North Korea Threatens to Fire Nuclear Missile if US Won't Commit to Talks

[ECH1969]

North Korea stepped up its threats aimed at Washington, saying it could fire a nuclear nuclear-tipped missile unless the United States acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang, the Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday from Beijing.

"We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," Yonhap quoted an unidentified North Korean official as saying. "That depends on how the U.S. will act."

The official said the nuclear test was "an expression of our intention to face the United States across the negotiating table," reported Yonhap, which didn't say how or where it contacted the official, or why no name was given.

China's patience with its longtime ally North Korea appeared to be wearing thin as Beijing warned Pyongyang that its staging of a nuclear test would harm the two countries' relations.

AP

[no_hypocrisy]

1. in which direction . . . ? n/t

[Waya]

3. My question, too......

....who's gonna be the recipient?

[semillama]

25. If they target, say, Japan

that's as good as targeting the US. You hit one of our major allies, and we go to war. that's it.

At least it's good to hear that China is pissed off with NK. If anybody has the ability to defuse the situation, it's them.

But now, thanks to the diplomatic failures of the Bush administration, the world now has to live with a nuclear-armed dictatorship with not much to lose. As much as they point the finger at the diplomacy of the Clinton administration, I strongly believe that if we had followed that course, we wouldn't be looking at a NK with nuclear capabilities.


I'm really afraid that Bush will see he has no option but to strike NK. If he doesn't, what message does that send to Iran?

[Zhade]

57. "the world now has to live with a nuclear-armed dictatorship"

What do you mean, NOW? The United States is the only country ever to USE nukes on innocent people!

[Big_Mike]

77. Excuse me, innocent people??

Pardon me, but there was the little incident of an unprovoked attack, with massive economic damage and great loss of life. Then, a war with little or no mercy.

You would perhaps prefer that we had completely blockaded the Japanese home islands, causing approximately 3 - 5 MILLION deaths, mostly of the young and old?

Or perhaps an invasion with the same number of civilian deaths, and 500,000 US deaths as well.

I am the first to admit we are the only ones to have used it. I also acknowledge that the use was the best of a series of poor choices. But our leaders must use the means that inflict the maximum damage on an opponent and preserve the most lives of our own.

[prolesunited]

89. I see you've bought into the myth

Yes, INNOCENT people. Both cities were civilian targets, but perhaps you believe in burning the village to save the country or other such nonsense.

From an educators' study guide found here:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/educators/study-guides/history_decision-to-drop-bomb.htm

But beginning in the 1960’s – and not coincidentally with the rise of antiwar protests over Vietnam – a different perspective was put forward by so-called “revisionist” historians. In their view, the use of the atomic bomb was not necessary to obtain a Japanese surrender. They unearthed documents that seem to show that the majority of the Japanese leadership, led by the Emperor, was ready to surrender within a matter of weeks at most, impeded only by a small clique of extremists within the military, and that American and British intelligence intercepts made this clear. The real motive for the use of the bomb was quite different: it was, in the first instance, an attempt to cow Stalin and his triumphant generals from further territorial ambitions in Europe, and beyond that a weapon that would ensure victory in what some believed to be an inevitable war with the Soviet Union.

<snip>

The “revisionist” view is bolstered by the decision to destroy both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the object were solely Japanese surrender, then one bomb – or, as some scientists proposed, even a demonstration test before captured Japanese generals – would have been enough. The only possible reason for this double destruction was to ensure that both the uranium - based bomb (used on Hiroshima) and the plutonium – based design (used on Nagasaki) would function under combat conditions, and that the Soviets would receive an object lesson in their efficacy and – equally important to Truman and Churchill – the will of the Americans to use them in combat.

[DuaneBidoux]

105. I say we were justified to use Nukes however...

In Japan and Germany (Dresden) we purposely targeted civilians to bring the countries "to their knees," something that we now always label terrorism.

