North Korea threatens a pre-emptive attack against US troops

P

Petre

New member
In the wake of Bush's latest speech , once again justifying Pre-emptive war against countries that have WMD and the coming annual war games held jointly with South Korean forces and US forces which they believe is a prelude to invasion of North Korea , "A spokesman for the North's Korea People's Army (KPA) said distrust is high between the United States and North Korea, and Pyongyang "will never remain a passive onlooker to the U.S. pre-emptive attack on the DPRK," its official news agency reported"

Where brewing up a ****storm all over the world. :19:

If N.Korea were to start a war with us now , while in the middle of war with Iraq and threat of war with Iran , we're in deep ****. We're already getting finacially drained , and there's no way we can afford another full scale war. Be prepared to see the draft reinstitued and your boys 18-25 will get to see what a mess our government is making around the globe first hand if N. Korea starts a war.

Here is the entire article
========================================

N.Korea army threatens pre-emptive attack
Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:07 AM GMT

By Jon Herskovitz

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has the right to launch a pre-emptive attack against U.S.-backed South Korean forces because the two Koreas are technically still at war, the communist state's official media said on Tuesday.

The comments came as North Korea shows its displeasure with annual joint South Korean-U.S. military exercises, which Pyongyang has said are a preparation for an invasion of its territory.

A spokesman for the North's Korea People's Army (KPA) said distrust is high between the United States and North Korea, and Pyongyang "will never remain a passive onlooker to the U.S. pre-emptive attack on the DPRK," its official news agency reported.

DPRK is short for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"The KPA side is of the view that a pre-emptive attack is not (the) monopoly of the U.S. and the DPRK, too, has the right to pre-empt an attack as the most effective and positive act for self-defence in the light of the hard reality that the DPRK and the U.S. sides are still technically at war," the spokesman was cited as saying.

The 1950-1953 Korean War ended in a truce and not a peace treaty meaning that the two Koreas are technically still at war. The United States led U.N. forces in defence of South Korea and signed the armistice agreement in that capacity.

U.S. and South Korean forces will stage annual field exercises from March 25 to March 31 designed to coordinate defences of the southern half of the peninsula.

"The KPA will follow with a high degree of vigilance the grave situation prevailing on the Korean peninsula due to the projected war manoeuvres and keep itself fully ready to go into action to cope with any event on its own initiative," the spokesman said.

North Korea has said the joint drills are an impediment to progress in six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programmes.

The last round of the talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States was held in November 2005.

The talks have hit a snag over Washington's decision to crack down on firms it suspects of helping North Korea in illicit activity such as counterfeiting.

North Korea has said it is unthinkable for it to return to the talks while Washington is trying to topple its leaders through the financial measures.

Washington, Seoul and others have said the crackdown is a matter for law enforcement and not related to the six-party talks.

In previous years, North Korea has placed its civil defence system on high alert at the time of the joint drills that have been taking place for four decades.

There are about 30,000 U.S. troops in South Korea in support of some 690,000 South Korean troops. The North has about 1.2 million troops.
 
A war with N.Korea would certainly be a huge mistake. If it was a full blown war(voted and declared by senate) we would have no choice but to institute a draft. I firmly believe that N.Korea would have no reservations about using nuclear weapons, and IMO they already have ICBM's capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Another important factor is who is willing to come to the aid of N.Korea? I think we all know who and they have plenty of nukes to go around.
 
Sounds like the usual stuff we have been hearing from Korea for some time now.

What would you suggest we do about it at this point (not would have done differently than has already been done)?

Not trying to argue.

I just would like to hear your ideas on what you would do if you were the one calling the shots right now.
 
exar - I agree ... A war with N. Korea is not an option right now. It would be disasterous. If they attacked and killed our troops , we'd have no choice but to retaliate.

Add to this that we're already financially going bankrupt , having just approved borrowing to not default on US financial obligations with an out of control national debt. That would toss us right over the edge.

9mm - I think we need to do everything in our power to convince N.Korea that we are not a threat to them at this point and have no intentions on any military actions against them.
 
Many times this question has been asked but never answered:

Why are we beating up Iraq, who does NOT have any WMDs but have ignored countries that DO have WMDs like N Korea and Iran?

Yes we would be lacking the man-power, funds, and resources to launch a full scale war on N Korea. A draft would lead to national outbreaks of riots and in a worst case scenario,... a civil war.
 
[QUOTE. A draft would lead to national outbreaks of riots and in a worst case scenario,... a civil war. ][/QUOTE]

If your correct in that opinion then we are in deep trouble as a nation.
 
