon is very good. Maybe too good?