[barb162]

Then Let Japan and /or the UN handle it

Japan has way more people than N. Korea

[EFerrari]

4. Really, San Francisco wants to know!

:scared:

[Kber]

10. Hey - if you wanted the pres to act in your interest, you shouldn't have

sent your electoral votes to Gore and Kerry.

Not serious, of course, but as a NJ / NYC area resident, I sometimes think that how these people think.

[EFerrari]

47. It would be no surprise, would it? Look at what they did

to NOLA.

[Renew Deal]

13. Bin O'Reilly would be pleased.

:nuke:

[EFerrari]

48. Doesn't this mean the terrorists are helping Bin Reilly?

:)

[Megahurtz]

53. Or L.A.!

:scared::hide::yoiks:

[EFerrari]

73. Or Portland, or Seatttle!

:scared:

[survivor999]

106. Hopefully straight up n/t

[warishell]

2. A Nuclear test?

I dont understand does this mean a nuke test using a missile?

[Waya]

5. I think it means they're actually threatening,........

....if it's true, to let one loose.....

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Yes I think that is exactly what it means.

They are not threatening to shoot a missile at anyone, they are threatening to test their missile system with a real device.

[Zhade]

58. That's how it reads to me, too.

NT!

[Phrogman]

96. No, they're threatening to ATTACK someone!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20560706,00.html

Whoa Nelly!

[MGD]

6. Finally, a country that the world can hate more than the U.S. nt

[Eurobabe]

7. At?

Another example of Bu$h's miserable penis diplomacy.

[BluePatriot]

22. Great pic! (nt)

[bdamomma]

59. yea, that's how he thinks with his penis, stupid man

[magellan]

8. Oops

In a staring contest between Kim Jong-il and Bush**, who'll blink first?

I have an idea this is all going to end very badly.

THANK YOU, BUSH**, YOU INCOMPETENT POS.

--------------------------------
Wednesday, 3 April, 2002

The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.

Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1908571.stm

(This article originally posted on DU by BattyDem)

[UpInArms]

9. George W.'s Wrong-headed Approach to Korea

http://hnn.us/articles/1235.html

excerpt:

In the late 1980s the U.S. became alarmed when it began to suspect the North Koreans of developing a nuclear weapons program. In 1994 President Clinton came close to war with North Korea, but Jimmy Carter saved the situation when he visited Pyongyang to talk with Kim Il Sung. Carter's announcement was followed up subsequently by the Agreed Framework of 1994, which froze the rods in the nuclear reactor built at Yongbyon and prevented the conversion of the waste to plutonium in return for guarantees to build two light-water reactors and supply 500,000 tons of heavy oil to North Korea.

The Agreed Framework was achieved because Clinton was willing to negotiate with North Korea and engage in quid-pro-quo negotiations. The result was not total transparency of North Korea's nuclear facilities, but the agreement achieved a freeze on nuclear waste that could have been processed to make plutonium for atomic weapons. Just before the end of the Clinton regime, the United States worked out an informal agreement with Kim Jong Il, the new leader of North Korea, that included the abandonment of the north's long-range missile program. But the lame-duck Clinton failed to sign the agreement and left it to the Bush administration to conclude the deal.

No sooner did George Bush become president than he refused to endorse the progress Clinton had made, criticized Clinton's Agreed Framework as a case of appeasement of North Korean nuclear blackmail, listed North Korea as one of the members of the "Axis of Evil," and announced that he loathed Kim Jong Il, whom the president described as a tyrant who starved his own people. Was it any surprise that the North Koreans interpreted this as a shift of U.S. policy to outright hostility and responded by renouncing the Agreed Framework, removing the rods from their nuclear reactor in preparation for reprocessing, and canceling its membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? George Bush responded by threatening to condemn North Korea before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for abrogating the terms of the NPT and indicated he'd seek sanctions against the regime -- an act that might have led directly to war.

...more...

