North Korea Threatens Armed Strike, End to Armistice

[Newsjock]

Source: Bloomberg

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea threatened military action in response to South Korea joining a program to seize weapons shipments, and said it’s no longer bound by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

South Korea’s actions are tantamount to a “declaration of war,” the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. “If the armistice agreement loses its validity, the Korean peninsula will revert to a state of war.”

... Under the July 27, 1953, armistice that ended the Korean War, both sides agreed to “a complete cessation of all hostilities” and pledged to accept the demarcation line that has become the most-heavily mined demilitarized zone in the world.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aS17xp.yHokM&refer=home

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. NK seems to be coming a pain in the ass that nobody needs

right now.

[shadowknows69]

9. There's really no good time for World War III

Although if they did attack SK it would probably be over for the north with a push of a couple buttons and a few mushroom clouds from our side, but that would still be very very bad generally. Big mess to clean up and environmental damage we don't need right now. Not to mention Russia and China might not like living next to a nuclear wasteland.

[Old Hob]

12. I doubt we would do much except negotiate an exit for our troops stationed over there.

There's no fighting spirit left in America unless we're fighting each other maybe. I think I heard a whimper somewhere.

[Uncle Joe]

21. I disagree, if the North attacked the South, there would be massive retaliation.

The North could probably waste Seoul in matter of hours or days using just the artillery currently positioned against it.

I suspect in defending a democratic South Korea, we would strike back just as hard and I believe North Korea knows this.

I also believe North Korea's leader is losing his long dominant propaganda war within his own nation and this is leading them to saber rattling as a means of counteracting his perceived loss of power.

He will need to make a critical decision soon, whether to bring his nation in to the world, and maybe salvage his global/national legacy by going Gorbachev, stay put while his nation implodes; if not during his life shortly after his death or all out war with devastating consequences.

[Old Hob]

57. You're living in a dream world. If he attacks the south, it's his.

aside from the obvious reasons why, he has nukes too now which makes this a whole different ball game. There are maybe two scenarios whereby we could succesfully attack NK but I'm guessing China, Russia, and most of the UN would strongly oppose both of them. What's more, I think you're "misunderestimating" Kim and his agenda and overestimating our ability to cope with him at this point in time.

[Uncle Joe]

65. On the other hand I believe you're underestimating Kim and the U.S.

The man wants to live, he just wants to keep his power as well.

The North Koreans have been increasingly hearing a different version of reality as to the state of the world than what he leads them to believe and he sees this as a threat to his autocratic rule.

Re: the U.S. you state on your post #7 that

"There's no fighting spirit left in America unless we're fighting each other maybe. I think I heard a whimper somewhere."

The U.S. will defend a Democratic South Korea from Dictatorial North Korean aggression with a devastating response; because if North Korea invades, from a strategic standpoint there will no choice but to hit back hard and fast.

If you feel like whimpering go a head, I don't blame you, this would be a nightmare scenario on all sides, but I wouldn't play the role of April Gillespie and give Kim an implicit green light to wage a war of aggression against the South Koreans.

On the other hand if you want Kim to attack the South Koreans I understand your post better.

[JonLP24]

66. We have a military base in South Korea

I doubt we will stand by while they attack SK. It won't simply be theirs for the taking since we have a military base in SK. I think we have more then 1 but I only know of 1.

[NickB79]

67. If US soldiers die in the attack, the North is toast

We have 30,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, plus any naval ships in the area at the time. If North Korea hit a US military base in their attack and US soldiers died, it would be an act of war that no US president would ignore.

We may not respond with nuclear force or ground invasions, but we most definitely would begin hitting NK military installations with missile strikes and bomber runs.

[Old Hob]

71. .....

And NK has 1.1 million active duty soldiers of which approx 70% are stationed right across from those 30,000 US soldiers. Getting into a protracted war with NK now would make our adventure in Iraq look like a pretty good idea by comaprison. I'm not even opposed to war to be honest. I'm just opposed to losing them.

