N. Korea threatens war? Ha!

[Brave]

N. Korea Warns 'Sanctions Mean a War'

Tue Jan 7, 3:25 PM ET

By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - Standing in neat rows on a snow-covered plaza, tens of thousands of North Koreans rallied Tuesday in Pyongyang calling for a stronger military. The communist state said U.S. economic sanctions against it would lead to war.

North Korea (news - web sites)'s saber-rattling came hours before the United States, Japan and South Korea (news - web sites) agreed to urge Pyongyang to renounce its nuclear weapons programs if it wanted better ties with the rest of the world.

The three allies have stressed a peaceful resolution of the rising tensions — a stance President Bush (news - web sites) reiterated Tuesday.

"In this case, I believe, working with countres in the region, diplomacy will work," Bush said, speaking in Chicago on economic policy. "We have no aggressive intentions, no argument with the North Korean people. We're interested in peace in the Korean Peninsula."

But North Korea's rhetoric, broadcast to the world through its official Korean Central News Agency, remained defiant.

"Sanctions mean a war, and the war knows no mercy," the KCNA, monitored in Seoul, declared Tuesday.

In the North Korean capital, more than 100,000 people in dark overcoats and caps attended a state-orchestrated rally and vowed to "exert utmost efforts to increase the national defense capacity," the KCNA said.

Braving icy cold, the demonstrators shook clenched fists against the backdrop of white-and-red communist slogans, according to KCNA photographs carried by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

In Washington, the U.S. State Department announced Tuesday that the United States is willing to talk to North Korea but will not make concessions to freeze Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program.

Winding up two days of talks with South Korea and Japan, a statement approved by all three governments endorsed dialogue with North Korea as a useful vehicle for resolving serious issues.

To follow up on the trilateral talks that began Monday, South Korea's national security adviser, Yim Sung-joon, left for Washington on Tuesday to meet his U.S. counterpart, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites). From Washington, Yim will travel to Tokyo for more talks.

Later this week, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly will travel to Seoul.

On Monday, the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency gave North Korea a second chance to abandon its suspected weapons programs — stopping short of referring the matter to the U.N. Security Council and effectively delaying the possibility of U.N. sanctions.

President Bush reaffirmed that the United States has "no intention of invading North Korea," but urged North Korea to permit international monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

Welcoming the IAEA decision, South Korea's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday urged North Korea not to miss a "precious chance" to resolve the issue "diplomatically and peacefully."

North Korea's threat of a possible war was contained in a KCNA dispatch lambasting what it described as "piracy" in the seizure of a North Korean ship carrying missiles to Yemen last month.

U.S. and Spanish warships seized a North Korean ship carrying Scud missiles in the Arabian Sea. They later allowed it to sail after receiving assurances the Scuds would not be transferred elsewhere in the tense Persian Gulf region.

Exporting missiles is a main source of hard currency for North Korea.

The North called the seizure part of a U.S. strategy of "total economic sanctions aimed at isolating and stifling" North Korea.

Separately, South Korea said Tuesday that its last portion of the 400,000 tons of aid rice it promised to North Korea last year would leave port Jan. 14.

Extending more aid would require additional talks.

The North alarmed the world in October by admitting to a U.S. envoy that it had a secret uranium-based nuclear weapons program, in violation of a 1994 accord.

As punishment, the United States and its allies halted oil supplies promised in the agreement. North Korea then announced it would reactivate its older plutonium-based nuclear program, saying it needs to restart a reactor to generate electricity.

The United States says the plutonium-based program could be used to build nuclear weapons. Washington has also said North Korea may already have two nuclear weapons and could build several more in short order.

[Skins24]

You know I have never seen a country beg to get their (butt) kicked, like North Korea has been doing the past couple of months.

I am extremely confused by it.

who's in charge of N. Korea btw?

Kim Chong?

Kim Yong?

Kim Smith?

Lil Kim?

[Brave]

As a response to this saber-rattling threat, I'd like to see us implement economic sanctions tomorrow. Let's see how fast they attack us!

They want to isolate themselves, make money by selling arms to whomever, and then threaten us when we object?

F 'em!

[Sarge]

Whatever.......but just to let you all know, they can inflict some fairly serious short term damage if they want to. After that, it's their a$$. I still favor the starvation route. It doesn't cost us a dime and after another nasty winter or two, there won't be but five or six of them left. And they'll only weigh 50-60 lbs

[redman]

What I'd love to know right now is what the Chinese are doing and saying to them behind the scenes. The last thing in the world that they want to deal with is this stupid country starting a war in their own back yard, especially in a year in which they made great strides to reenter the international community by winning the 2012 Olympic games.