[MGD]

14. Diplomacy is for sissies.

:sarcasm:

[Igel]

49. Clinton's "progress" is only progress

if you assume that Kim was sticking to his word, and then could make unreasonably quick progress in weapons research. It was obvious that when Clinton's program fell behind schedule, and then hit a few sticking points, that Kim had no intentions of keeping his end. He felt justified in doing what he did--he simply switched to the technology that Clinton's accord *didn't* cover.

What's interesting is that the original accord was to keep Kim from building reactors that might produce weapons. The claim--which nobody believed, but which needed to be accepted on the face of it, a condition that prevented overt anti-weapons jabbering--was that they really wanted a reactor for electricity. In that workers' paradise, even the capital only gets electricity part of the day, and at the time the country was in famine with a fuel shortage. When the light-water reactors fell behind schedule--which was declared to be a deliberate part of Clinton's plot to destroy the Korean state--Kim started work on uranium enrichment ... not building a reactor for electricity. So much for talk.

Kim's wanted a nuclear weapon for a while. Sanctions haven't worked, since China and S. Korea aren't on board--for good reason. They value short-term stability over long-term stability, since to achieve long-term stability might require some very nasty conditions in the short term; and China greatly values non-interference in another country's affairs, even to the point of ignoring genocide.

By 2000, Clinton's policy had failed, the only thing that hadn't completely failed were the talks that were proposed--because they never reached a conclusion, and therefore had no outcome to fail or succeed. So we hope they would have been a success, but the track record for talks is poor, and hope isn't reality. In 2000 Kim was working full-tilt on a nuclear program. Nothing done after 2000 slowed him down, and short of actually staging a military strike, it's unclear what could have succeeded--short of granting him his conditions that S. Korea is not really a state, but an oppressed, occupied country in which every shot is called by the imperialist US (the S. Koreans would be surprised at some of this), and need not be involved in any peace talks. This would have been a big propaganda victory, one that couldn't be turned back, and would have quickly lead to exactly the same place; only massive bail outs might have worked. Key word: "might".

By 2002, *'s policy had also clearly failed: Yongbyon ring any bells? It was viewed as pointless sabre-rattling, and absolutely, positively, the world community said, *nothing* must be done about it, except talk. So they talked. They reached an agreement that everybody celebrated--* actually talked, and it worked, see, problem solved. But in 48 hours it was abandoned by the "good guys"--Kim. In 2003 N. Korea said it had nuclear weapons--something that didn't take 2 1/2 years to produce.

[calimary]

104. Terrific article!

Really explains it well. A keeper! As I was reading, I wished Clinton had signed that Agreed Framework before he left office. But on second thought, bush would have deliberately abrogated it or issued some "signing statement" saying he wasn't bound by it. Whatever Clinton did, or tried to do, didn't matter to these people, and still doesn't, unless it's something they think they can use to push more blame off on him. In the long run, I don't think it would have made any difference if he had signed it. Not with bush waiting in the wings. GOD that jerk is a DISASTER!!! And to think - there was a time when the only things he was ruining were Texas oil companies...

Thanks for posting!

[leveymg]

12. NK test (1/5 kt) was a flop: 1/30 of Hiroshima bomb (15 kt)

This proves only one thing - NK doesn't have a really workable nuclear device. Certainly, nothing that could be effectively carried by a missile to U.S. territory.

Either the one they lit off was patheticically inefficient -- achieving a very low yield, only about 1/30 of the 1945 Hiroshima blast -- or, it may not even have been a nuclear explosion, at all. A few railroad cars filled with TNT would achieve the same results. We won't know what the source of the blast was until the U.S. Air Force "sniffs" some vented radioactive materials from an airborne sample.

[MGD]

16. Lots of assuming there. I assume that Kim Il-Jong isn't the idiot that

Americans want to make him out to be. I assume that he was conserving fissile material. I assume that everything went exactly as he planned because I don't believe Kim Jong-Il is stupid (despite his name).

[BootinUp]

17. I assume they are working to correct

any problems uncovered in the test. You think?

