Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kim orders rockets on standby to attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    We thought Iraq would be a cake walk as well. Once we take out the head, we'll have compation for the mindless fucks left to fend for themselves. We'll feel an obligation to rebuild the nation and/or merge it with S Korea. We'll have to deprogrammed the brainwashed masses within the country... The list goes on.

    Comment


    • #32
      The White House warned North Korea on Friday that the rapidly escalating military confrontation would lead to further isolation, as the Pentagon declared that the US was fully capable of defending itself and its allies against a missile attack.

      After North Korean leader Kim Jong-un declared that rockets were ready to be fired at American bases in the Pacific – a response to the US flying two nuclear-capable B2 stealth bombers over the Korean peninsula this week – the White House blamed Pyongyang for the increased tensions.

      "The bellicose rhetoric emanating from North Korea only deepens that nation's isolation. The United States remains committed to safeguarding our allies in the region and our interests that are located there," deputy press spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters travelling with Barack Obama on Air Force One to Miami.

      Asked if the joint US-South Korean military exercises and the use of the stealth bombers had fuelled the escalation, Earnest replied: "It's clear that the escalation is taking place from the North Koreans based on their rhetoric and on their actions."

      The Pentagon said on Friday that the US would not be intimidated, and was ready to defend both its bases and its allies in the region. Lt Col Catherine Wilkinson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the US would not be intimidated. "The United States is fully capable of defending itself and our allies against a North Korean attack. We are firmly committed to the defence of South Korea and Japan," she said.

      Secretary of state John Kerry will visit the region in a week or so for meetings with Japan, China and South Korea, the State Department said.

      North Korea announced that its forces had been placed on high alert on Tuesday but the threats became graver when a picture was published of Kim reiterating the order at an emergency meeting on Friday.

      The US Defense Department keeps secret its assessment of the distance North Korea's missiles can reach. But Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a fortnight ago it had one type of missile capable of reaching the US.

      But while defence analysts agreed that while North Korea is theoretically capable of firing a missile, they expressed scepticism about whether its technology is as advanced as it claims and were doubtful about the accuracy in hitting targets.

      But there is more concern than usual in Washington compared with previous standoffs with North Korea because Kim is a new leader, young and inexperienced and a largely unknown quantity in the west.

      A major worry is that if North Korea was to attack a South Korean ship – it was blamed for the sinking a South Korean vessel in 2010 – or a land target, Seoul has said that it would retaliate this time.

      Wilkinson said: "North Korea's bellicose rhetoric and threats follow a pattern designed to raise tensions and intimidate others. DPRK will achieve nothing by threats or provocations, which will only further isolate North Korea and undermine international efforts to ensure peace and stability in north-east Asia.

      "We continue to urge the North Korean leadership to heed President Obama's call to choose the path of peace and come into compliance with its international obligations."

      She added: "We remain committed to ensuring peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. This means deterring North Korean aggression, protecting our allies and the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. The United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state; nor will we stand by while it seeks to develop a nuclear-armed missile that can target the United States."

      At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday, defence secretary Chuck Hagel said: "There are a lot of unknowns here. But we have to take seriously every provocative, bellicose word and action that this new, young leader has taken so far since he's come to power."

      Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the non-proliferation and disarmament programme of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, played down the threat. "North Korea is upping its rhetoric to a world-class level, but it's still just rhetoric. They have no capability to hit the US mainland with anything – except through cyberspace. Their only tested missiles can fly a maximum of 1,600km, less than half the distance to Guam."

      Fitzpatrick, who is scheduled to lead a thinktank discussion at the institute's Washington office next Thursday on whether the US policy of patience has run its course and instead it should pursue reunification of the Korean peninsula, said Friday that while North Korea is limited in its ability to hit US targets, it poses a threat to South Korea and Japan.

      "Their Scuds and Nodongs can hit anywhere in South Korea and Japan. Using them would be suicidal, of course. The far more likely scenario is a pin-prick attack in the nature of the 2010 attacks. This time, however, South Korea is determined to respond with an eye for an eye, in order to restore deterrence. North Korea's ensuing response could trigger a larger conflagration."