Every time that the N. Koreans need additional food or fuel, they start with the saber-rattling. The use of WMDs is nothing new, nor is our stance. Unless you've been hiding in your bomb shelter since the 1950's we've always carefully reserved the right to pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. In fact, until just recently, the American forces in Korea were positioned forward as a trip-wire for just such a use.

As for the reinstitution of the draft. I agree with wingman. I haven't seen the draft result in civil war in Switzerland or Israel, why should it here?

If Americans don't want to fight in foreign lands, we'll soon suffer fighting here. Only, we'll be fighting after having been been starved economically by the invaders.

Would we be allowed by N. Korea to use WMDs then? Some of you people need to get out more.
 
If North Korea wants a nuclear bomb so bad, we should give them one....


....maybe several. :D


However, I believe China will step in long before that. China needs us more as an economic ally than they need North Korea as a starving dependent....
 
Well, it is in Legal and Political. Both of those terms seem associated with meaningless drivel on a daily basis.:)
 
Petre, I would suggest the article you linked to is fear-mongering of the worst kind, especially the comments about a draft.

North Korea is not competent enough to fight South Korea, let alone a combination of South Korea, United States and Japan. North Korea cannot win or even manage to inflict a drawn-out stalemate without the assistance of China.

China is unlikely to sanction preemptive war on one of its largest trading partners/investors.

Fianancially drained? Well, we are spending more than we are making for sure; but our debt is still a small percentage of our GDP. However much other countries might not care for the image of U.S. as hegemon, none of them are going to bet their economies (which are closely tied to ours) on North Korea in a conflict the U.S. does not start.
 
Unless you've been hiding in your bomb shelter since the 1950's we've always carefully reserved the right to pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

This is a completely false statement. During the Cold War the U.S. had a policy of only usuing nuclear weapons IF they were used upon us first. So by definition that cannot be a pre-emptive strike. Clinton didn't have a pre-emptive strike policy. In fact it appears that the current administration is the only one to have a pre-emptive nuclear strike policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html
 
This is true. Throughout the cold war both the US and USSR maintained their forces at ready. In the mid eighties the USSR announced they would not use nuclear weapons on any country who did not use them first on the USSR. However, their first strike doctrine was based on "deep strike" conventional penetration of Europe with massive conventional forces. The US refused to make the same no first strike nuke statement as a deterent to that threat. The US has always held open the threat of first use deterence.

Fal 4 me, even the first link you have even states the US nuclear policy has not changed.

Washington Post said:
The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.
Click to expand...
 
I stand corrected.:o In my defense though, in every school I've been to, public and parochial, in every text book I've ever read, the books always stated that the U.S. has always had a no first strike policy. Guess it's time to change the textbooks. I apologize for repeating something I learned in school:D

And if you think that was Bush Bashing, I'd hate to see how you'd react if I really did start Bush Bashing.
 
I was told when I was in the military that we have just enough troops in Korea to forstal the colapse of Korea long enough to send in reinforcements. Kinda makes you want to stay away from the place.
 
The crazy Kim family has been spouting off since the truce. You have to remember that any war on the Korean Peninsula is likely to affect all of Asia and certainly that region. NK's neighbors know this.

NK is China's junkyard dog. They'll let him bark and froth at the mouth all he wants, but they'll keep him on tight leash and even give him a whuppin' (politically) if he decides he's going to go off the reservation.

I participated in two Team Spirit exercises while stationed in Korea. The rhetoric is spewed every year. Nothing new under the sun.
 
More tub-thumping. The maximum leader of NK always pulls this kind of stunt whenever the spot light is shining somewhere else. BTW, NK is not a free agent. NK is on China's leash. China finds it convenient to have a yapper distracting some elements of the US.
 
As far as North Korea attacking the South--and the United States--all I have to say is:

Bring it.

Here's what would happen:

1. F-117's and B-2's.
2. Insertion of Special Forces, Force Recon and SEAL Teams.
3. Landing of at least one MEU, and close support by other carriers and Naval firepower.
4. Quick reaction force, consisting of the 25th Infantry Division (at the very least) lands.
5. North Korea finds that their only option at that point is to bend at the waist, reach backwards, and kiss their behinds goodbye.
6. North Korea then receives a massive, down-home butt-whoopin'.

End of story--unless they bust a nuke.

Then, it goes like this:

1. North Korea pops a nuke or maybe two.
2. We return the favor with MX and Peacekeeper ICBM, as well as some home-brewed W80 gravity bombs.

3. North Korea is turned into the world's biggest parking lot by the US Air Force. The US Marine Corps gets to paint the stripes, while the US Army hands out the parking passes to the world's first glow in the dark parking.

Done. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top