I think it is a bunch of brave noise right now, but there still is no military option that makes sense for us and its only a matter of time before he can back up this threat.

[MGD]

19. Yes, I do think. They are, as always, learning and growing.

That is Kim's way.

[seriousstan]

20. He can't learn how to grow FOOD. The man is a complete fool.

I think you should look deeper at the idiot you are talking about.

[MGD]

27. I don't think farming ranks very high on his list of priorities.

I think it would be foolish to think him a fool and I would bet money that, were we to go to war with him, he would show us who the real fools are. I think you need to set aside your egocentric notions of superiority and recognize that Kim Jong-Il is outmaneuvering America and has been for the past 6 years.

[pampango]

Certainly agree that farming is not high on his list of priorities.

He is one of the few rulers in the world who has little concern with whether his people eat or not.

We have absolutely no reason to go to war with him. What does NK have that anyone would want? Plenty of hungry people and a few nuclear weapons. No thanks. South Korea is too busy building an affluent society to worry about invading the North. They probably figure it will fall into their laps one day. SK's army may not even be large enough to slow down that of the NK, if the latter ever invaded, much less launch an invasion of its own.

Bush yells "terrorism", while Kim yells "invasion." They both do it to distract their people from more significant problems. I agree with you that NK would not be a pushover in a war. They have a huge army (not many successful farmers, but a lot of soldiers). They could cause untold havoc on SK, especially Seoul which is not far from the border, but I doubt that the conventional war would last too long (assuming we have any available troops given Iraq and Afghanistan.) Any ensuing guerrilla war could be very brutal and long lasting, depending on how much support was forthcoming from civilians.

[MGD]

30. We have the capacity to win against NK but not the will and Kim knows it.

So he continues to play his games and we continue to either appease him or ignore him. Either way, he wins and we lose. His genius lies in his ability to be a pain in the ass that way.

[One_Life_To_Give]

At what cost?

NK has enough pre-placed artillery near the border to flatten Seoul within the first days of any conflict. Not to mention the thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians likely to die in the opening stages of such a conflict.

[Pavulon]

83. Nuclear?

They all die in 15 minutes. Hundreds if not thousands of 400 kt bombs fall on them and their command and control. I would bet there are at least 384 400kt nuclear weapons in a ready state to fire into nk right now. Two broadsides from ohio class subs is basically a civilization ender.

There is a very old plan for this. This is not a new strategy.

If they fuckup and launch a nuke the response will be unimaginable.

[MGD]

92. Kim doesn't strike me as being stupid enough to fuck up like that

Bush on the other hand...

[Pavulon]

93. Unlike the norks

we have a system in place that limits the use of nuclear weapons. Bush just cant go nuke iran on a whim.

lil kim can do what he wants.

[Pavulon]

79. In a nuclear war here is the will (sequence)

Launch detected at us or japan.

President gives nuclear weapons release authority to military.

The ohio class sub(s) currently running missile drills targets its missiles on north korea.

Weapons are fired from subs and north dakota, the 3 largest nuclear power in the world..

North korea and all living things inside it cease to exist in less than 30 minutes.

This is deadly serious stuff and we will not fuck around if they launch missiles with a ballistic trajectory toward s korea or japan.

We will use nuclear weapons.

[MGD]

82. I was speaking of the will to win conventionally.

Yes, if NK starts lobbing missiles at US allies, I'm sure your scenario is accurate enough (close enough for a-bombs at least).

[Pavulon]

84. If they START a conventional

war the climate would change so that people would volunteer. Nato would jump in, and they would be bombed non-stop.

Japan and S korea are both sources of manpower. Japan has the capability to put men on the ground.

[MGD]

90. And they'll greet us as liberators in Iraq too.

We can't handle what we have bitten off right now. Taking another bite would be a bit foolish IMO. You can volunteer if you want to but I'll be content to watch it play out on CNN. I voted for Gore and Kerry.