[Uncle Joe]

72. "I'm not even opposed to war to be honest."

I thought this was the case from your original post #7, thanks for the confirmation.

One other point, you don't count any soldiers for the South Korean side. I was over there for a while and the South Koreans are a well trained tough bunch; and I believe you underestimate them as well as U.S. technological force multipliers.

[Pavulon]

23. Think I hear B2s and F117s

maybe even Ohio class subs if they get really stupid. We dont do CI all that well, guys with no uniforms in shithole places have been a bit of a problem.. We do kill soviet satellite states. Iraq used to have a massive standing army and all the same shit N. korea has. Until we blew it all to shit in GW1.

If they twitch they die. There is a very long standing oob for them if they decide to start a war. They are truly fucked if they start a war.

[WheelWalker]

32. You forgot

the B-1B. But then, they probably won't hear it, either.

[ohio2007]

41. But the big hurt is already waiting on station

waiting for the order to go ballistic if need be.

[Old Hob]

59. We had a massive coalition in GW1. We weren't spread out on two fronts already then either.

we also weren't bankrupt back then. Oh yeah, saddam didn't have nukes, Kim does. If they succesfully infiltrate into the south and dig in, they fucking own it and we'll lose 20,000 soldiers before we realize it. And, then, our two other fronts will fucking collapse and we will be truly FUCKED. Oh yeah, last but not least, China owns our ass and we won't do a fucking thing to piss them off and, if we do, what do you think they will do this time? same thing as the last time? who fucking knows? Hell, they could stop exporting goods to us and our whole fucking country would shut down. How about Iran? We get locked into a fight with NK, think they won't lock up the straight of Hormuz and cut off our oil? Who knows? Again, if Kim succesfully infiltrates into the south and digs in, he owns it...unless we're prepared to go all the fucking way this time.

[Pavulon]

61. We have air power and jet fuel. M4s, and lots of jdams. Paid up friend

if they fucking twitch they die. If they start ww3 they burn. Simple as that. We meet our obligation to treaty and nuke them to a man woman and child if they fire first. That means china too, we have nuclear umbrella treaties with japan and s korea, we will honor them. China just means 2 more ohio class launches and a few less nukes buried in the midwest. You think no one has thought of this shit since the end of the korean war. There are plans updated constantly on executing a war if n korea decides to go balls out. That is a stark reality. The weapons dont give two fucks about the economy. They work regardless. Please do not underestimate our ability to kill millions of people there with no nukes. I assume they have dams there, we start by blowing them all the fuck up at 2am local time. People tend to drown more in the middle of the night when they cant see a wall of water coming.. Shit like that happens on a pure open war. Which that would be.

You are making some really simple stuff a spiders web of ideas. We were the PRINCIPAL force in the destruction of iraq in gw1. We strip their air power and then bomb them until they are tired of dying. THe best mechanized units in the world go in and kill whoever is left. Civilians are not really a concern in these things. Grid warfare.

This would be a strategic air war, because n korea would attack seoul first, and we would proceed to flatten everything they have in response. Every dam, power station, two guys or more sitting in a circle jerk. All targets that would be destroyed.

Hey, seen any tomahawks fired recently? i wonder if we stopped making them. I wonder where they all are?

All the way like inchon that what you mean?, meaning shooting a million people yep, we can still do that. Hit up janes and see where everyone is, not in Iraq and afganistan. You will be surprised.

Hope to whatever you believe in that a war does not start there because the loss of life will be on a scale not seen since 1945, and I dont mean nukes. I mean tokyo, when we burned it to the ground with 300,000 or so people. In 2 days. Any war there would be devastating to civilians.

You think we made any progress in strategic air since then? We spent trillions and continue to develop technology to kill numerically superior enemies. That is the structure of the US armed forces.

This should never happen, there is no reason for this to happen. I do not want that to happen, however to assert that we will just bend over and spread our cheeks is a bit childish.

