North Korea threatens to fire at South Korea

[Akoto]

Source: Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea's military threatened Sunday to fire at South Korea, as Seoul prepared to start annual joint drills with U.S. troops - maneuvers Pyongyang says are a rehearsal for an invasion.

The North's military warned that it would shoot directly at South Korean border towns and destroy them if Seoul continued to allow activists to launch propaganda leaflets toward the communist country, Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency said. The warning was conveyed to South Korea's military earlier Sunday, it said.

"South Korea's traitor puppet regime must recognize the seriousness of the prevailing situation and immediately stop anti-(North Korea) psychological warfare," the KCNA said.

It accused South Korean activists and lawmakers of flying balloons carrying hundreds of thousands of leaflets critical of North Korea's government, one-dollar bills, DVDs containing corrupt animation files and other materials on the North's most important national holiday, an apparent reference to leader Kim Jong Il's 69th birthday, which was Feb. 16.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KOREAS_CLASH?SITE=MIDTN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

---

Here we go again ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Yep, here we go again...

lovely chinese curse, can I get a break?

[Ken_Fish]

2. if they dont give up a burger and fries.. they are starving

that burger could feed lil kim and young'un . can t make this shit up.

[sakabatou]

3. Say hello to a possible second Korean War.

[Demonaut]

5. the first war never ended

it would be just a resumption in hostilities

[Faygo Kid]

9. It would last just hours.

North Korea would destroy Seoul, and the world (and the U.S.) would then decapitate the North Korean leadership immediately. They know that, even in their insanity.

[David__77]

11. It took them forever in Iraq.

It would take much longer in N. Korea.

[Posteritatis]

12. It really wouldn't.

If the war started with North Korea flattening a major city the response would make any armed conflict the world's seen in the last few decades seem gentle.

[David__77]

15. You mean genocide?

So the result would be too kill as many North Koreans as possible, while the Kims, the inner circle, and elite forces are safe in deep, deep bunkers and tunnels?

[joshcryer]

16. The pretext is if they destroy Seoul.

Yes, genocide begets genocide.

[David__77]

17. Yeah...

Just so long as we're clear. I think it would be better to conclude a peace treaty, establish diplomatic relations, and continue the course Clinton/Albright were on before Bush smashed the process.

[Posteritatis]

18. I agree absolutely in every particular

I'm not sure how much the North Korean government actually wants that, though, given decades of intermittent attacks, abductions, and threats, though. I hope Kim's successor is at least slightly less batshit insane than he and his father.

If things went hot and North Korea start a bombardment of Seoul or large-scale invasion of the South like they often threaten to, we'd be in a place militarily and diplomatically that nation-states haven't been in for decades, though. It would be an outbreak of violence on a larger scale and of a greater intensity than anything the world has seen for at least a generation, probably more than that, and would be likely as not to burn out with a fairly thorough finality for the area. Modern weapons, when all the stops are pulled out by one side, tend to result in someone getting smashed flat really quickly, and if this war should start - and start in the way Pyongyang likes to threaten - there would be very few incentives to be subtle about the response.

I thoroughly hope that doesn't happen; I also thoroughly hope anyone with the ability to send people and weapons into that scenario understands it will should war break out there.

[David__77]

19. Well, it seemed to be working toward that under Clinton.

And much progress was made in inter-Korean relations. Once Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric emerged with its hostile policy of "regime change" by any means, it is normal that the situation was untenable. Sure, N. Korea's policy is aimed at enhancing state security through playing off local and global contradictions, but there's no reason they'd want that struggle to go "hot." There is a reason that the N. Korean state was survived decades longer than most analysts thought was possible, and it's not merely due to brute force. N. Korean leaders are definitely interested in fostering limited economic growth as a means of stabilizing the government.

The other problem is that we should not wish to see the Korean peninsula destroyed. I would think the aim would be to eliminate the warmaking capacity of the opposing force, not to "shock and awe" or any such thing. We should bear in mind that many, many Koreans died due to the US-led intervention in Korea in the 50s, and that this is probably the only reason the N. Korean state was able to solidify its rule for such a long time.

[joshcryer]

13. Yeah, I'd be more worried about China's response.

[glinda]

4. attention whores

[FLPanhandle]

6. The same country that is begging for food around the world

Yet they have money for military actions.

[Faygo Kid]

7. It's just a matter of time now for North Korea, but the fall will be nasty.

The generals in charge with Kim Is Ill are tottering old bastards. They are going down, but in their own strange way.

Stay safe, South Korea.

[yodermon]

8. SSDD. n/t

[Posteritatis]

10. This is a recording. (nt)

[jimlup]

14. Guess the North is unhappy that it has moved off the headlines