[Pavulon]

91. No

they will die like the germans and japanese. No winning of hearts and minds. Just a massive war.

I already volunteered. If they START a war the rules change.

If they start a nuclear war or any war your politics and mine mean nothing.

N korea is provoking the situation threatening a nuclear launch. That is deadly serious.

[One_Life_To_Give]

98. Win conventional Yes, But the cost in lives

Eventually we would win the conventional weapons and nuclear weapons scenarios.
But in the conventional scenario Seole is flatened while in the Nuclear, Anchorage?

It would be better to avoid shooting.

[daleo]

42. Bush didn't seem to care about people drowning (New Orleans)

I don't think we can trust much of what we hear about North Korea. There is a lot of propaganda out there.

[Casablanca]

46. The real threat is that Bush and Kim are basically the same.

Both are out-of-touch frat boys with no sense of personal responsibility and too much ill-gotten power.

Korean propaganda duelling with American propaganda - it's the Cold War all over again. Like the first one wasn't enough.

When will non-frat-boy Americans start questioning this asinine threat game?

[coalition_unwilling]

69. Bush and Kim are decidedly not the same -- Kim is far the

superior of the two. Read some history -- I recommend especially accounts of the U.S. Strategic Air Command's bombing campaign against North Korean dams and hydro-electric projects one month before the armistice with the objective of starving to death the Korean citizenry. (A war crime under the standards set at Nuremburg, btw.)

[maxsolomon]

72. that was his dad

the origninal totalitarian monster.

THIS kim is the bashir al assad of NK. smart enough to keep the machine going, but not humane enough to think his way out of his dad's box. he enjoys his perks too much to care about others.

i don't think that the regime would last long if China decides its time to modernize NK.

[puffthemagicdragon]

43. which part of the US do you live in?

I live on the west coast and I think all of us over here would definitely like to HOPE he is a fool but the guy is not stupid nor a fool. If I was living in Boston it would be a lot easier for me to call him a fool.

[Megahurtz]

55. For Sure!

:scared:

[Zhade]

61. I live in L.A. He's not a fool, but he's also not suicidal.

I do not fear him, and will not be made to fear him. We're the only country to ever nuke innocent people, and I do not see this man risking his own posh life by striking out.

[rpannier]

35. Let us not forget

when he fired his 'long range' missiles last summer, they went a shorter distance than his short range missiles.

[daleo]

41. Your math is a little off

1/30 of 15 is 1/2, not 1/5.

I wouldn't trust western estimates of the bomb's yield, especially if they are being lowballed. That might just be to reassure the public. Calculating yield from seismic data is not that easy, especially if you don't know the depth of the bomb and the surrounding geology.

[Eugene]

15. That threat would be more credible if NK's weapons actually worked.

Yonhap cites unnamed North Korean officials, so I'll take the
report with a grain of salt. If it is true, North Korea
just threatend to commit suicide.

It is one thing to set of a nuclear blast. The latest reports
say that the blast may have misfired. It is another thing
to develop a nuclear device small enough to fit on a missile
and yet another thing to develop the missile to deliver it.
The TD-2 is still under development. Its only test launch failed.

Just like a suicide threat, this is a desperate cry for attention.

[MGD]

18. "The latest reports say that the blast may have misfired."

Uncontrolled nuclear chain reactions don't misfire. They continue until the mass defect resolves. I have never heard of a nuclear reaction limiting itself prior to completion of the E=MCsquared equation. Prior to critical mass, control rods may prevent the blast but once it starts, it continues until it's done.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

38. Couldn't it mean

That there wasn't enough explosive force in the first place to get it to reach critical mass? Or that it was a poorly designed and controlled initial explosion?

I am an amature when it comes to understanding these things, but as I understand, you need a very even amount of pressure on all sides of the core to compress it enough to reach critical mass.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

51. Actually, there are many ways to screw up a nuke.

There are bunches of ways that an A-bomb can result in a less than expected yield.