Remember, the Chinese don't want the U.S. reexerting military authority over the Korean Peninsula in another war, and the South Koreans and the Japanese aren't equipped to decisively beat the North Koreans. So that means that the Chinese would have to do it themselves, which isn't exactly palatable either given that they are traditional allies of North Korea.

Overall, I take the North Koreans desperate attempts to get concessions in return for their threats as a sign of desperation from a weak, starving country. While not to be ignored, I don't see them initiating a shooting war just because of sanctions. Then again, the only thing that may prevent a revolt within that country and its military may be a war against an outsider, and that regime hasn't exactly thrilled us with its foresight and balance.

[Tarhog]

I'm telling you the only logical response on our part is to pull all of our troops out of S. Korea, wish the southern peninsula well, and send enough cruise missiles in to take care of their nuclear facilities. I'd also make it clear that any attack on Japan would prompt a nuclear response from us. If Russia and China don't have the b@lls to take care of business in their own back yard, I don't see why we should have to. The only thing truly hamstringing us are our troops. Remove them and we have a relatively free hand to do whatever we deem necessary. The S. Koreans want to diss us when we are the only reason they even exist right now...let them defend themselves.

[fansince62]

the N. Koreans have played this hand to advantage in the past. It would be nice to know what sort of internal power struggles have precipitated this behaviour. it might be interesting for this thread to consider various rationales for the intransigence:

- secure more food in exchange for returning to a non-nuclear status (again)?

- cover for something else?

- instigate a conflict?

- rattle the saber as a measure of self importance?

- mollify internal dissension through an external threat?

[Henry]

Could it be that with our attention on Iraq, N Korea thinks now is an opportune time to see what they can get away with?

A bit simplistic, but since you asked ...

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Henry

Could it be that with our attention on Iraq, N Korea thinks now is an opportune time to see what they can get away with?

A bit simplistic, but since you asked ...

Simplistic but true. We need to stall on N. Korea as long as posible so we can take care of Iraq then make our stand with them.

N. Korea presents a real problem. We cant just pull out and abandon S. Korea. They are an ally and nobody would trust us if we went around leaving our freands in a lurch. On the other hand, N. Korea has a couple of nukes and a million man army so we cant just say we are going to kick their butts without expecting them to hurt us badly in the proccess.

The reason we handle Iraq first is that we can handle them easier BEFORE they can threaten us with nukes. A basic military premiss is that you protect your flanks and frankly if N. Korea is our biggest threat, Iraq is a HUGE threat to our flank if left unchecked.

Once we have Iraq out of the way lets see if N. Korea is as eager to face the full brunt of our military.

[Tarhog]

I hear what you are saying Mike, but I'm not willing to lose 100,000 troops in a war with N. Korea. If we decided to confront them militarily, we lack the political will to sustain the casualties it would take. I have zero confidence we can 'contain' them and halt their desire for truly bad weaponry through diplomacy. How do you negotiate with people that have shown they will lie right to our faces? If we did not have US troops there, the North loses its trump card. Might they roll south the second we pulled out (or even as we pulled out). Yes. But, if they did, we'd have a lot more legitimacy and international support in then addressing them with force. And we'd actually be in a better position to confront them in a lot of ways.

It is really a pandora's box there. Our BEST option would be to convince Russia and China to solve the problem before we decide to. Thats where S. Korea's mealy-mouthing and insistence on pursuing the 'Sunshine' policy really hurts us. If they are our 'ally', they ought to begin behaving as such or face the threat from the north on their own. If the S. Korean govt itself doesn't view the North's actions as unacceptable, how do we convince Russia and China it must be forcefully addressed?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Tarhog

I hear what you are saying Mike, but I'm not willing to lose 100,000 troops in a war with N. Korea. If we decided to confront them militarily, we lack the political will to sustain the casualties it would take. I have zero confidence we can 'contain' them and halt their desire for truly bad weaponry through diplomacy. How do you negotiate with people that have shown they will lie right to our faces? If we did not have US troops there, the North loses its trump card. Might they roll south the second we pulled out (or even as we pulled out). Yes. But, if they did, we'd have a lot more legitimacy and international support in then addressing them with force. And we'd actually be in a better position to confront them in a lot of ways.

It is really a pandora's box there. Our BEST option would be to convince Russia and China to solve the problem before we decide to. Thats where S. Korea's mealy-mouthing and insistence on pursuing the 'Sunshine' policy really hurts us. If they are our 'ally', they ought to begin behaving as such or face the threat from the north on their own. If the S. Korean govt itself doesn't view the North's actions as unacceptable, how do we convince Russia and China it must be forcefully addressed?

I'm not saying we go declare war or even threaten them after Iraq. What I'm saying is that the mere fact we will have demonstrated our might against Iraq and the fact that we will be free to move more force on N. Korea may make them soften their stance without having to go to war with them, threaten them, or pull our troops out. And if we do pull our troops out N. Korea WILL invade the south, leaving us with no choice.

One more thing. How do we look to the rest of the world if we let N. Korea "scare us off the peninsula? How long before the next country threatens us in the same way?

I'm not willing to lose 100,000 troops ether if we can help it, but we had better face facts. Sometimes sh!t happens that we cannot control. If N. Korea starts this fight we will have no choice but to finish it.

[Mad Mike]

Oh, and by the way. Nukes CAN be used on ships at sea. Standing off and firing cruise missles might just be a good way to loose a battle group and force a nuclear exchange.:shootinth

[Tarhog]

Have to admit I hadn't thought of that possibility. You are no doubt correct that in reality we have no choice but to stay put. I think we've used US troops as a 'trigger point' for the last time as we are seeing they can also become hostages. The crux of the problem is that the N. Korean govt (even more so than Hussein) can't be counted on to act rationally. We are going to have to come up with better strategies for dealing with rogue nations with nukes someday. Guess there's no time like the present.

[Riggo-toni]

The best solution:

Tell the Chinese: "Look, we have no interest in going to war w/ North Korea, but with them getting nuclear weapons combined with all the missile technolgy you keep giving them is making our allies mighty nervous, so....

If you don't get your buddies under control, we'll just have to provide nuclear weapons to South Korea, Japan, and... Taiwan to protect them against a potential attack from the North Kim and Parks. Let's see how fast them commie b@stards start ordering the North K to stop and allow inspectors back in...

Kim Jong Il is even more of a deluded SOB than his Pop ever was :asta:

[redman]

Originally posted by Tarhog

The crux of the problem is that the N. Korean govt (even more so than Hussein) can't be counted on to act rationally.

I totally agree. This is the most isolated nation and regime in the world, and the naivety of their public statements demonstrates that. They're dangerous because they're so unpredictable.

They're also a classic example of why you don't wait until rogue states develop nukes before acting. We unfortunately thought for the better part of a decade that a treaty without verification was sufficient.

[redman]

More silliness from the North Koreans:

North Korea Denounces U.S. After Talks Offer

19 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Kim Yeon-hee and Steve Holland

SEOUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) accused the United States on Wednesday of increasing the danger of war on the Korean peninsula, just hours after Washington changed tack and signaled a willingness to talk about their nuclear standoff.

The reclusive communist state's KCNA news agency made no mention of the U.S. offer, nor of the U.N. watchdog's deadline for it to readmit nuclear inspectors within weeks, but decried Washington's "racket of a nuclear threat."

"The 'nuclear issue' that renders the situation on the Korean peninsula strained is a product of the U.S. strategy to dominate the world whereby it is working hard to bring a holocaust of a nuclear war to the Korean nation," KCNA said.

The U.S administration, which had previously insisted North Korea roll back recent steps to revive its nuclear weapons plans before any talks, announced its new position on Tuesday after holding talks in Washington with South Korea (news - web sites) and Japan.

But it insisted it would not allow North Korea's nuclear program to become a bargaining chip. Pyongyang has threatened war in the event of U.S. economic sanctions over the issue.

The White House said on Wednesday it was up to North Korea to take the next step if Pyongyang wants to seek a dialogue with the United States about dismantling its nuclear weapons.

"The ball is in their court," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites).

U.S. officials insisted the United States would not dangle any additional inducements to try to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program.

"We'd like to hear from North Korea about the steps they're taking to come back into compliance with international obligations so they will dismantle their nuclear weapons program," Fleischer told reporters at a regular briefing.

The North Korean situation was to be the subject of a late afternoon meeting between President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), and a South Korean presidential envoy, Yim Sung-joon.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, who led Tuesday's talks with South Korean and Japanese officials, was to visit Seoul Jan. 12-14 for further talks on the crisis.

"The United States is willing to talk to North Korea about how it will meet its obligations to the international community," the three countries said in a joint statement.