[Old Hob]

64. I'm gonna be 100% honest with you

you're my favorite DUer. I love your enthusiasm. That being said, I think you're grossly underestimating NK and seriously overestimating our own capabilities. I did my time in the infantry. 8 years. I've participated in Joint US/South Korea warfighter exercises against NK. It won't be as easy as you think. Not by a long shot. So, I can appreciate the enthusiasm but, realistically, I think we're in no position to open up such a front considering everything that is going on lately.

[Pavulon]

73. Former engineer here..

I think we have no reason to push them into a war. No reason to pick a fight or refuse a reasonable offer for reconciliation. I had a nice year and 3 months or so vacation in Yugoslavia, rather what was left of it.

For a while nobody knew who was going to fight there, Russia was pissed, it was a mess.

No one wants a war, and I do not underestimate the north koreans. I also do not underestimate the us and nato. In the event of a war there started by the north the nato treaty would be invoked.

[Old Hob]

75. ...............

I was stationed in Bosnia back in 1998 with the 1st cavalry division, 11M. I missed going to Iraq 3 times. Thought for sure I would end up over there but I lucked out with the timing. I never believed in Iraq and was vocally opposed to it while in the National Guard back in 2001. My buddies thought I was wrong but I was right about it all. Even back then I was saying that we would gain nothing and we would be left dealing with North Korea and Iran from a weakened position. I was right again, more right the I would have wished in fact. I understand the need to stare Kim in the eyes and beat on our chests. That's all fine. But it would be a mistake of the highest magnitude to arrogantly half ass our way into NK like we arrogantly half assed our way into Vietnam and like we arrogantly half assed our way into Iraq. Recognizing this, I feel compelled to offer an opposing voice whenever the matter of war against NK comes up.

[depakid]

68. The F117's have been retired from service

Wouldn't need 'em though.

[Pavulon]

74. Be damned, did not know that.

I guess there is something better to drop bombs with no notice if required...

Ugly but effective airplane.

[David__77]

13. The US should sign a peace agreement and establish relations.

The North Koreans would be very cooperative if their sovereignty were recognized. They ARE a nuclear power. That's not going to change.

[Pavulon]

18. Or we can ignore their ass

fuck signing shit under duress. We are a nuclear power too. Nuclear powers can fight conventional wars. If they get squirrely they may end up nuked off the face of the earth. They have one nuke, a little one. If they use it life stops there.

Let them starve, fuck em. That nuke means jack shit.

[Stella_Artois]

22. Correction

They HAD one nuke. At least one. Now, they either have none or some more.

Probably, they have none. Almost certainly, they have none in a form that can be used as a practical weapon.

[Pavulon]

25. I heard 1kt. That is a fizzle..

they are just crying out to the world for a tit ti suckle. They are obsolete, let them fall apart. LG shit has gotten to expensive, need some cheap labor over there.

[David__77]

27. I don't support a peace agreement "under duress."

I support it because I believe it's the right thing to do. It's wrong that the state of war hasn't been ended through a peace agreement between the parties to the Korean War. North and South Korea are both sovereign states of the Korean people and they can solve their problems independently, with sovereignty.

North Korea will not start a war.

[Pavulon]

28. Sunshine blown out the..

the sunshine plan was shat on. NK has yet to make any real move to the table.

[David__77]

31. I don't know about that. A lot of progress was made in Korea-Korea relations.

Families were reunited, the railway link reopened. There are all kinds of economic and people-to-people links between the Koreas now. There seems to be a real basis for further progress along that path. When did that progress really occur? After Albright's visit in 2000. North Korea made a lot of gestures after that visit and changed a lot of policies for the better. If we can maintain the most friendly of relations with Saudi Arabia, why can we not at least entertain a peace agreement with North Korea?

[Pavulon]

33. Right when they were making the nukes..

kim is a lying piece of shit. He lied to clinton , and will continue to lie. There has been NO real movement. look good feel good shit does not mean a damn think when people are popping off test nukes.

Problem is not the people. It is kim.