The neutron activator can deliver fewer neutrons than desired to start the reaction, resulting in a smaller yield. The theoretical minimum possible yield of a nuke is about equal to only 10 tons of TNT. That's in the same range as the MOAB. American nukes have a yield selector switch that can change the size of the nuclear detonation. It is nicknamed dial-a-yield.

The implosion to compress the plutonium can be less than precisely balanced, resulting in less of the material becoming supercrital. If the implosion is too far off balance, then all you get is a regular chemical explosion with lots of radioactivity.

There are other ways, but I have made my point.

[nealmhughes]

76. Unless the geometry was off or else became screwed up from flawed shaped

charges making it then flawed. We need to take into consideration buckling, reflectivity, reactivity and geometry as well as mass.

Screw up any one of them and you don't get a fission fueled heat source, you may get a mass of conventionaly explodeed tangled Pu and other metals after a very very short micro-burst of supercriticality....

[MGD]

94. There was an explosion that registered 4+ on the richter scale

That doesn't sound like anything was screwed up to me. While the potential for pre-detonation screw up exists as a result of the mechanisms you mention, the chances of a post-detonation misfire seem pretty remote to me especially considering that there was, in fact, an immense explosion (two of them now apparently).

[Pavulon]

95. fizzle..

[jberryhill]

97. The other thing about the weapons actually working is...

...an odd thing about high tech weapons - they require some fairly clever people to construct and operate them.

Now, fairly clever people tend to be fairly clever people. The nutcase in charge wants you to conduct an underground test of something - you conduct an underground test of something. You definitely get a nicer place to live and some food to eat. Once in a while, you turn out for rallies and chant on about what a great guy the nutcase is.

That's a much different situation than when the nutcase in charge asks you do to something which is... shall we say... not very clever.

Oh my... the missile didn't work. Musta been sabotuers somewhere...

[The Brethren]

21. isn't it about

time for junior to grab his hat and plastic gun and announce a vacation back at the ranch while he plays cowboy?

[outofbounds]

23. Perhaps someone can tell me,

at least help me understand, what Kim Jung Il wants to talk about. What is it he wishes to extort from the US by these threats? I really haven't paid much attention to North Korea in the past, but you have to now. What does this guy want?:shrug:

[ECH1969]

24. Money

[pampango]

26. Nuclear reactors, freedom to import/export weapons parts & systems,

more weapons, nuclear fuel, oil. All the things that his people need to live better lives.

[MGD]

28. Light water reactors, Food, Oil, Position, Security

and not necessarily in that order. And let's not forget about the showdown looming with Iran here. We are, after all, dealing with an "axis."

[NeedleCast]

52. Pretty much anything..

...he can get his grubby paws on. KJI has used this tactic many, many times. Now he's got a nuclear threat to back up his conventional one. Any aid he can get from outside countries is stuff he doesn't have to spend state funds on which equals more money to channel into weapons spending. Mainly though, he just wants to re-focus attention on Korea, and thus his ability to extort stuff from the rest of the world. Any time world attention is diverted to Iran or another country, NK starts rattling the sabre to remind us all that he's still there and still nuts (but a cagey, crafty nuts).

This is one of the few areas of Bush foreign policy that I agree with. Do not give in to threats from bullies, especially if that bully can't really beat you up.

[Zhade]

62. The traitor-in-chief's FP caused this situation.

NT!

[outofbounds]

78. I see,

I have been under the impression that China was his ally of choice so to speak. I would tend to think China would be put off by this kind of behavior. If he wants money or respect from the U.S. China might take offense by the dis-loyalty and reduce the help if any they already give N.K.
Or is he trying to pit U.S. against China? Does he even have the ability to do that?

If all he wants to do is talk, I think he is going about it the wrong way. Now I don't see how the U.S. can talk with him. The current administration isn't going to be pressured into talks by a threat of force, the old axis mentality. So these actions lead me to believe he basically running an advertisement. Nukes for sale.