      Jim Walsh, a specialist on security and nuclear weapons at MIT, played down the prospect of an attack on the US, but said: "The reason it is scary is: you can get war even when no one intends to have a war. All the sides – South Korea, North Korea and others – are now leaning into each other, and if someone makes a mistake, I am concerned that that mistake will escalate into something larger than anyone expected.

      "Suddenly you have a young man in a closed country who has to decide whether he is going to respond to your actions."

      The risk was not of a North Korean attack on the US but on South Korea that would bring in the US, he said.

      Walsh, who has visited North Korea and has had talks with its officials in Switzerland, Sweden and the US, said the present confrontation felt different because of the harsher rhetoric from North Korea, the secret defence pact agreed by the US and South Korea and the US military drills this week.

      "If we are lucky it will all be bluster on everyone's side. That is the good outcome," Walsh said. "The bad outcome is that it is bluster until someone screws up and then war happens."

      Michael O'Hanlon, one of the leading military analysts in the US, expressed worries that the US approach of tit-for-tat and imposition of additional permanent sanctions after its third nuclear test could exacerbate the situation. Like Walsh, he sees this confrontation as being different from previous ones.

      In an email, O'Hanlon, a security specialist at Washington's Brookings Institution, told the Guardian: "I favour temporary sanctions in response to the third nuclear test, to give Pyongyang an incentive not to provoke again." He argues that by setting a time-limit such as two, three or four years, it could encourage North Korea not to conduct another nuclear test.

      "I am talking about automatic sunset provisions with a specific time frame, unless of course there is another nuclear test or another act of violence," O'Hanlon wrote.

      Print this

      Article history
      World news

      North Korea ·
      US foreign policy ·
      Nuclear weapons ·
      United Nations ·
      Japan ·
      China ·
      South Korea ·
      United States

      More on this story

      Kim Jong-un meets top North Korean military officials

      Kim Jong-un puts missile units on standby to attack US bases

      North Korea says differences can only be settled by 'physical means' after US flew two stealth bombers over Korean peninsula

      North Korea has threatened to attack the US – what will happen next?
      White House says US will not be intimidated by 'bellicose rhetoric' and is fully capable of defending itself and its allies
      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
        I was simply using that photo as an example of how they were not a well fed people at all.

        I have gathered my information on the DPRK from various sources including books, classrooms, documentaries, and various news sources.

        Do you honestly believe that North Korea would prevail against NATO?
        They don't have to prevail against NATO. They just have to black the eye of the baddest kid on the block. This is the difference between someone who has dealt with this country and been briefed on what they can do and what we can do within timeframes and someone who thinks they know anything based on books and news.

        You want to know what war with NK would be like? Look at the Korean war and then amplify that. You MAY could kill Kim but there's really no infrastructure (like Afghanistan) to target and every person in that country, like WW2 Japan, is willing to die for their god. Did Japan think it could take out the US? Probably not but it figured by attacking, it could drag others in on it's side.
        I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
          They don't have to prevail against NATO. They just have to black the eye of the baddest kid on the block. This is the difference between someone who has dealt with this country and been briefed on what they can do and what we can do within timeframes and someone who thinks they know anything based on books and news.

          You want to know what war with NK would be like? Look at the Korean war and then amplify that. You MAY could kill Kim but there's really no infrastructure (like Afghanistan) to target and every person in that country, like WW2 Japan, is willing to die for their god. Did Japan think it could take out the US? Probably not but it figured by attacking, it could drag others in on it's side.
          I could be mistaken, but didn't we beat Japan and... you know... rebuild their county into an economic powerhouse in line with the West?

          Do you really think the DPRK stands a chance against NATO's military might?
          Originally posted by lincolnboy
          After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
            I could be mistaken, but didn't we beat Japan and... you know... rebuild their county into an economic powerhouse in line with the West?

            Do you really think the DPRK stands a chance against NATO's military might?
            We stopped them because we took out civilian population centers and the emperor was in fear of losing his people and took their best interest to heart. Kim has no such issues. Again, you're ignorantly supposing that their goal is to beat NATO and I've explained twice that that's not their goal.
            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

            Comment


            • #36
              I doubt NATO even comes into it. It does stand for North Atlantic Treaty Origination after all. If the UN got involved it would be to big to stop at that point.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                We stopped them because we took out civilian population centers and the emperor was in fear of losing his people and took their best interest to heart. Kim has no such issues. Again, you're ignorantly supposing that their goal is to beat NATO and I've explained twice that that's not their goal.
                What is their goal? To hit Guam with a missile? To kill people in the South?