[David__77]

37. So what do you think the solution is?

I advocate peace agreement and respect for DPRK sovereignty.

Do you advocate "regime change" through armed force under current circumstances? I mean, if you do not, surely you recognize that North Korea will continue to enhance its military capacity with time. I say that it can be won to a neutral position and change will come with economic engagement. But if you believe that is not possible, then how could you oppose US invasion right now?

[Pavulon]

39. N Korea is a fucking disaster, let it burn

sit back and watch it fall apart. People will get tired of starving and eating dirt while s korea thrives. We do not need to invade to allow it to fail. Hopefully like E germany, self correcting.

[pointblank]

49. I dont advocate invasion

but you advocate sovereignty for one of the worst regimes the world has ever seen?

Please choose your words more wisely next time. It is ignorance like this that gives the warmongering right the ammo to use against the left to paint us as weak.

Economic engagement has not worked. Perhaps we should have chosen this part of the "axis of evil" to "disarm" first?

[David__77]

50. I chose my words carefully.

I don't care what the right thinks of my words. There are many opinions on the "left," including those who DO advocate invasion and occupation of North Korea. I don't agree. I think national sovereignty and mutual non-interference are the best principles for international relations in this period.

Also, North Korea is not East Germany. East Germany was far more "Western" in its orientation, which is precisely why its leading party peacefully abdicated in the face of popular discontent. This won't happen in North Korea.

[Xithras]

30. The North Koreans don't want a peace agreement.

To this day, they refuse to sign any peace agreement that fails to unify the entire Korean peninsula under one government...that they control. They refuse to recognize the independence of South Korea, and will not yield on demands for a democratic government.

So they remain in a state of armistice...suspended war.

[David__77]

34. That is simply untrue.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22peace+agreement%22+site%3Akcna.co.jp&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=%22peace+agreement%22+site%3Akcna.co.jp&fp=dV7OsoU8l4g

The official KCNA represents the views of the North Korean government. Read just some of what they have to say on the subject of US-DPRK peace agreement.

[Pavulon]

35. Nothing says peace like popping off nukes..

NK is busy holding american journalists, kidnapped Japanese and killing people who try to defect. Kim is fucking crazy and the world will be lucky if he does not start a shooting war.

[David__77]

36. That's doesn't address the question of peace agreement.

I was addressing the misstatement of the previous poster.

I don't know about the Japanese thing you mention, but wasn't the journalist illegally in the country, crossing the border from China improperly. Certainly people have been arrested for that in many countries, especially when a state of war technically exists. But that's all an aside from the big question of US relations with the Koreas: what is the basis for those relations? I think it should be non-interference and mutual respect for national sovereignty.

[Pavulon]

38. Yep, Kidnapped them..

crazy fuckers. So they can execute or jail forever journalists. N. Korea is like east germany, except run by a fucking madman. If they want to chill and unify under a non communist movie obsessed nut I am sure that could happen. Until then, lil kim remains a problem. N. Korea did not show that respect when it invaded and started the last war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese

[Xithras]

45. No, it's not untrue. And linking to lil Kim's pressers in no way refutes that

First, the U.S. has already made it clear that any inking of a peace deal has to occur between North and South Korea. We're not going to sign a peace deal on their behalf, and North Korea refuses to negotiate directly with the current President of South Korea, and wants us to impose a deal on them. They also demand that any peace deal be preceded by the withdrawal of all foreign soldiers, which is problematic on two fronts. First, the South Koreans have repeatedly asked us to stay, so a pullout would essentially be blowing off an ally in the HOPE that an unstable and erratic hostile power will keep its word. Second, and just as troubling, is the fact that North Korea has not rescinded its claim of ownership of South Korea, to this day. Both governments of Korea still consider the land held by the other to be "occupied territory".

One other thing to keep in mind here is that the problem isn't entirely with the North Koreans. The government in South Korea refused to sign the armistice way back in 1953, and has not signed it to this day. WE signed it to end the fighting and informed the South Koreans that we would no longer fight for them.

It's a 50 year old stalemate.

[ohio2007]

42. if the Norks were ever to have the curtain dropped from their blindfolded eyes, Kims reality check

will become unbalanced and the spell on his worshipers broken. No, he has his munchkins well sedated and thinking they have it so good!


why fuck it up and declare "mercy" on your soundly battered and defeated enemy ? We can't crawl to the surrender table. We must roll on our belly's and mumble a few prayers to the dear one.

lol


ain't gonna happen imo

[Pirate Smile]

2. I saw this earlier and was trying to figure out what was going on.

[Newsjock]

3. Here's a link

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aCOdQVBqmdls&refer=japan

May 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S., China, Japan and Russia have agreed that the United Nations Security Council should adopt a strong resolution censuring North Korea for its nuclear test and missile launches, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Thanks.

[imdjh]

4. If Russia , China, and the US are on board- then who would be selling arms to North Korea?

Let me guess.

[ohio2007]

46. Kim "BUY" weapons ? what would he use to "BUY" them with ?

His slave labor builds the arsenal of the barely fed million man army of his.
And western aid puts donated grain in the belly of his soldiers.

He can only barter what is manufactured in the military industrial complex gulags. And that happens to be arms.



Seems Russia, China et el know Kim has some "product" ready for rollout. Kim is pissed his product is going to get "pirated" when it slips over the horizon.

Where would that stuf be going ?

[Nevernose]

54. They export more than that (but not much)

They export arms mostly (the bog ticket items are missiles, much less lucrative in the post-cold-war era), but also export raw materials, and, insanely enough, fish. They're also one of the world's biggest state-sponsored counterfeiters, counterfeiting billions every year in fake euros, pounds, and dollars.

In the 80s it was Hezbollah/Lebanon, in the 90s it was the Bulgarians and other Eastern Europeans, in the first part of this decade it was the North Koreans. I don't know who's at the top of the counterfeiting ladder these days, though (I used to know some members of a Bulgarian crime syndicate; long story). One of the very few good things the Bush administration did was crack down on NK counterfeiters, though I'm certain they're still active.

[New Dawn]

6. Would the US allow other countries to search all of its ships?

And particularly if the other countries were seizing US property. It is South Korea that is threatening an act of war against the North by threatening to search and seize ships. The US corporate media, of course, would never point out that fact though.

[ronnie624]

7. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell of that happening.

But an examination of history shows conclusively that the United States is far more likely than North Korea to attack other countries.

[Pavulon]

20. Wrong..north invaded the south

using soviet hardware..Lets see if they start a big fat war in the next few weeks.

[ronnie624]

55. I offered no opinion on that issue.

I agreed with the poster I responded to, concerning whether or not the U.S. government would allow other countries to search its ships and seize its property. I also said that the United States is more likely than North Korea to attack other countries, which is such an obvious fact, even to a habitual dissembler, that providing links to information on the matter would be a complete waste of time.

[ronnie624]

62. There's more to the "Korean War" than just who initially "invaded".

I suppose your claim might make sense if one accepts the division of Korea as somehow moral and just, which I do not.

The fact of the matter is, the "Korean War" was a direct result of U.S. intervention.

A New Look at the Korean War
By John H. Kim

In addition to the tragic division of Korea, the U.S. also refused to recognize the Korean People's Republic (KPR), a nationwide, progressive government organized by anti-Japanese nationalist Koreans before the arrival of American troops in South Korea in September 1945. Instead of cooperating with the KPR, the U.S. created a military government in its zone of occupation, outlawing the KPR and the popular People's Committees under the control of KPR.

Official American history has it that the Korean War started on June 25, 1950 when North Korean forces suddenly attacked the South under Stalin's orders. This is a gross misrepresentation of the origin of the war. According to declassified Russian documents, Stalin did not order Kim Il Sung to start the war. On the contrary, it was Kim Il Sung who sought permission to attack the South in case the North was attacked. The truth is that the Korean War started in 1945 when the U.S. suppressed the KPR government and imposed its military rule in the southern part of Korea.