:nuke: to the highest bidder.

:hide:

[OldSiouxWarrior]

54. He doesn't. He wants his country to be isolated.

Like all totalitarian dictators, he doesn't want ANY foriegn idea floating around in his country. So he NEEDS to have his country isolated. So his objective is to have sanctions imposed. If they aren't imposed, he will do something even more outrageous until they are.

In North Korea, radios are made to be able to be recieve ONLY the gov't station. All propaganda, all the time.

[killbotfactory]

107. Read this article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15175633/site/newsweek/

[outofbounds]

109. Thanks for the link.

This article makes it seem ridiculous not to talk with them. Now there is so much posturing on both sides that neither is likely give. When the answer does seem to be in reach, even close.

[hollowdweller]

29. Remember the Iran/Hostage crisis? How much is GOP paying NK to say this?

Remember Reagan was secretly negotiating before the election w/Iran??? Leave the hostages till after the election to hurt Carter? So wonder what Rove has promised them if they keep this up and then solve it right before the election?

[MGD]

31. Very doubtful that Kim Jong-Il is playing ball with Karl Rove.

I just don't think it's Kim's way. Just my opinion.

[NorthernSpy]

36. the unsourced "threat" claim first appeared in the SOUTH Korean press...

Currently, there is NO evidence that North Korea actually made such a threat.

[hedgehog]

32. One thing that George has taught the North Koreans and the Iranians

is this: building a nuclear arsenal is the only sure way to prevent invasion by the US.

[Casablanca]

68. Exactly.

And that's why, even if Kim really is crazy (and no one here in America knows this, they just hope he isn't), he still has more going on upstairs than Bush and Rummie. Kim is responding to a direct threat made by Bush during his "Axis of Evil" speech. Bush is creating threats unprovoked simply to increase his own power. Now Bush will try to use the counterthreat as a justification to grab even more power.

[The Stranger]

33. IRAN!!! ISLAMOFASCISTS!!! WMD!!! PRAISE JESUS!!! IRAN!!!

Wait . . . what?

[TexasLawyer]

101. LOL!!!

[NorthernSpy]

34. NOTE: the alleged threat does NOT come from any NoKo govt communique...

If North Korea were actually to fire a nuclear missile at us, we'd literally wipe them off the face of the earth. There's no doubt in my mind about that. It's unlikely there'd be any doubt about that in Kim Jong-Il's mind either. He's a bad guy, but that doesn't make him acutely suicidal.

So I really have to wonder about the actual provenance of this report. The Yonhap news agency, based in South Korea, is not an arm of the North Korean government. All we know is that this alleged "threat" does NOT come from any verifiable communication by North Korea.

Very, very fishy...

[Amonester]

44. Very fishy, indeed! Like November-somethin' fishy!!

Kind of "man'O'war" fishy...


Who in hell(iburton) would sail to benefit from such "rumored" un-verifiable communication??

Ummm.... Follow the money.

[jseankil]

37. Why would S. Korea media make this up?

They know if U.S. attacks N. Korea, Seoul is toast.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

39. Guess he is upset that Hugo has been getting all the press lately.

N/T

[Zhade]

64. Not that they're ANYTHING alike, mind you.

Kim being a dictator, Chavez a repeatedly-legitimately-elected president whose country's elections have been signed off on by the Carter Center, the OAS and the UN.

(Not saying you don't already know that, just throwing that out there for the ignorant anti-Chavez idiots here.)

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

75. Kim and Hugo like to be in the news

Is all I'm saying here.

They are both like 4yr old children in that if you aren't paying attention to them, they will do something to get your attention. Hugo with his vitriol and Kim with his nuclear threats.

Mark my words, Hugo will uncover another secret plot for the US to ship pliers into the country to support a coup, or he will publicize that his "friend"/mole in the WH issued another warning to him about a secret plot against him.

At least Castro kept to himself.

