N. Korea's Nuclear Threat

North Korea has announced that it has the capability to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States.

JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea -
North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.


"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."

Last week, the communist country warned that it had the right to launch a pre-emptive strike, saying it would strengthen its war footing before joint
South Korea-U.S. military exercises scheduled for this weekend.

Sounds like a little blackmail to me. North Korea wants a deal for nuclear know how and atomic fuel. If they have the capability to lauch this pre-emptive strike seems like they already have plenty of both. Or could this be a bluff in order to obatin that which they still desire. Why would we agree to such a thing after receiving this type of threat?


[Mod Edit - Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** ]

[edit on 21/3/06 by JAK]

yelp i read about this on yahoo. this is scary we just been threaten and noone is talking about it. they said they will hit the united states--what? shouldnt the news be all over this? shouldnt the president talk about this? why is it being ignored?

I'm not sure that the threat is really to the U.S. mainland. I'm pretty sure our government sees the threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles from North Korea as non-existent. I believe the threat is aimed toward South Korea and the U.S. interests (and troops) that exist there.

Has anyone read more about this? I read the news blurb but haven't dug very deeply into it. North Korea is well known for exaggerated threats...

-Ry

At launch the bloom is picked up... 15 seconds later the possible impact area is calculated... then come the response. Total and utter anhiliation of North Korea within minutes of a ICBM being launched at the USA.

The USA would accept a small measure of damage im sure, and has the facilities to deal with it - On the other hand North korea has no facilities to deal with complete and utter destruction.

These threats are silly - GW Bush is sat with his hands on the nuke response button, and im sure that even a hint of a strike would send N. Korea into the history books.

Originally posted by MadGreebo
At launch the bloom is picked up... 15 seconds later the possible impact area is calculated... then come the response. Total and utter anhiliation of North Korea within minutes of a ICBM being launched at the USA.

I'm not so sure on that one at this point MadGreebo. If NK was able to hit a city in the states and did so, you think Bush would turn around and launch without any further consideration? It's not like the entire country was destroyed.

What would more than likely happen IMO is that the joint chiefs and Congress would be called into emergency session, the UN security council would go into emergency session, and public opinion on the matter would be split down the middle as what to do... Many will want immediate blood in return, granted, but many will argue the point of non-escalation, and the fact that Bush's own preemptive agenda got us into the mess in the first place. Either way though, it would be a nasty situation and North Koreans would pay, one way or the other.

I think if NK hits a US city with a nuke, diplomatic and political considerations are going to go out the window, and NK is going to become a radioactive parking lot within an hour.

I'm not exactly what you'd call a hawk, but in such a case even I would favor a major retaliatory nuclear response, at the very least a massive nuclear strike on all North Korean military targets.

I think you will find that people across a wide spectrum of political beliefs will support a brutal response to a real attack, even if they're not too keen on "preemptive" attacks on bogus "threats". It's easy to forget that after 9-11, there was little to no domestic opposition to the Afghan campaign - the current political divisions are almost entirely centered around the US campaign in Iraq. Why the difference? Well, in one case we were attacked, in the other we were not. Pretty simple, really.

However I am not really too concerned - NK's game is and has been extortion, they've been issuing scary rhetoric at a fever pitch for more than 50 years, and for all that talk they haven't really done much. NK wouldn't even exist today if the US/UN hadn't played their hand too far and brought the Chinese into the Korean War. They certainly have no realistic hope of surviving a nuclear exchange with the US.

Originally posted by xmotex
I'm not exactly what you'd call a hawk, but in such a case even I would favor a major retaliatory nuclear response, at the very least a massive nuclear strike on all North Korean military targets.

And I suppose the US would do that knowing that thousands of US troops are sitting right across the DMZ and would be severly affected by it? And I suppose the fallout that would affect China and Russia would be inconsequential? C'mon, you can't just go launching a massive nuclear attack like you say without considering the consequences. And that's why I said that there would likely be appropriate, emergency governmental consideration before such a response. And thank God!

Now if our screens lit up with hundreds of missiles coming towards us from China or Russia, then fine, let em all rip and screw the consequences.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]

The point is that a nuclear attack requires a nuclear response.
Without it the whole underlying logic of maintaining a nuclear deterrent force falls apart.

The response would be planned so as to minimize fallout effects on neighboring countries - by avoiding groundburts and hitting targets deep inside the country - but it would almost certainly have to include nuclear strikes. And I am sure the Pentagon already has mutiple retaliation plans for such an attack already in place. Leaving the impression that one can launch a nuclear attack on the US without a response in kind would be a suicidal mistake.

[edit on 3/21/06 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
The point is that a nuclear attack requires a nuclear response.
Without it the whole underlying logic of maintaining a nuclear deterrent force falls apart.

Well great. When the US or Israel goes in with tactical nukes against underground targets in Iran, then I guess we know what's comin, eh? Head for the hills!

I'm pretty sure N. Korea would gain nothing from attacking the United States. They hold the nukes for power, like a hostage. You don't throw the hostage out the window at the police.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'm pretty sure N. Korea would gain nothing from attacking the United States. They hold the nukes for power, like a hostage. You don't throw the hostage out the window at the police.

I too, doubt they would attack the US mainland, as that seems rather pointless. I do, however, think that they might try something, conventionally, in US South Korea military bases to either destroy or weaken the US presence there. And technically they could anytime, as I believe there is no formal peace treaty ending the war, right?

Kim's mouth spouting recently that they reserve the right to preempt as well would indicate to me his vigilance of SK. For if the US were to attack him, surely they would want to use bases there as staging grounds, although not necessarily exclusively. Kim's preemption would likely be based on this assumption, IMO.