"However, the U.S. delegation stressed that the United States will not provide quid pro quos to North Korea to live up to its existing obligations."

MOSCOW URGES DIPLOMACY

In Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov said in comments released by the ministry that "quiet diplomacy" would help find a way out of the crisis.

"Time and time again, we are being called upon to use our relations (with Pyongyang) to pressure North Korea in some way. This is an erroneous approach. We value our ties and want to use them sensibly," he said in a weekend interview with Japanese media.

Instead of issuing threats, Washington should provide security guarantees sought by Pyongyang, Losyukov said.

The United States has branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and Iran and believes it to be building nuclear weapons but has ruled out a military attack.

North Korea's riposte is that Washington is the world's biggest producer and seller of weapons of mass destruction.

South Koreans have been less worried about a perceived North Korean threat than some of their Western allies because they have lived with Pyongyang's bombast for half a century.

"What is more serious to us is a war over Iraq because of what it will do to oil prices," said Chung Doo-sun, a fund manager with CJ Investment Trust Management.

"War in Iraq is an uncontrollable risk to us. In whatever direction the North Korean issue is developing, we know it will not lead to a war."

North and South Korea are technically still at war because the truce that ended their 1950-53 conflict never led to a peace treaty, but both look forward to eventual reunification of a country which dates back some 5,000 years.

KCNA reported that more than 100,000 residents of the North's capital, Pyongyang, massed on Tuesday to show support for Kim Jong-il's leadership on the 55th anniversary of the founding of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

A banner in the square, named after Kim Il-sung, Kim's late father and the state's founder, summed up sentiment: "Let's make a great victory this year ... the 55th anniversary of DPRK establishment on the back of a god-like leader."

PRO-U.S. KOREANS DEMONSTRATE

Meanwhile, several hundred South Koreans burned a North Korean flag outside a U.S. air base on Wednesday, condemning the communist North's nuclear arms drive and urging a halt to anti-American rallies in the South. The generally older protesters included army veterans and local shopkeepers.

Also on Wednesday, the European Commission (news - web sites) granted emergency food aid to North Korea, partly filling a gap left by a shortfall in aid from the United States and Japan.

A spokesman for European Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Poul Nielson denied the 9.5 million euro ($9.8 million) aid package would undermine efforts to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Tuesday that Pyongyang had "only a matter of weeks" to readmit the IAEA inspectors it expelled last week. Their ejection prompted the new crisis.

Earlier, Pyongyang had intensified its rhetoric, demanding Washington open talks and saying any sanctions over its nuclear program would "mean a war, and the war knows no mercy."

Aides to President Bush acknowledged on Tuesday they had dropped a demand that North Korea first dismantle its nuclear weapons programs before talks could begin. "This is a step forward from what we have been saying and doing," one senior U.S. official said.

Tensions flared in late December when Pyongyang expelled the inspectors and vowed to fire up a reactor idle since a 1994 pact with Washington that froze its nuclear program in exchange for oil supplies from the West.

The U.S. decision marked a partial step in the direction of South Korea, which has argued for dialogue with the North.

In media leaks over the weekend, South Korea dropped hints it wanted the United States to give North Korea security assurances and a promise to resume energy supplies in return for Pyongyang dismantling its nuclear programs.

Washington is seeking to play down the threat from North Korea, which some analysts believe may already possess one or two nuclear weapons, as it prepares for possible war with Iraq.

It accuses Baghdad of seeking weapons of mass destruction but believes it has not yet acquired nuclear weapons.

Could their attempts at nuclear blackmail be any more transparent?

[88Comrade2000]

China has the 2008 Olympics by the way.

We can't wait to long. N Korea is developing missles that can hit New York City. If they can do that, that will respend a clear and present danger.

Short term- they could wipe out our 37,000 troops with a nuke. Invade S Korea pretty easily since their army is 1 million strong.

This will be the biggest threat in the coming year.

A future threat is China. No they won't do anything before the 2008 Olympics but China is developing their own program to eventually take back Taiwan. Also, remember Chinese owns the panama canal.

[redman]

The N. Korean nukes are more valuable as a deterrent to other aggressive nations, or as a way to coerce other nations to get what they want, than they are as usable weapons. If they go so far as to use a nuke, it will result in their destruction when the U.S., Russians or Chinese retaliate. They know that, which is why I don't believe that this present game we're playing is designed to go that far. Not to say it couldn't if people got too aggressive, but the prospect of your destruction tends to sober people up, even when they're on the brink.