quote:
North Korea threatens US with first strike06 February 2003 07:33
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Since reopening the plant in December, the North has kicked out international inspectors and withdrawn from the global treaty to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.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.
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 tons 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," 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 nations. 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," Ri said.
"I hope that Britain can help to persuade them to do so."Meanwhile, 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. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
quote:
Check out the big brain on Tarquinn!
Am I the only one who thinks that when compared to the Iraq, North Corea is the bigger problem?
No but NK also is a much more touchy situation. Iraq is a danger yes. However we are more trying to keep them from becoming a larger danger. North Korea IS a larger danger. However they chose the perect moment (for them) to strike. We are pretty much commited to Iraq at the moment. Now Korea is a country that has a much larger army and much more potential for destruction. While we suspect and are pretty sure that Iraq is working on nukes, NK is almost assured to already have a couple and can easily creat more. This isn't in question.
At first I thought that maybe they are just trying to bully Bush like they did Clinton. But now I honestly wonder if they are trully out to start shit with us.
HUMANITY WILL NEVER FAIL TO DISSAPOINT!
quote:
Azizza's account was hax0red to write:
At first I thought that maybe they are just trying to bully Bush like they did Clinton. But now I honestly wonder if they are trully out to start shit with us.
I don't think they would be foolish enough to actually throw down the gauntlet first. Even considering their current supply of arms.
Even if we are committed to Iraq, NK would basically be signing their own death warrants by launching a first strike.
quote:
Verily, Reynar doth proclaim:
I don't think they would be foolish enough to actually throw down the gauntlet first. Even considering their current supply of arms.Even if we are committed to Iraq, NK would basically be signing their own death warrants by launching a first strike.
Yes but can you honestly say that the leader of North Korea is any more sane than the leader of Iraq?
quote:
How.... Azizza.... uughhhhhh:
Yes but can you honestly say that the leader of North Korea is any more sane than the leader of Iraq?
Or any more sane than Craaaaazy Al?
His prices are so low, you KNOW he's crazy!
Plus there's the fact that building a nuke isn't something you do in a lazy afternoon. They have 2 nukes, I believe, and could probably make more. But they'd be mounting them on conventional missiles. Remember how long it takes to make a Tomohawk missile? Yeah even assuming their missiles are half as complex, you're still looking at months and months to construct something that complicated, and it's still not an ICBM!
At worst they're threatening our allies to get our attention. We cut off shipments to them because they violated a treaty they signed supposedly in good faith by researching nuclear enrichment programs. And it's already been said that if they back down, we'll probably go in and renegotiate that contract (likely with better controls so they don't pull this again in another decade).
I don't see the article quoted as being anything new. They already threatened us with a "sea of fire" and the like. They're just trying to make sure they have our attention.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
I is scared 
quote:
So quoth Azizza:
Yes but can you honestly say that the leader of North Korea is any more sane than the leader of Iraq?
Yes.
Kim Jong Il is actually not that terrible a leader. He's even gone so far as to say Communism probably isn't the best thing for North Korea. He's also pushing for a lot more reform in North Korea, and even made a great number of apologies on his father's part (something very drastic, considering his father is practicly deified by the current government). I'd lay the blame more at the North Korean Military "strongmen" than Kim Jong Il.
That being said, he could just be BSing. Regardless, I would say he's a LOT more sane than Hussein. Whether that makes him less dangerous, or more dangerous, is yet to be seen. I just don't think we should jump the gun.
Also, North Korea's destabilization, and especialy an international conflict, would wreak a lot of havoc on South Korea. Likewise, China and other neighbors really don't want to have a crumbled North Korea on their doorstep to deal with.
North Korea also has more credibility and more foreign ties than Iraq. They're much more of an "established and recognized government." People hardly consider the current regime of Iraq as a respectable government.
I have to wonder if North Korea isn't playing on our fears a bit. We labeled them part of the Axis of Evil, and they might be playing to fill the role. Possibly towards international aid or something.
But also, I'd like to see a slightly more credible news source... [ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: Lashanna ]
quote:
Lashanna had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Yes.Kim Jong Il is actually not that terrible a leader. He's even gone so far as to say Communism probably isn't the best thing for North Korea. He's also pushing for a lot more reform in North Korea, and even made a great number of apologies on his father's part (something very drastic, considering his father is practicly deified by the current government). I'd lay the blame more at the North Korean Military "strongmen" than Kim Jong Il.
That being said, he could just be BSing. Regardless, I would say he's a LOT more sane than Hussein. Whether that makes him less dangerous, or more dangerous, is yet to be seen. I just don't think we should jump the gun.
Also, North Korea's destabilization, and especialy an international conflict, would wreak a lot of havoc on South Korea. Likewise, China and other neighbors really don't want to have a crumbled North Korea on their doorstep to deal with.
North Korea also has more credibility and more foreign ties than Iraq. They're much more of an "established and recognized government." People hardly consider the current regime of Iraq as a respectable government.
I have to wonder if North Korea isn't playing on our fears a bit. We labeled them part of the Axis of Evil, and they might be playing to fill the role. Possibly towards international aid or something.
You have very good points Lashanna. I don't deny I haven't studied up much on the current regiem in NK. I thought I remembered hearing about Kim Jong Il being a bit off his rocker and having a deep hatred of the US and most of Europe. I may be mistaken though.
And yes you are right. North Korea is considered a much more "respectable" goverment than Iraq, and rightfully so. That is one reason I say the situation is much trickier to handle than the middle east. Not to mention his military force, and weapons tech. I honestly hope it is just posturing, but right now I think we are all a bit on edge and wondering what will really happen.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Lashanna said this:
But also, I'd like to see a slightly more credible news source...
I checked CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC. They all mentioned that something had happened and the Whitheouse had brushed it off but they never really went into detail about what NK had said.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Punky Brewster:
I checked CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC. They all mentioned that something had happened and the Whitheouse had brushed it off but they never really went into detail about what NK had said.
Thanks, 
I just got in, and was feeling a bit lazy.