[daleo]

40. Fox News

"unidentified official"

[Xenotime]

45. When I said he would do this.. You all told me...."

"You're kidding, right? He's a lot of things, but suicidal isn't one of them."

Or

"Let's not lose touch with reality"

Or

"North Korea isn't going to attack anyone, there's no point in even speculating."

This guy will attack and * is going to let him. I don't trust him and all our troops are being killed in the Occupation of Iraq to do anything about it.

[Casablanca]

50. The media has been building up Kim as an insane isolated leader ...

And now people are saying not to worry now that he's armed himself? Thinking people will say that that's the time to start worrying.

The propagandists in the U.S. mainstream media had better get their lies in order or come up with one rational reason why Kim shouldn't do something as insane as launching a few missiles before going out in the big mushroom cloud of glory. Especially considering that the Bush administration has played a big part in pushing him to that brink.

This country has suffered enough from believing the calm assurances of dumbass frat boys.

[Zhade]

67. And I'll repeat it.

You're kidding, right? He's a lot of things, but suicidal isn't one of them.

Regardless of how much you want to pat yourself on the back for saying something would happen that HASN'T (or has a nuclear missile been fired? No? Then you're still not prescient, kid), it remains likely that he is not suicidal.

And what would you like us to do? Do you support another war based on lies and half-truths?

[Zhade]

56. He's bluffing. He's a lot of things; suicidal is not one of them.

NT!

[slackmaster]

65. I'm glad someone besides me gets it

Right on, Zhade.

[savemefromdumbya]

60. don't think it would get very far (Is Cheney paying him to say that?)

[bdamomma]

63. North Korea, has big China to contend with, my opinion but

if I was North Korea I wouldn't mess with China.:scared:

[slackmaster]

66. Starve the fucker into submission

Creepy little perverted bastard.

[fedsron2us]

70. As the clod on the Whitehouse's foreign policy is now in tatters

some of the US allies in the region may think that they can not rely on Washington for their defence anymore. A country such as Japan may decide it has to have a nuclear deterrent of its own. It certainly has the money and the know how to build such a device. Maybe it is this prospect which is making the the Chinese so jumpy.

[daleo]

71. And if Japan gets nuclear weapons and missiles

You have to think they would be quite a formidable military power. Let's hope they don't hold grudges.

[Pavulon]

81. Japan

could make a missile deliverable w-88 equivalent thermonuclear bomb by friday if they needed to.

They have the computational, manufacturing, and engineering skills.

That is a fact.

[daleo]

87. I believe it

Probably Germany could manage it quickly too.

[olddad56]

74. Wow, we better vote republican so this doesn't happen.

I think it is all bullshit.

[Pavulon]

80. God help

any president in any party if this was to happen. There response is scripted. siop kicks in and they all die.

[IndianaGreen]

85. Bush and Kim: two sociopaths having a pissing contest

or a fart contest as The Guardian's cartoonist Steve Bell illustrates:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1891803,00.html

[allisonthegreat]

86. I guess they must want something

But what?

[Pavulon]

88. Alec Baldwin?

No they want money, so they rattle their cage.

[treestar]

99. The problem with that is that the answering missile will wipe them

off the map.

NK, Welcome to the nuclear club. We can't invade. But you are stuck, too. Hit any country with you alleged missiles and it's bye-bye to you and you no longer exist.

[robcon]

100. The last thing we can do is give in to the NoKos

Their nuclear blackmail is awful. Giving in would be suicidal, since other states will learn the lesson from this.

We're fu**ed.

[Nihil]

103. "The NoKos"? Hmmm.

> Giving in would be suicidal, since other states will learn the lesson
> from this.

What? You mean like Iran? Venezuela? Syria? Egypt?

Never thought that this might already be the case?
They saw what happened to a sovereign state that *didn't* have
any WMDs ...

[LetsThink]

102. BOLTON? Oh...... Well, NOW I FEEL SECURE.........

...or NOT!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219121,00.html

[olshak]

108. good...

:rofl: