PDA

View Full Version : North Korea Is Ready To Attack!



Iceee
04-07-2013, 03:50 AM
And the world is waiting...

How should Western countries deal with North Korea?

North Korea has vowed to restart its nuclear facilities and is making threats against South Korea and the United States. This week on Pulse of Canada, we ask Canadians how Western countries like the United States and Canada should deal with North Korea's hostile threats.
Thomas Bink: I’m not sure what to think of North Korea. From what I understand, the country’s recent threats could just be the youthful enthusiasm of the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, convincing his own people that he’s a powerful leader. Even South Korea doesn’t appear to be taking the threats too seriously. I think the key for Western nations is to band together under the UN/NATO stripes and make it clear that any actual aggression won’t be tolerated – that any acts will be met with swift retaliation from a truly global force.
Matthew Coutts: Yeah, I hear South Koreans are more focused on the next Psy concert than the threat of a North Korean strike. Still, we have to continue taking a hard line with North Korea, make them understand threats are not welcome. But all those years of empty rhetoric are actually dangerous. Kim Jong-un might take it too far in his attempt to outdo his father. If it comes to it, South Korea’s military should lead the response. They are highly trained and, quite literally, focused entirely on this one adversary. As for the West, the U.S. has a significant military presence ready in South Korea, and Canada has specialists there as well. I suspect it wouldn’t take more than that force to end a conflict. If it goes further than that, I have no problem sending our military into battle. The U.S. and South Korea are two allies I think deserve our support.
[ David Kilgour: Military posturing reflects North Korea's crumbling status ]
Andy Radia: I think the West needs to take a harder stand against the recent threats and actions of the young leader. Over the past couple of weeks, Kim Jong-un has threatened nuclear strikes against South Korea and the United States and today it appears they're moving missiles and telling embassy staffs to get out of Dodge. These are acts of aggression that must be responded to. I understand that the West doesn't want to escalate things but are we going to wait until the regime actually launches a missile before we do anything? Say what you want about George W. Bush, but I'm not sure he would have let things get this far.
Bink: I agree, Andy. The nuclear threat is the one that’s most alarming. For all their empty threats, the nuclear issue is very real and if we’re talking nukes, the West really can’t wait until the first bomb falls before acting. There is a blatant double-standard here … the U.S. didn’t have any problems going into Iraq because oil reserves were at risk, but when it comes to Korea we hear that it’s just a young leader acting tough, nothing to worry about. It is worrisome. Like I said, I’m on the fence here – I just think whatever is done it’s got to be a global decision, not just the U.S. acting as the world’s policeman again.
Coutts: I hate to agree, but you are right. For better or worse, Bush likely wouldn’t have let it get this far. He wielded a heavy hammer, whereas Obama seems more intent on taking careful, measured steps. (And wow, apparently I’m one of those folks who expects the U.S. to play World Police). The two things that stand out when I think “Obama and military” are drones and Seal Team Six. Who's to say the U.S. isn’t poised to tactfully punch Kim Jong-un in the nose when he moves to press his red button? Until then, disgustingly, there is not much we can do but wait and prepare. That said, things are a little more dire for the South Koreans on his doorstep. If they choose to make the first move, at this point, can any of us object?
Radia: Tom, I don't think we can wait for the UN to intervene. That body has proven itself to be dysfunctional over the past year. Just look at what they're allowing to happen in Syria. Unfortunately, we need a 'world policeman' and Obama is failing on that front. And Matt, I hope you're right; I hope the West has some things – we're not privy to – in the works to put a stop to this madness.
Bink: No easy answers on this, to be sure. Let’s hope something is done before it’s too late.
What do you think? Have your say in the comments area below.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
IAmZamzam
04-07-2013, 05:03 AM
For better or worse, Bush likely wouldn’t have let it get this far. He wielded a heavy hammer, whereas Obama seems more intent on taking careful, measured steps.

And there is the problem with the political spectrum handily summed up. Democrats do nothing; Republicans do the wrong thing. Conservatives are fools who rush in; we liberals are overthinking cowards who'd rather spend so much time getting used to the temperature of the pool by geeeeeently sliding each toe in one at a time that we never actually get anything done at all. The right wing sees everything in stark terms of black and white (Romney, when speaking vaguely of going to war with a jillion countries during the recent presidential debates, actually said something about "going after the bad guys"!); the left wing hesitates to so much as call anything "this color" or "that color" for fear of offending anybody else who brands themselves that way. "In fact it's best that one not even look at it that way in the first place. Hmmm...maybe there's an alternative to thinking of a matter in terms of colors. Let me ponder this one for ninety years instead of actually tackling the issue."
Reply

Iceee
04-07-2013, 05:32 AM
So you're saying Obama should be more aggressive?

The thing is, is U.S doesn't do anything, Asia is going to suffer. North Korea may go after South Korea but Japan and China may get involved as well. Pretty scary to think about it, even so lots of members on our forums live in Asia and they may be scared 100X more than we are.
Reply

sister herb
04-07-2013, 07:11 AM
Why just Western countries like USA and Canada would or should react to this situation first? I think both China and Russia too have already reacted - by political level. Possible conflict would has a lot of influence to they too. Also if USA for example would make any kind of attack against North Korea, it must has full support from China and Russia. Both countries seem to be more interesting to increase they economy (like China in Africa countries) than conflict in they back yard.

Some days ago I read article with interviews of South Koreans and they told that they aren´t very worry about situation in general - similar happens usually after elections of South Korea. In the South Korea had presidental elections at December 2012...
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Independent
04-07-2013, 08:00 AM
Originally Posted by sister harb
Why just Western countries like USA and Canada would or should react to this situation first?
The US will definitely support South Korea in the event of an attack because they are an ally and this commitment was reaffirmed a few days ago by the US. However, most military analysts believe that the South would probably win even on its own. The North does have the advantage of a huge conscript army and the entire devotion of the state to warfare, but the South is better equipped. The South's biggest weakness is that their capital city is very close to the border and will undoubtedly suffer greatly.

Originally Posted by sister harb
I think both China and Russia too have already reacted - by political level.
The key player is China. China saved N.Korea back in the 50s and it has almost single-handedly kept them alive ever since. China has been the military guarantee that the South will never attack the North first. However, even China is becoming frustrated with the North. The North are playing a dangerous game. They believe that by increasing the tension that will extract more concessions from the US, as has happened before. But they have played this game too often and it's not working this time.

The South and the US may now feel that if war is inevitable, then better to have it now before the North develops any further nuclear capacity.

Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
For better or worse, Bush likely wouldn’t have let it get this far. He wielded a heavy hammer, whereas Obama seems more intent on taking careful, measured steps.
I don't this is justified. The sanctions regime is tougher under Obama. And it was the tendency of the US to offer concessions in the past which has (arguably) helped to create then present crisis.

So, there are two main dangers - that the South/US will choose war now to avoid a worse one later. Or, that the North as so crazy they will attack because they've talked themselves into it. The NK leadership is concerned with its own survival, not the people. But how can they back down now without losing face? They have put themselves into a difficult and dangerous position.

What's the best chance of a solution? That lies with China. Only China has any sort of influence over NK. If China pulls the plug on its economic/food support, NK will collapse within a year. China can solve this crisis by itself. But thus far, China is more interested in preserving the irrelevant strategic logic of 50 years ago and retaining a Communist 'buffer state' on its borders. Even though China itself is no longer strictly Communist.
Reply

Alpha Dude
04-07-2013, 08:11 AM
Iraq had no sign of wmd before the invasion and none were found but here we have a country threatening destruction and has known nuclear weapons yet no physical measure, no pre-emptive strike, has taken place against them.

I'm sure shock and awe two would have started by now if NK had oil.
Reply

Independent
04-07-2013, 08:33 AM
Originally Posted by Alpha Dude
Iraq had no sign of wmd before the invasion and none were found but here we have a country threatening destruction and has known nuclear weapons yet no physical measure, no pre-emptive strike, has taken place against them.

I'm sure shock and awe two would have started by now if NK had oil.
Wholly incorrect. The Korean war ended in 1953 but only by truce - peace has never been agreed. So if the US really wanted to attack NK, they've had more than enough time to do it. Throughout 6 decades and any number of presidents there has never been the slightest sign that they were even thinking about attack.

The decision about attacking the North lies in the first instance with the South, not the US. And so long as China continues to protect NK it will never happen.
Reply

Independent
04-07-2013, 10:00 AM
I just read an interesting article about this which suggests that NK does have a plan and a timetable. A hugely important date in the NK calendar is April 15th, known as the Day of the Sun, which celebrates the birth of Kim Il-sung (the Korean equivalent to Stalin). Based on observed missile movements and preparations, it is suggested that NK is deliberately building towards this day and planning to test launch a new Musudan missile (built with Soviet and Iranian support). They won't aim it a US target, but it will provide the symbolic climax to their rhetoric without leading to actual war.
Reply

Alpha Dude
04-07-2013, 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
Wholly incorrect. The Korean war ended in 1953 but only by truce - peace has never been agreed. So if the US really wanted to attack NK, they've had more than enough time to do it. Throughout 6 decades and any number of presidents there has never been the slightest sign that they were even thinking about attack.

The decision about attacking the North lies in the first instance with the South, not the US. And so long as China continues to protect NK it will never happen.
How is what I said wholly incorrect?

These are some points I made, please show me my error:
- Iraq had no sign of wmd before the invasion (did they have solid proof that Iraq had nuclear weapons?)
- none were found (can you really dispute this?)
- here we have a country threatening destruction (i.e. the recent threat they made, with nuclear weapons - again, can you really dispute this?)
So what you mention about truce for all these years and US having a chance to attack etc. is all irrelevant - what I am saying is that recently the NK's have threatened all out nuclear war with the US (never mind the SK!) and are known to have nuclear weapons yet the US is not attacking them in pre-emptive self defence even though they went all out with Iraq over no real evidence. Why the discrepancy? I'm assuming it's due to the oil in Iraq and the geopolitical advantage the US gain from being in control of those reserves whereas NK doesn't offer the same benefit so the US is not rushing to pre-emptively attack. That's my point.
Reply

Independent
04-07-2013, 10:15 AM
Originally Posted by Alpha Dude
How is what I said wholly incorrect?
Apologies, I misunderstood you - i thought you were arguing that the US is itching for a fight with NK, which I think is untrue. But you are simply comparing with Iraq and saying their attitude there was more militant.

This is true, but each situation is different. Iraq is a big enough topic in itself which will derail this thread entirely if we start on it. I think that even if NK had all the oil that iraq has and more, the US still wouldn't invade because of China. China fought directly on NK's side in the Korean War and its inconceivable that they would stand back in the event of an unprovoked US attack today.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-07-2013, 01:00 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
The South and the US may now feel that if war is inevitable, then better to have it now before the North develops any further nuclear capacity.
And why would they feel that war is inevitable?

Most military analysts agree that the outcome of a war would be a foregone conclusion: USA and South Korea would win, but at a high price utterly disproportionate to any benefit they'd get from removing North Korea. Which is why neither of them wants war. Neither does North Korea, as it would mean the end of the regime. And both sides know that the other doesn't want war, and thus has no reason to believe war to be inevitable or that it needs to strike before the situation becomes less advantageous.
Reply

Independent
04-07-2013, 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
neither of them wants war. Neither does North Korea, as it would mean the end of the regime.
I agree with most of what you say, except that NK cannot be relied up to behave in a logical way. They have lived in the weird bubble that is NK society so long that you wonder if they can tell the difference between reality and their own rhetoric. It's not even clear who is really in charge of the state. The regime could feel the need to start a war simply to save face (remember, they have done several small scale attacks in the past that killed SK citizens).

It's very dangerous if people feel NK is so close to pulling the trigger all the time.
Reply

Iceee
04-07-2013, 02:01 PM
Russia does not support N.Korea but China does.

Nobody wants war right now. And if there is war, who's going to win? It's not going to be North Korea or South Korea since all their citizens would be dead.

Originally Posted by Independent
It's not even clear who is really in charge of the state.
I personally believe that Kim Yong Un is just trying to show off his military power and acting like his father to show the other militants their nations strength.

Whatever the case: Prediction on what will happen below:

Reply

Iceee
04-07-2013, 02:21 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
It's very dangerous if people feel NK is so close to pulling the trigger all the time.
So what do we do? Let the N.Koreans continue attacking or threatening everyone? Or wipe them out before they get a chance to fight back?

Remember: The citizens of N.K are starving, eating grass, while their leader getting the buffet.
Reply

Independent
04-07-2013, 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by Iceee
So what do we do? Let the N.Koreans continue attacking or threatening everyone? Or wipe them out before they get a chance to fight back?
This precisely why developing nuclear weapons does not necessarily increase security. A surprise attack by conventional forces is serious enough. But if an enemy can lob a few nuclear weapons into your main cities, the loss is enormous even if you go on to win the war.

Therefore, there is a clear incentive to start the war yourself and take out the actual or potential weapons before they can be used.

This doesn't matter with countries like the US, China and Russia who have too many weapons to eliminate. But it does affect the way you might regard a country like NK, where there is every chance to take out the nuclear weapons before they are assembled or while they are still in the silo. (It's estimated that NK has enough weapons grade material for only a few bombs).
Reply

Iceee
04-07-2013, 02:30 PM
Originally Posted by Alpha Dude
How is what I said wholly incorrect?

These are some points I made, please show me my error:
- Iraq had no sign of wmd before the invasion (did they have solid proof that Iraq had nuclear weapons?)
- none were found (can you really dispute this?)
- here we have a country threatening destruction (i.e. the recent threat they made, with nuclear weapons - again, can you really dispute this?)

So what you mention about truce for all these years and US having a chance to attack etc. is all irrelevant - what I am saying is that recently the NK's have threatened all out nuclear war with the US (never mind the SK!) and are known to have nuclear weapons yet the US is not attacking them in pre-emptive self defence even though they went all out with Iraq over no real evidence. Why the discrepancy? I'm assuming it's due to the oil in Iraq and the geopolitical advantage the US gain from being in control of those reserves whereas NK doesn't offer the same benefit so the US is not rushing to pre-emptively attack. That's my point.

Why does the United States treat North Korea differently from Iraq?
Bush administration officials argue that North Korea and Iraq--both rogue states pursuing worrisome nuclear weapons programs--actually pose rather different challenges. Despite North Korea's disclosure last week of a secret nuclear-arms program, the United States is not threatening war to disarm it--unlike Iraq.


How do U.S. officials describe the difference between North Korea and Iraq?
"Saddam Hussein in recent years has invaded two of his neighbors, used his weapons of mass destruction, and [Iraq] is a relatively wealthy country," Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Financial Times. "North Korea is an isolated country with no wealth, a broken economy, a broken society, with neighbors who are not happy with what it's done." The White House says that force may be required to topple Saddam because he is too aggressive to be contained, too reckless to be deterred, and too dangerous to Middle Eastern stability to be tolerated. On the other hand, the administration argues that North Korea--a starving country that may well already have one or two nuclear bombs--can be handled by containment, deterrence, diplomacy, and economic pressure. U.S. officials say North Korea may be willing to give up its nuclear program and poses less of a threat to U.S. interests.


What leverage does the United States have with North Korea?
It can offer two key things to the impoverished, isolated Stalinist holdout: aid and better relations with other countries. "The North Koreans are desperately in need of help from the outside," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading Iraq hawk. "We have leverage on North Korea that we do not have on Iraq." In a 1994 deal, the United States, South Korea, and Japan offered massive foreign aid--including a $4 billion project to build two nuclear reactors that couldn't be used for military purposes--in return for North Korea's promise to abandon its nuclear ambitions. North Korea also relied heavily upon the 500,000 tons of fuel oil per year that America donated under the terms of the 1994 agreement. If Washington withdraws its economic aid and urges its friends to do likewise, Pyongyang's economy might never recover.


Is the 1994 deal "nullified"?
Powell said that when North Korea confirmed that it had been secretly seeking nuclear weapons, it also told the United States that the 1994 deal was "nullified." Powell added, "Well, when you have an agreement between two parties and one says it's nullified, then it's hard to see what you do with such an agreement." But the official station Radio Pyongyang said Monday that North Korea has backed away from its assertion that the deal was dead.


Do nearby Asian states have leverage with North Korea?
Yes, to a degree. South Korea and Japan--North Korea's key estranged neighbors--have recently tried to reach out to North Korea, and experts say Pyongyang may be reluctant to lose the promise of warmer ties and more aid. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi recently visited North Korea, and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has also made major diplomatic overtures. North Korea's closest regional ally is China, which is also not eager to see North Korea acquire a bomb of its own; the Bush administration hopes to get China to pressure North Korea when Chinese President Jiang Zemin meets President Bush this week in Crawford, Texas.


Could the United States use force to make North Korea disarm?
Not easily. U.S. military action could lead North Korea to unleash its arsenal, both conventional and nonconventional, and devastate South Korea--as well as the 37,000 U.S. troops deployed there. Despite his country's desperate poverty, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has retained a massive conventional army, much of it deployed near the demilitarized zone that has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War ended in 1953. Some 950,000 North Korean troops are just 20 miles or more from Seoul, the South Korean capital. Compared to Iraq, Powell says North Korea "is a lot stronger militarily, but it is sitting on a very rotten base with respect to its economy."


Is North Korea's nuclear program more advanced than Iraq's?
Yes. Like Iraq, North Korea has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for years; unlike Iraq, North Korea may well already have the bomb. A December CIA National Intelligence Estimate reported that North Korea had probably made one or two plutonium-based nuclear weapons by the mid-1990s. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he believes North Korea possesses "several" such weapons.


Does North Korea have a stronger missile program than Iraq?
Yes. North Korea has test-fired a missile with close to intercontinental range, while Iraq relies on a small stash of souped-up Scud missiles--capable of hitting nearby countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia but notoriously inaccurate. Advanced missiles could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction. To get hard currency, North Korea has also reportedly sold ballistic-missile technology to Iran, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan.


Has North Korea ever used weapons of mass destruction?
No. Still, it has a considerable arsenal, even beyond whatever nuclear arms it may have. The Pentagon says that North Korea has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and it's also thought to have an active but primitive biological weapons program.


Can Iraq be handled by deterrence?
Experts hotly disagree. Some note that Iraq refrained from using chemical weapons or launching terrorist attacks against America during Operation Desert Storm after Secretary of State James Baker and President George H.W. Bush warned that such actions would mean the "severest consequences." The threat of Israeli nuclear reprisal also seems to have deterred Saddam from placing chemical or biological warheads on the Scuds that Iraq fired into Israeli cities during the Gulf War. But warnings from Baker and Bush did not stop Saddam from torching Kuwait's oil fields. Iraq hawks like the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack argue that over the long haul, deterrence is too risky because Saddam is "often unintentionally suicidal--that is, he miscalculates his odds of success and frequently ignores the likelihood of catastrophic failure."


Can North Korea be handled by deterrence?
We don't know. Some experts argue that Kim Jong Il is so desperately broke that he's merely out for survival, not for regional dominance--and therefore can be induced to trade his nuclear program for economic help. Skeptics warn that Pyongyang's nuclear disclosure proves the folly of trusting tyrants.
Reply

Iceee
04-07-2013, 02:36 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
This precisely why developing nuclear weapons does not necessarily increase security. A surprise attack by conventional forces is serious enough. But if an enemy can lob a few nuclear weapons into your main cities, the loss is enormous even if you go on to win the war.

Therefore, there is a clear incentive to start the war yourself and take out the actual or potential weapons before they can be used.

This doesn't matter with countries like the US, China and Russia who have too many weapons to eliminate. But it does affect the way you might regard a country like NK, where there is every chance to take out the nuclear weapons before they are assembled or while they are still in the silo. (It's estimated that NK has enough weapons grade material for only a few bombs).
This looks similar to Vietnam or the U.S who slapped Japan with two bombs during WW2. As citizens, we shouldn't interfere which was the state of the U.S citizens going into Vietnam. BUT we want to take out the threat as early as possible so the States could do what they did to Japan.

Either decision taken, U.S interfering will cost military lives and U.S taking out N.K right away may kill innocent N.K citizens as well as S.K.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-07-2013, 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
I agree with most of what you say, except that NK cannot be relied up to behave in a logical way. They have lived in the weird bubble that is NK society so long that you wonder if they can tell the difference between reality and their own rhetoric. It's not even clear who is really in charge of the state. The regime could feel the need to start a war simply to save face (remember, they have done several small scale attacks in the past that killed SK citizens).

It's very dangerous if people feel NK is so close to pulling the trigger all the time.
The common population of North Korea may be living in a bubble and having little idea of what the outside world, or even other parts of North Korea than their home region, is like. Is there though any reason to believe that the leadership is so clueless?

The actual way the North Korean military is built shows every indication that they know perfectly well what the US military is capable of, that they cannot match it in terms of quality or quantity of hi-tech weapons systems, and need to engage in asymmetric warfare to make it too costly for the US to attack them. They know how the US loves air power, and thus know that investing in an air force is a waste of effort and have instead built the world's densest air defence grid to protect against being obliterated from above like Saddam's army was in 1991. And as the US has hands-down the world's largest navy, North Korea doesn't bother with much of a surface navy either, but instead has the world's largest submarine fleet, an asset that remains useful for supply line raiding despite overall naval inferiority. What North Korea has, at the end of the day, is a millions-strong army supported by ridiculous amounts of conventional artillery, one that can dig in into the mountains and make sure there's no way to dislodge it other than a frontal ground assault, and such a thing can't be done by any attacker without suffering significant casualties. And the need to undertake such an assault would be urgent, as Seoul would come under artillery attack the moment war broke out.
Reply

Woodrow
04-07-2013, 06:24 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
I just read an interesting article about this which suggests that NK does have a plan and a timetable. A hugely important date in the NK calendar is April 15th, known as the Day of the Sun, which celebrates the birth of Kim Il-sung (the Korean equivalent to Stalin). Based on observed missile movements and preparations, it is suggested that NK is deliberately building towards this day and planning to test launch a new Musudan missile (built with Soviet and Iranian support). They won't aim it a US target, but it will provide the symbolic climax to their rhetoric without leading to actual war.
It looks like China is on the edge of withdrawing any support of NK.

US Might Have Unlikely Ally Against N. Korea: China

wser) – American efforts to rein in North Korea have long run into one big roadblock called China, but that might be changing, reports the New York Times. New President Xi Jinping seems more receptive to working with the West to keep the North in check, as seen in Beijing's quick support of the recent UN sanctions. The development has touched off a relative frenzy of diplomacy between DC and Beijing on the subject, including a call from President Obama to Jinping, says the Times.

Another sign of the shift is that China has not objected in public or private over US moves to beef up its military presence in the region amid Pyongyang's near-daily threats. “What we have seen is a subtle change in Chinese thinking,” says Kurt Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state. Beijing seems to have concluded that it's no longer worth jeopardizing its ties to the West, and its own national security, over the whims of the North.

SOURCE

People tend to forget just how much economic investment China has in the USA. Very many US businesses are now under Chinese ownership. In addition The USA is the Nation that owes the most money to China. China is one of the largest debts the USA owes out.

As of January 2013, $5.6 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were the People's Republic of China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.[7]

SOURCE


It just may turn out China has more loyalty to the American dollar than it has to NK
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-07-2013, 11:45 PM
Icee, I was just ranting about a general point.

Independent, I was more responding to that quote than repeating it.
Reply

Karl
04-08-2013, 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
It looks like China is on the edge of withdrawing any support of NK.



SOURCE

People tend to forget just how much economic investment China has in the USA. Very many US businesses are now under Chinese ownership. In addition The USA is the Nation that owes the most money to China. China is one of the largest debts the USA owes out.



SOURCE


It just may turn out China has more loyalty to the American dollar than it has to NK
True, and if NK goes crazy and attacks SK, China may turn on NK and invade it, "liberate the people" and extend China's borders to SK. The Chinese would just say that NK was a province of China long ago.The US and UN would bit*h and whine about it but that's all they could do.
Reply

Woodrow
04-08-2013, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by Karl
True, and if NK goes crazy and attacks SK, China may turn on NK and invade it, "liberate the people" and extend China's borders to SK. The Chinese would just say that NK was a province of China long ago.The US and UN would bit*h and whine about it but that's all they could do.
It just may in the best interest of SK, China and the USA to let China occupy all the way down to the 38th Parallel. China might be a dictatorship. but at least the leaders are capable of logical reasoning.
Reply

Karl
04-08-2013, 04:26 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
It just may in the best interest of SK, China and the USA to let China occupy all the way down to the 38th Parallel. China might be a dictatorship. but at least the leaders are capable of logical reasoning.
On second thoughts I don't think China would invade NK. It would not be economically viable to get involved in occupation and it is against it's foreign policy to attack another sovereign state unless they attack China first. China may profit from a war between the Koreas (so could the West). The NK president may want a limited exchange conventional war with SK to lower the burden of his poor population (the masses) and later to negotiate terms with the US to resolve in another ceasefire agreement.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-08-2013, 06:16 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
It looks like China is on the edge of withdrawing any support of NK.
Going "to the edge" is cheap and can be done simply to make a statement to whatever effect, and thus proves little. That China doesn't approve of the noise made by its client state doesn't imply that they're actually going to pull the plug on it, and there's little reason for them to. North Korea is just a very cost-effective way for China to cause trouble for the USA, its future superpower rival. Food and fuel still flows over the Chinese-North Korean border. Look at what countries do, not at what they say.

Originally Posted by Woodrow
It just may in the best interest of SK, China and the USA to let China occupy all the way down to the 38th Parallel. China might be a dictatorship. but at least the leaders are capable of logical reasoning.
Do we have any rational reason to believe North Korea's leaders aren't?
Reply

Woodrow
04-08-2013, 02:03 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Going "to the edge" is cheap and can be done simply to make a statement to whatever effect, and thus proves little. That China doesn't approve of the noise made by its client state doesn't imply that they're actually going to pull the plug on it, and there's little reason for them to. North Korea is just a very cost-effective way for China to cause trouble for the USA, its future superpower rival. Food and fuel still flows over the Chinese-North Korean border. Look at what countries do, not at what they say.



Do we have any rational reason to believe North Korea's leaders aren't?
I personally doubt Kim Jong-Un's leadership abilities. His actions seem to be quite juvenile and more like a spoiled teen than as a National Head of State.

His recent week long meeting with Dennis Rodman kind of indicates the level of leadership he shows,
Reply

Independent
04-08-2013, 03:33 PM
Legend has it that, when the Roman Emperor Caligula led his troops to the shores of northern Gaul to invade Britain, instead of launching the attack he ordered his men to collect sea shells from the beach. Afterwards to save face he said that they had 'conquered Neptune'.

Let's hope this campaign ends in a similar way :)
Reply

Futuwwa
04-08-2013, 06:53 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I personally doubt Kim Jong-Un's leadership abilities. His actions seem to be quite juvenile and more like a spoiled teen than as a National Head of State.

His recent week long meeting with Dennis Rodman kind of indicates the level of leadership he shows,
That spoiled teen has, during his little more than one year in power, carried out a massive shake-up of the North Korean power structure. He has managed sack top generals that are 50 years older than him, and brought to heel a military-political complex that his daddy effectively made a state within the state. While there's no way to know what really goes on among the North Korean ruling elite, it's fairly clear that there has been a power struggle that may or may not be over yet. If Kim III would be as juvenile as you say, there's no way he would have lasted this long.

What exactly does his meeting with Rodman imply?
Reply

Woodrow
04-08-2013, 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
That spoiled teen has, during his little more than one year in power, carried out a massive shake-up of the North Korean power structure. He has managed sack top generals that are 50 years older than him, and brought to heel a military-political complex that his daddy effectively made a state within the state. While there's no way to know what really goes on among the North Korean ruling elite, it's fairly clear that there has been a power struggle that may or may not be over yet. If Kim III would be as juvenile as you say, there's no way he would have lasted this long.

What exactly does his meeting with Rodman imply?
To me I see it as his finding pleasure more important than business.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-08-2013, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
To me I see it as his finding pleasure more important than business.
And I suppose a mature head of state never takes time off? Even the Prophet allowed himself spare time while ruling over the Ummah.
Reply

Woodrow
04-09-2013, 07:37 AM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
And I suppose a mature head of state never takes time off? Even the Prophet allowed himself spare time while ruling over the Ummah.
The activities a person engages in during their time off, often reflect the priorities of the person. Wining, Dining and partying with Rodman while his people are starving does not give me a good impression of Kim.

Then perhaps I am just anti Kim because of North Korea's anti-Islam stance.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-09-2013, 11:56 AM
Only leaders of well-fed countries are allowed to take time off? It's not like the only thing holding up the ending of North Korean poverty is for the leader to get off his bum and just end it with his Great Leader superpowers.

The only ones starving in North Korea are convicts in forced labour camps. Beyond that, there's significant malnutrition, but there's been no significant starvation in North Korea for a decade now. Stop repeating the common nonsensical stereotype of North Korea as Communist Mordor.
Reply

Independent
04-09-2013, 02:03 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
The only ones starving in North Korea are convicts in forced labour camps.
Hmm, not so sure about that:

http://www.dw.de/dissidents-reveal-famine-in-homeland/a-16586059

http://www.livescience.com/26677-nor...nnibalism.html

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012...12-north-korea
Reply

Iceee
04-10-2013, 03:14 PM
I heard N.K Citizens are eating grass. Asking for food would get you killed in N.K atm. The only people getting food in N.K are Kim Yong Un's buddies. And Kim probably eats 90% of the food.

U.S isn't sending food to N.K and China/Russia aren't supporting N.K anymore.
I would urge North Koreans to vacate North Korea. But the Government won't let them leave.

Obama himself has refrained from responding personally to North Korea's threats, a strategy aimed at depriving Kim Jong-un of presidential attention.
Inshallah this changes.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-10-2013, 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by Iceee
I heard N.K Citizens are eating grass.
Which is why you should not believe everything you hear, or uncritically parrot every stereotype being circulated. North Korea had a catastropic famine 1994-1998 because of natural disasters and being cut off from vital agricultural inputs due to the downfall of the Communist bloc, and then indeed as much as one fifth of the population died. Already in 2000 though the situation was under control and agricultural production about twice what it had been at its lowest point during the famine. Since then there's been a general state of malnourishment, but actual starvation to any significant extent only during years when the harvest has been exceptionally bad.

The testimony of defectors hardly gives a representative view of what North Korea is like. There's a great deal of regional difference in living conditions, including access to food. Defectors tend, naturally, to be from the most destitute areas.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
04-10-2013, 05:37 PM
North korea would not gain anything by attacking, the media propaganda is sickening, even a South korean minister know that North korea has no plan to attack. And even if they test-fire their missles, let them, USA does the same. Or is that just a pretext for NATO to come in and attack? US claims to want peace with north korea, at the same they're building a force there and make propaganda against it. And North korea falls for it.

Where are the 2 israeli dolphin submarines have gone to? Instead, we have heard propaganda about N korean submarines missing. Its all the to tame china, north korea is just the bait.

Everyone who thinks that china wants US troops on its border should do some more research and look at vietnam for example.
Reply

Independent
04-10-2013, 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
North korea would not gain anything by attacking
Yet despite what you say, they have launched attacks on many, many occasions in the past. Here's a selection:

  • May & June 1996: North Korean vessels twice cross the Northern Limit Line and have a several-hour standoff with the South Korean navy.
  • April 1997: Five North Korean soldiers cross the Demilitarized Zone in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do, and fire on South Korean positions.
  • June 1997: Three North Korean vessels cross the Northern Limit Line and attack South Korean vessels two miles (3 km) south of the line. On land, fourteen North Korean soldiers cross 70 m south of the center of the DMZ, leading to a 23-minute exchange of fire.
  • June 29, 2002: Renewed naval clashed near the Northern Limit Line lead to the deaths of four South Korean sailors and the sinking of a South Korean vessel. The number of North Koreans killed is unknown.
  • March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. A rescue operation recovered 58 survivors but 46 sailors were killed. On May 20, 2010, a South Korean led international investigation group concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack.North Korea denied involvement.
  • November 23, 2010: NK fired artillery at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries.

NK's view is that it's ok for them to kill a few SK citizens every now and then without retaliation, whenever the NK leader needs to make a new propaganda video.

Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
even if they test-fire their missles, let them, USA does the same
When a country shows on their own national TV its leader poring over a map of the US labelled "target', and this nation then launches a missile of unknown capability and unknown destination without warning, there is bound to be a high level of risk.

Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Or is that just a pretext for NATO to come in and attack?
It's the UN not NATO. And since the war has never been undeclared, either side could choose to attack any time they like.
Reply

Woodrow
04-11-2013, 01:41 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
Yet despite what you say, they have launched attacks on many, many occasions in the past. Here's a selection:

  • May & June 1996: North Korean vessels twice cross the Northern Limit Line and have a several-hour standoff with the South Korean navy.
  • April 1997: Five North Korean soldiers cross the Demilitarized Zone in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do, and fire on South Korean positions.
  • June 1997: Three North Korean vessels cross the Northern Limit Line and attack South Korean vessels two miles (3 km) south of the line. On land, fourteen North Korean soldiers cross 70 m south of the center of the DMZ, leading to a 23-minute exchange of fire.
  • June 29, 2002: Renewed naval clashed near the Northern Limit Line lead to the deaths of four South Korean sailors and the sinking of a South Korean vessel. The number of North Koreans killed is unknown.
  • March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. A rescue operation recovered 58 survivors but 46 sailors were killed. On May 20, 2010, a South Korean led international investigation group concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack.North Korea denied involvement.
  • November 23, 2010: NK fired artillery at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries.

NK's view is that it's ok for them to kill a few SK citizens every now and then without retaliation, whenever the NK leader needs to make a new propaganda video.



When a country shows on their own national TV its leader poring over a map of the US labelled "target', and this nation then launches a missile of unknown capability and unknown destination without warning, there is bound to be a high level of risk.


It's the UN not NATO. And since the war has never been undeclared, either side could choose to attack any time they like.
North Korea and South Korea have been at war since the 1950s. No peace treaty has ever been negotiated. They have been living under a cease fire truce. Kim Jong Un has canceled that truce. Both countries are officially at war. Any act by either has to be considered an act of war.

The only concerns now will be what SK, Japan, And the US can negotiate with China to assure China will not take any action if Preemptive strikes are made against NK.
Reply

islamica
04-11-2013, 01:53 AM
Iran vows to defend North Korea in any war with the U.S. – UK to upgrade nuclear deterrent

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/iran...us/2013/04/09/
Reply

Woodrow
04-11-2013, 04:32 AM
Originally Posted by islamica
Iran vows to defend North Korea in any war with the U.S. – UK to upgrade nuclear deterrent

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/iran...us/2013/04/09/
NK is officially Atheist and limits the practice of all religions including Islam. Currently there is one known Mosques in NK. That is a Shia Mosque that was permitted to be Built at the Iranian Embassy Compound


SOURCES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...in_North_Korea

http://www.nknews.org/2013/01/iran-b...-first-mosque/


While it is true NK is an enemy of the USA, that does not mean it is a supporter of Islam.
Reply

Iceee
04-11-2013, 04:46 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
While it is true NK is an enemy of the USA, that does not mean it is a supporter of Islam.
I'm glad N.K is anti-religion. If N.K was an Islamic nation with Kim Yong Un in charge, there would be much more hating towards this nation and blaming Islam for evil. No offense or anything but I like that this nation is a lot Atheism rather than any religion.

Buddhism and Confucianism are also religions of N.K but I don't think many citizens are allowed to practise it in public.
Reply

sister herb
04-11-2013, 06:00 AM
I read today news article where US official was thinking that when USA and South Korea will end they common military maneuvers later at this month, this crisis will be over and leader of N.K. can say in propaganda speeches that "military power of brave people of N.K. scared the enemy forces retreat".

Let´s see.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-11-2013, 07:45 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
Yet despite what you say, they have launched attacks on many, many occasions in the past. Here's a selection:

  • May & June 1996: North Korean vessels twice cross the Northern Limit Line and have a several-hour standoff with the South Korean navy.
  • April 1997: Five North Korean soldiers cross the Demilitarized Zone in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do, and fire on South Korean positions.
  • June 1997: Three North Korean vessels cross the Northern Limit Line and attack South Korean vessels two miles (3 km) south of the line. On land, fourteen North Korean soldiers cross 70 m south of the center of the DMZ, leading to a 23-minute exchange of fire.
  • June 29, 2002: Renewed naval clashed near the Northern Limit Line lead to the deaths of four South Korean sailors and the sinking of a South Korean vessel. The number of North Koreans killed is unknown.
  • March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. A rescue operation recovered 58 survivors but 46 sailors were killed. On May 20, 2010, a South Korean led international investigation group concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack.North Korea denied involvement.
  • November 23, 2010: NK fired artillery at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries.

NK's view is that it's ok for them to kill a few SK citizens every now and then without retaliation, whenever the NK leader needs to make a new propaganda video.
Dude... do you know what the Northern Limit Line even is?
Reply

Independent
04-11-2013, 08:14 AM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Dude... do you know what the Northern Limit Line even is?
No, but I just googled it to find out. I can see why it's been the trigger for so many incidents. It's one of those messy things left over from the a war that didn't have a proper end, and both sides interpret it differently.

Overall I believe that (from the UN point of view) policy is dictated mainly by SK, not the US or anyone else. The US will support SK where possible but will not initiate anything against their wishes.

SK itself is not interested in provoking war. It has far more to lose (it's economy) whereas NK is arguably the most militarised state in the world. The logic of history says that, if you spend that much on defence, sooner or later you're going to want to use it. This is why it tends to negotiate by arms rather than diplomacy.

In addition, SK citizens have family the other side of the border and really don't want to have to go back to full scale war unless they really have to.

Perhaps you disagree? Do you think that SK is the main provocateur in these incidents? Do you think they are really the aggressor?
Reply

Futuwwa
04-11-2013, 01:07 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
No, but I just googled it to find out. I can see why it's been the trigger for so many incidents. It's one of those messy things left over from the a war that didn't have a proper end, and both sides interpret it differently.
Good that you did, though maybe you should have done so before posting. You (and pretty much everyone in the West who comments on it) act like the 2010 sinking was an arbitrary, unprovoked attack, while in fact the ship in question was carrying out live fire exercises right in North Korea's face, within sight of its coast.

Originally Posted by Independent
SK itself is not interested in provoking war. It has far more to lose (it's economy) whereas NK is arguably the most militarised state in the world. The logic of history says that, if you spend that much on defence, sooner or later you're going to want to use it. This is why it tends to negotiate by arms rather than diplomacy.
Logic of history? Is that a fancy way of saying "I don't have any idea of how such a thing could happen, but the situation is superficially similar on one specific, isolated point to historical cases where it indeed happened, and therefore it will happen now too."? ^o)

North Korea's massive military spending can adequately be explained by the premise that its leadership is rational and wants to remain in power and the system to remain intact. That military is its insurance policy against regime change. That does in no way imply that they would start a total war just for the hell of it.


Originally Posted by Independent
Perhaps you disagree? Do you think that SK is the main provocateur in these incidents? Do you think they are really the aggressor?
I have no idea, I haven't studied each incident separately. To me this seems like the normal kind of attrition you get when you have a heavily armed border and ambiguity about where the demarcation line actually goes.
Reply

Futuwwa
04-11-2013, 01:13 PM
Oh, and it seems like feeding the population has won out over continuing the posturing:

The North Korean authorities are continuing to give out mixed messages, trying to keep tensions high externally while at the same time bringing domestic reserve mobilization to an end and preparing for the farming season.

According to Daily NK sources, the relaxation of tensions really began in earnest with the Party Central Committee plenum at the end of last month. At the time of writing, all reserve forces have been sent back to their places of work and the annual drive to gather manure for biological fertilizer is well underway.

A Chongjin source told Daily NK on the 8th, “The reserves who had been mobilized for combat exercises over the past few months all returned their weapons to their local Ministry of People’s Safety (the police) office arms store on the 1st and went back to work. Having carried out public and enterprise rallies in accordance with decisions made at the Party Central Committee plenum last month, each province, county and city is now working on producing fertilizer.”

The source added, “Until last month there were Worker and Peasant Red Guards and other reserves on the streets, all in uniform with their backpacks and guns, but now there are only workers with shovels and hoes, mobilized to produce manure for the farms. Even those soldiers who were living underground in the mountains have returned to normal life in the barracks.”
That source is DailyNK, a South Korean news service dedicated to investigative journalism about North Korea, largely run by defectors. Hardly a source that would have any reason to have a pro North Korea bias. According to Le Wiki, the North Korean state news service hates it.
Reply

IslamicRevival
04-11-2013, 02:02 PM
North Korea's aggressive rhetoric is hardly suprising after years of intimidation from the South and particularly US who want to keep China and Russia within striking distance.

US actions on Korean peninsula aimed at encircling China, Russia
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/04/10...-russia-china/
Reply

Independent
04-11-2013, 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by Vision
US actions on Korean peninsula aimed at encircling China, Russia
30 years ago maybe, but not any more. This is from Dr Cheng Xiaohe (deputy director at the Center for China's International Strategic Studies at Renmin University in Beijing):

"China is a formidable country with a large economy and a modern military. China is not afraid of being invaded or circled by any country."

And this from President Xi Jinping at the BOAO economic forum in the southern Chinese island of Hainan:

"No one should be allowed to throw a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gains"

Russia has had enough too:

"There is no disagreement with the United States over North Korea." - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in London on Wednesday.
Reply

Independent
04-11-2013, 02:40 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Logic of history? Is that a fancy way of saying "I don't have any idea of how such a thing could happen, but the situation is superficially similar on one specific, isolated point to historical cases where it indeed happened, and therefore it will happen now too."?
No. If you look at countries with very high defence spending (as a proportion of GDP) it's a very good marker for their propensity to go to war in the near future. (eg Germany before both World Wars).

Originally Posted by Futuwwa
That does in no way imply that they would start a total war just for the hell of it
I don't think that's what they want either. But they are making the situation so dangerous. They can do their missile test if they want, no one can stop them. But by refusing to tell anyone when or where they're aiming at it's exceptionally dangerous.

They are objecting to SK/US carrying out a military training exercise south of the border yet NK do the same themselves all the time (and indeed they used an exercise as cover for the original surprise assault back in 1950).
Reply

Futuwwa
04-11-2013, 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
No. If you look at countries with very high defence spending (as a proportion of GDP) it's a very good marker for their propensity to go to war in the near future. (eg Germany before both World Wars).
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Germany before WW1 had one of the lowest levels of military spending to GDP of the great powers of Europe, significantly less than its WW1 enemies. It managed to have Europe's most powerful army simply because its GDP was Europe's largest in absolute terms. Germany was trigger-happy about escalating the Balkan Crisis into a world war since its leadership believed war to be inevitable and thought war now was preferable to war later, that a window of opportunity was closing. They weren't magically hypnotized by their armaments to go into war or any such nonsense.

Germany before WW2 had high levels of military spending because Hitler was intent on going on a war of conquest to begin with, he didn't get his ideas of conquest because of military spending.

Your post is a textbook example of how to use history to draw the wrong conclusions.

Originally Posted by Independent
I don't think that's what they want either. But they are making the situation so dangerous. They can do their missile test of they want, no one can stop them. But by refusing to tell anyone when or where they're aiming at it's exceptionally dangerous.
If North Korea doesn't want a war, it won't do anything that poses a significant risk of South Korea or the USA going to war (against everyone's interests) because of wrongly evaluating the situation. Therefore they won't do anything that could actually be misinterpreted, such as test-launch a missile in a trajectory above Japan or South Korea. Wonder why North Korea recently bragged about going to destroy the USA using agile, miniaturized nuclear devices? Well, the USA knows well enough that North Korea has nothing of the sort and knows it's just hot air, while Kim gets to look tough at home.
Reply

Independent
04-11-2013, 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Therefore they won't do anything that could actually be misinterpreted, such as test-launch a missile in a trajectory above Japan or South Korea.
So many wars begin through a failure of diplomacy or a misunderstanding - hopefully that won't happen in this case.
Reply

Woodrow
04-11-2013, 09:51 PM
We have gone past the day Kim was supposed launch an attack. He did make a show of moving missiles to the east coast and did make a show or raising them to firing position.

Perhaps his whole game was to use the Joint SK USA training exercises to his advantage. The exercises are coming to an end. Maybe he will convince his people the USA and SK did launch an attack on NK but he faced them with a show of force and they backed down and the US ran away. Once again Kim and the NK military backed down the USA, Japan and SK. With no help needed from any other nation.
Reply

Iceee
04-12-2013, 05:19 AM
Obama urges N Korea to end aggression as US upgrades nuclear threat

Pentagon concludes North Korea could build a nuclear missile but president maintains 'strategic patience' approach

Barack Obama has called on North Korea to end what he described as its "belligerent approach" as US intelligence officials concluded for the first time that the country has a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried on a missile.
The US president made his first public comments on the crisis as a congressional hearing was told of the Pentagon's latest intelligence assessment on North Korea. The Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) report said it concluded "with moderate confidence that the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles". But it said the missiles would not be reliable.
The Pentagon later sought to row back from the DIA assessment read out in Congress, saying that North Korea's had not yet fully tested a nuclear weapon.
US military commanders have been preparing for North Korea to launch a missile after a new round of United Nations sanctions were imposed last month.
The US has threatened to shoot down any North Korean missiles but it might only do so if the missile appears to be targeted at a US territory or one of its allies such as South Korea or Japan. If the missile is headed out to sea the US might try to avoid further escalation by letting it take its course.
Pentagon spokesman George Little refused to say what the US response would be. "We are prepared to respond to any missile threat," he said.
Little later issued a statement saying: "In today's House armed services committee hearing on the department of defence budget, a member of the committee read an unclassified passage in a classified report on North Korea's nuclear capabilities.
"While I cannot speak to all the details of a report that is classified in its entirety, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully tested, developed or demonstrated the kinds of nuclear capabilities referenced in the passage. The United States continues to closely monitor the North Korean nuclear programme and calls upon North Korea to honour its international obligations."
South Korea's defence ministry also cast doubt on the finding that North Korea could make a nuclear warhead small enough to go on a missile. "Our military's assessment is that the North has not yet miniaturised," ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok said in Seoul on Friday morning.
"North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests but there is doubt whether it is at the stage where they can reduce the weight and miniaturise to mount on a missile."
Obama, speaking to reporters after he met UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon at the White House, said: "We both agreed that now's the time for North Korea to end the kind of belligerent approach that they've been taking and to try to lower temperatures.
"Nobody wants to see a conflict on the Korean peninsula. But it's important for North Korea, like every other country in the world, to observe the basic rules and norms that are set forth, including a wide variety of UN resolutions."
He added that the US would take all necessary steps to protect its people.
The Obama administration remains of the view that North Korea's actions and rhetoric over the last month are bluster and that there is no serious threat yet.
The DIA assessment was revealed by Congressman Doug Lamborn during a congressional hearing. He said the part of the assessment dealing with North Korea had been declassified.
Lamborn, reading from the report, which was produced last month, said: "DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles. However, the reliability will be low."
The revelation came after a Pentagon briefing at which the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, refused to say whether North Korea was capable of building a nuclear weapon that could fit on a missile, arguing that the information was classified.
Administration officials know there is much more public scepticism about such intelligence claims after assessments about Iraq's weapons capabilities proved so wrong.
The revelation at this juncture will be viewed with suspicion by some anti-war groups who will wonder if, as with Iraq, it is part of a process to demonise North Korea ahead of military action.
But there appear to be no senior figures inside the Obama administration pressing for military intervention in North Korea to bring about regime change. The policy at present remains "strategic patience", with officials content to settle for containment.
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, is heading to the region on Thursday for talks with South Korea, Japan and China.
Earlier, in Washington, Mark Fitzpatrick, a director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, argued that while "strategic patience" was an answer for the present "artificial" crisis, in the long term the aim should be regime change and the reunification of North and South Korea.
He did not anticipate North Korea willingly trading away "big bang" weapons – the only significant achievement of which it could boast.
Fitzpatrick argued in favour of broadcasting direct to people in North Korea, targeting the finances of the ruling elite and highlighting its human rights record.
"The answer to the question: is regime change the answer? Yes," Fitzpatrick said. "But it is not obviously an immediate answer to the current situation. North Korea's actions and statement, however, reinforce the conclusion that there is only one happy ending to this long-running tragedy: unification of the Korea as a democratic, free-enterprise based republic."


Feels like the Cold War between Russia and U.S Post-WWII. Maybe same results? Nothing will happen?
Reply

Futuwwa
04-12-2013, 05:20 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Perhaps his whole game was to use the Joint SK USA training exercises to his advantage. The exercises are coming to an end. Maybe he will convince his people the USA and SK did launch an attack on NK but he faced them with a show of force and they backed down and the US ran away. Once again Kim and the NK military backed down the USA, Japan and SK. With no help needed from any other nation.
Exactly, and that was his intention all along. And with the threat of war taking the spotlight, the nuclear test that started this whole manufactured crisis have almost been forgotten.
Reply

Iceee
04-14-2013, 01:03 AM
The dictators have refined their control to a degree that makes resistance impossible, or dangerous in the extreme. They have a million strong armed force, who are fed well and lead a good life, and know that that privileged life will crash if the dictatorship is overthrown. The Generals and Kin Jong-Un thereby have a military they can depend on to mercilessly crush any resistance.



China and US make North Korea nuclear pledge




The BBC's Damian Grammaticas in Beijing: "Threatened with nuclear war, America is now looking to China to help defuse this crisis"

Continue reading the main story


China and the US have vowed to work together to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear programme and to settle tensions through dialogue.
A Chinese statement issued during a visit by US Secretary of State John Kerry said the nuclear issue was the "shared responsibility of all parties".
Mr Kerry said the two sides must decide "very quickly" how to proceed.
North Korea has recently threatened nuclear attacks, and is feared to be preparing a missile launch.
A flurry of warlike statements from Pyongyang has prompted speculation that a launch could happen on 15 April, when the country marks the 101st birthday of the nation's founder and former leader, Kim Il-sung.
Continue reading the main story
After weeks of rising tensions, and North Korea's threats of nuclear war, the diplomatic efforts to tackle this crisis are gathering pace.

The pledge to work with the US is a clear signal of China's displeasure with North Korea. China is North Korea's only ally, and is not going to stop supporting the North, but wants it to calm things down.
The question is will North Korea listen? In recent weeks the North's regime has made clear it now views having nuclear weapons as vital to its survival.
It has said explicitly that it won't bargain them away.
  • North Korea has reportedly moved at least two Musudan ballistic missiles to its east coast, but on Saturday, South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted officials in Seoul as saying that no new movement of the mobile launchers had been detected for two days.

US officials including Mr Kerry have been playing down a leaked Pentagon report which warned that Pyongyang could have developed the technology to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile.
Since the UN imposed fresh sanctions on North Korea in February, its leadership has promised to restart a mothballed nuclear reactor, has shut an emergency military hotline to South Korea, and has urged diplomatic staff to leave, saying it cannot guarantee their safety.
The North says it has also been angered by joint US-South Korean military exercises.
Though its rhetoric has been more bellicose than usual, analysts say it fits a long-standing pattern, and may be intended to boost the popularity of Kim Jong-un, who came to power last year.
In Beijing Mr Kerry held talks with President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. In comments to Mr Xi, he said the world was facing "a critical time with some very challenging issues".
Among them were Korean tensions but also "the challenge of Iran and nuclear weapons, Syria and the Middle East, and economies around the world that are in need of a boost", he said.
'Great specificity'He later issued a statement saying the US and China were able "to underscore our joint commitment to the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula in a peaceful manner".
He said the two sides would have "further discussions to bear down very quickly with great specificity on exactly how we will accomplish this goal".
Continue reading the main storyMusudan missile

  • The Musudan, also known as the Nodong-B or the Taepodong-X, is an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Its likely targets are Okinawa, Japan, and US bases in the Pacific
  • Range estimates differ dramatically. Israeli intelligence suggests 2,500km, while the US Missile Defense Agency estimates 3,200km; other sources put the upper limit at 4,000km

The statement was issued after talks with Yang Jiechi, China's top diplomat.
Mr Yang said China was "firmly committed to upholding peace and stability and advancing the denuclearisation process".
"To properly address the Korea nuclear issue serves the common interests of all parties. It is also the shared responsibility of all parties," he said.
China is North Korea's only ally and major trading partner, but has grown increasingly frustrated with its growing belligerence.
Even so, the BBC's Damian Grammaticas reports from Beijing that persuading China to up the pressure on North Korea will not be easy.
China might be frustrated by Pyongyang's behaviour but it is still the North's lifeline, so Beijing is unlikely to cut vital supplies of food and fuel since it feels that may make the North even more desperate and unpredictable, our correspondent adds.
Following meetings in the South Korean capital, Seoul, on Friday, Mr Kerry said no country had a closer relationship with Pyongyang than China.
Noting that Beijing, like Washington, wanted denuclearisation on the peninsula, he added: "If that's your policy, you've got to put some teeth into it."
He warned North Korea against any missile launch, saying it would be a "provocation and unwanted act" which would further isolate North Korea and its people who, he said "are desperate for food, not missile launches".
But he also said the US had tried to tone down its own statements, and cancelled some military exercises.
"I think we have lowered our rhetoric significantly and we are attempting to find a way for reasonableness to prevail here," he said.



North Korean television has been showing various celebrations despite its increasingly bellicose rhetoric

Mr Kerry is on a four-day trip to Asia, and travels to Tokyo on Sunday.
Russia has also expressed growing concern over North Korea and said on Friday that it had issued "an urgent appeal" to Pyongyang "to refrain from actions which could lead to further escalation of tension".
Some estimates suggest that the missiles North Korea has moved to its east coast could travel 4,000km (2,500 miles), although it is not believed that the Musudan has been tested before.
That would put US bases on the Pacific island of Guam within range.



Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!