                Either way, they know that if they act then there will be dire consequences. Had it not been for Truman being a pussy, we wouldn't even be having this damn argument.
                Originally posted by lincolnboy
                After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Couver View Post
                  I doubt NATO even comes into it. It does stand for North Atlantic Treaty Originzation after
                  I am using the acronym to describe our allies. SEATO ain't there no mo' and where we go, the members of NATO go.
                  Originally posted by lincolnboy
                  After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                    What is their goal? To hit Guam with a missile? To kill people in the South?

                    Either way, they know that if they act then there will be dire consequences. Had it not been for Truman being a pussy, we wouldn't even be having this damn argument.
                    True facts, dude. We should've gone straight to Beijing, and cleaned house for the Nationalists.
                    ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                      I am using the acronym to describe our allies. SEATO ain't there no mo' and where we go, the members of NATO go.
                      I would respectfully disagree. Our "allies" in NATO only seem to show up when it is conviniant to them.

                      In Europe the only ones I would count on are the Brits and the Poles. Maybe the Germans if it would make them money.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                        What is their goal? To hit Guam with a missile? To kill people in the South?

                        Either way, they know that if they act then there will be dire consequences. Had it not been for Truman being a pussy, we wouldn't even be having this damn argument.
                        Very well said.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by YALE View Post
                          True facts, dude. We should've gone straight to Beijing, and cleaned house for the Nationalists.
                          We left Chiang Kai-Shek out to dry... and he was fucking raping the communists!
                          Originally posted by lincolnboy
                          After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Couver View Post
                            I would respectfully disagree. Our "allies" in NATO only seem to show up when it is conviniant to them.

                            In Europe the only ones I would count on are the Brits and the Poles. Maybe the Germans if it would make them money.
                            I suppose I will cede that to you, but I feel that if a serious DPRK/South Korean conflict threatened to destabilize the region or effect the global economy then more people than we though would give us a hand.
                            Originally posted by lincolnboy
                            After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                              I suppose I will cede that to you, but I feel that if a serious DPRK/South Korean conflict threatened to destabilize the region or effect the global economy then more people than we though would give us a hand.
                              If it did get that serious I could see China stepping up and shutting them down. For now we are worth more then NK to them.

                              Although I am sure during the current war games we are playing in SK they (China) are loving all the ELINT they are getting. I wonder sometimes if they let NK plays its games just to learn more about us.

                              **sorry for all the edits I am iPad typing feeble

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by dee View Post
                                The only thing I worry is that we are stretched fairly thin as it is dealing with our other two conflicts.
                                You hit the nail on the head, even if we didn't have other fights going on Korea is a nightmare. Our presence there is not really that big at all. Especially when you consider that a large portion of them will be taken out within the first hour of another conflict. We do have pre-positioned equipment in the region for follow on units to grab and go but the quickest we could start getting a significant number of troops on the ground is weeks. And where exactly are they going to come from?

                                Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                                What is their goal? To hit Guam with a missile? To kill people in the South?

                                Either way, they know that if they act then there will be dire consequences. Had it not been for Truman being a pussy, we wouldn't even be having this damn argument.
                                The goal of the North according to them has always been reunification with the South.

                                The biggest problem with North Korea is how quickly they could get into the fight. Frost mentioned the tunnel system, they can slip tens of thousands of soldiers (if not hundreds of thousands) across the DMZ with nobody knowing. They have 500,000 to 700,000 rounds of artillery aimed just at Seoul. Our troops will be hit hard by artillery before they can even get out of their camps. A few years ago it was discovered that they had an underground airstrip, when a pilot defected. He had his landing gear down and was on his approach to the airport in Seoul before the air defense sirens even went off. His entire flight lasted less than 10 minutes.

                                Like I said in a previous post, using our current troop levels, we will have a very very tough fight on our hands. I have always been of the opinion that a first strike with nuclear weapons will probably have to be used by us.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X