*****

To American people of today, it doesn't matter much which side started the American Civil War. The important thing we remember is that the war was fought over the issues of slavery and the preservation of national union. Likewise, the Korean War was mainly a civil war of Korean people over the question of national reunification, which turned into an international military conflict upon the intervention of outside forces. Professor Bruce Cumings of the University of Chicago, the author of two monumental books on the origins of the Korean War, sums it up the best:

"The Nogun massacre can help Americans understand what this 'forgotten war' was really about. It was a civil and unconventional war that had its origins long before June 1950, and the official repositories of historical truth in Washington and Seoul have been lying about its basic nature for half a century."*

*Bruce Cumings, "Korean My Lai," The Nation, Oct. 25, 1999

<http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=138>

[Hugabear]

14. Silly, we're the good guys - the rules don't apply to us

See, we're allowed to develop nukes. We're the good guys. North Korea is a bad guy, so we've decided they can't have any.

We're allowed to board and search their ships, because we're the good guys.

International law doesn't apply to the US.

:sarcasm:

[TheWatcher]

52. We haven't been the "Good Guys" for a long time.

Our country gave up moral high ground in world standing LONG ago.

We are no longer the "Good Guys" by any stretch of the imagination.

No matter what some of our resident "wargasm" crowd thinks.

North Korea is not going to commit suicide.

Now, whether we are going to continue to swing our dicks around and do something stupid again on the World Stage.....

That is ALWAYS up for debate.

[Pavulon]

19. Would the us sell b61's to syria, methinks no.

lil kim if fucking crazy. Now he is playing at the adults table. He is busy sticking his pecker in everyone's eye and seeing what happens. So if a nuke pops in midtown with a n korean signature they all die. Those are the stakes, exactly.

There is not middle ground in a nuclear war.

[TheWatcher]

53. LOL. You sound a bit sauced tonight Pavulon.

You want to see something happen SOOOOOOOOOOOO bad, don't you?

It didn't happen for you with Iran, but maybe there is hope here.

Keep that lube handy.

:rofl:

[ronnie624]

56. Damn, I enjoyed that. n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

58. indeed -- those war boners don't polish themselves, after all

[pointblank]

70. Would you rather live in a country

that is strong enough to not allow or stand for it's ships to be boarded; or live in DPRK where if you say the wrong thing you end up in a gulag?

I think I'll live in and support the former.

NK is no Iraq, and Bush ain't president anymore. This shit is semi-scary to me...scarier than post 9-11 for sure and the made up bullshit that followed.

Trust me, I have no love for the corporate media, but lets not lose sight of who the "good" guys really are here. All of you people's sarcasm about the USA is amusing, but when it comes down to it we should all appreciate what we have and work to change it for the better, not hate it.



Edited for structure.

[Thothmes]

8. I do not think that the current government in China

would tolerate a war on the Korean peninsula. It is bad for business. If the Chinese government has learned anything in the last 20 years, it is that making money is good. IMO, if war looked inevitable, you would see a hundred divisions of the PLA cross the Yalu River and clean out the current North Korean government before Pyongyang could start one.

[semillama]

10. I agree.

And of course, the US would bluster and fuss about it, while secretly supporting the entire action.

[msongs]

11. yes must keep all those north koreans on starvation rations no matter what nt

[David__77]

17. They wouldn't overthrow the current government.

Not a chance of that happening. Despite all the bluster from certain quarters in China about opposing North Korea's actions, it's still a model of sorts to China in how to maintain party control of the state. Overthrowing a "socialist state" that borders China will simply not happen - it would be highly destabilizing to the Chinese party and state. This other stuff is for international consumption. Kim Jong-il would be maintained in power by any Chinese invading force, though I see a Chinese intervention as extremely unlikely. North Korea is a lot of talk, but the situation is not nearly so unstable.

[Stella_Artois]

26. I do not agree

China invaded socialist Vietnam in 1979 and may well do so again. I suspect that they will put their own perceived national interest before any feeling of fraternal socialist brotherhood. Especially since both countries are socialist in name only.

[David__77]

29. China didn't invade Vietnam in order to overthrow the regime there.

They did it to relieve the pressure on the "Democratic Kampuchea" forces ("Khmer Rouge") who were being routed by the Vietnamese armed forces. China never intended to overthrow and replace the Vietnamese state. That is consistent with what I said about their strategic objectives with regard to any intervention on North Korea - they would not dismantle the existing regime, only limit the space in which it operates - its freedom of action.

You're right the for China "socialist community" is not an operating principle. However, it's imperative to legitimize the operation of the ostensibly Marxist-Leninist party-state domestically. And replacing a "socialist state" in Korea with an OPENLY capitalist one doesn't fit the bill for that purpose.

[Posteritatis]

44. 1970s Vietnam was a beacon of stability compared to North Korea

I'd love for the North Korean government to go away, myself. Well, more to the point, I'd love for the North Korean regime to have gone away, to have something in its place where there's a modicum of freedom, a relative lack of endemic famine, and less than a quarter of the population in the military.

I worry about how fragile a system that rigid would be, though. If North Korea's government ever fell, the process would be extravagantly ugly. It might not be as drawn out as what's going on in Iraq, but I have a bad feeling that if it went down there'd be a lot more hurt in the time it happened.

[Posteritatis]

15. "...This is a recording." (nt)

[Baclava]

16. N. Korea threatens to attack US, S. Korea warships

N. Korea threatens to attack US, S. Korea warships
By HYUNG-JIN KIM

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea threatened military action Wednesday against U.S. and South Korean warships plying the waters near the Koreas' disputed maritime border, raising the specter of a naval clash just days after the regime's underground nuclear test.

"Now that the South Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots," North Korea is "compelled to take a decisive measure," the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said in a statement carried by state media.

South Korea's military said Wednesday it was prepared to "respond sternly" to any North Korean provocation.

"It is a laughable delusion for the United States to think that it can get us to kneel with sanctions," it said in an editorial. "We've been living under U.S. sanctions for decades, but have firmly safeguarded our ideology and system while moving our achievements forward. The U.S. sanctions policy toward North Korea is like striking a rock with a rotten egg."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...F7R9wD98EMMPO0

[Xolodno]

24. The real question is...

Is Kim under sound mind?

Seemed to recollect somewhere he had a stroke of some sorts. Given that a family member of mine had a stroke and their frame of mind wasn't exactly stellar from time to time....

And if his subordinates are used to believing their own lies....well?

Its entirely possible this guy has lost his marbles. But I would rather hope he's talking smack for more "aid".

[ohio2007]

40. ... tell us more about these "seized weapons shipments" shorty

The article started out promising as to why the war club was comming out but.....without sufficient evedence as to where the cargo was going to and where it was "hijacked" leaves much doubt for Kims pre emptive implosion.

Will Barack sign off on what must be done if nutjob blows his load all over the citizens of Seoul ?

[KansDem]

43. Well, aren't the two Koreas still at war...theoretically?

Hasn't the last 55 years or so been a "ceasefire?"

[ohio2007]

47. Yes, and Kim still dreams of ruling over a united peninsula when the war is won

And thats why he won't sign any peace deal recognizing the south as a "breakaway country" from the north....

[and-justice-for-all]

48. Well China is not going to just sit back and let them destroy...

the entire region. China could kick NKs ass back to the stone age, China has the numbers and the military to do it. China has to much at stake to let NK fuck it all up.

the same could also apply to Russia.

Then again, who really knows. To me, NK does not have anything to gamble with, I call their bluff.

[ohio2007]

51. the rhetoric out of NK is much like that out of the Kremlin just a few short months before they

dissolved.....


Kim's 20 yr old boy isn't going to inherit the thrown without an internal fight among senior hardliners.

jmo

To me, NK does not have anything to gamble with, I call their bluff.

There is a dogfight going on inside the inner circle. It would be a shame if he suffered a final stroke before his big 15th anniversary extravaganza celebration in a few weeks .

oh the world will be disappointed to say the least

[Old Hob]

60. Nothing to gamble with? try nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[and-justice-for-all]

76. What exactly would they gain? nt

[Old Hob]

77. South Korea

among other things

[ronnie624]

63. A New U.S. Policy toward Korea:

Korean American Recommendations for Real Change

By John H. Kim and Indong Oh

Considering the facts that India, Israel and Iran already launched their satellites, without any international condemnation, that Japan already launched 25 satellites, and South Korea is now preparing to launch its own satellite in July this year, it is quite understandable why North Korea is so defiant in this matter.

*****

In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke to the world as follows: "And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today... know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity." As concerned Korean Americans working for genuine peace and friendship between the United States and Korea, we were deeply moved by President Obama's kind message of friendship with other people around the world. Was his message directed to the North Korean people too? We hope so. In any case, his words will mean something only when they are transformed into an actual policy.

*****

The withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea will also help in facilitating the self-determination of the Korean people as for the future destiny of their country-free from outside interferences. The U.S. owes a heavy responsibility for the artificial division of Korea at the end of the WW II. That decision went against the long history and interest of the Korean people as a united country. To achieve a permanent peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, it is essential that the division of Korea be ended and the country be allowed to reunite in a peaceful manner. In other words, from now on, Uncle Sam should stop trying to dictate the future of Korean people's destiny, as it had done in the past.

*****

It will probably take more than President Obama to bring a real change to our policy toward Korea. The call for change must also come from the American people themselves. It is high time for the Obama administration as well as the American academic community and civil society--especially the think tanks, peace groups, and the Korean American groups--to respond to the call and take concrete steps to promote genuine reconciliation with the Korean people, including the North Koreans in particular.

<http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/09038KimOh.html>

[charlie and algernon]

69. Don't we also still have upwards of a million mines along that border?

Any new Korean war is going to have casulties in the hundreds of thousands to millions. Depending how they plan on going about the first strike, the US could lose 10-20 thousand troops VERY quicky. If you only have a couple nukes, there's only two ways to use them. Either strike first which sees Toykom, Seoul, and our bases nuked, or you wait till your invaded, then unless them on the invaders. NK seems to be going the first strike route. If US troops are nuked, or ANY allied city is nuked, Obama will HAVE to turn North Korea into glass.

[hayu_lol]

78. We seem to have a lot of keyboard warriors here...

in this thread. They fail to consider that we are roughly in the same position now in S Korea that we were in 49/50. About the same number of troops as well. When the firing started, our army was almost driven into the sea before Truman's infusion of Marines beefed up the number of army combat troops. We just barely held out until help could arrive.

The border between the two countries is so close to Seoul that the Korean capitol is going to be the immediate victim. 35,000 American troops(many of which are not combat troops)is more a police force than a standing army.

For example,if the N Koreans do fire on the south, where do we stage from? The Philippines is gone. Japan is probably out of the question except for Anderson AFB on Okinawa. Do we have the air transport capability to move massive amounts of equipment, ammunition, related supplies plus reinforcing troops into the area--where do they land in Korea? Not being a defeatist here...but this is reading just like a 'reprise' of '49/50.'

Our air transport is being utilized in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other points in the middle east. Our shipping is also tied up with no excess capacity. Nukes would not only kill N Korea, but S Korea as well. Nukes could bring China in and even possibly Russia as well.

Where do we get the troops to send? Do we raid the middle east for manpower? If we do that, how long to get the troops to where they are needed? Nothing easy about this one. Even if the draft began immediately, it would be months before additional troops could be trained and shipped.

What about equipment, heavy equipment, armament, the entire logistic train--how long to get it in gear?

Real problems in this Korean theater--the same ones we had the last time.

Thank you George and Dick...you used up our troops.