North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

Why would North Korea want to land 4 or 5 nukes in Tokyo? It would be suicidal. Just because Nth Korea may not be the nicest place on the planet, that doesn't make them insane.

The only plausible scenario for the north to use nukes would be if there was total war on the Korean peninsula AND the the north was facing immanent defeat. Even then, it would be an irrational move.

The idea of a first strike nuclear attack by the north is pretty much fantasy.

 

Ridiculous. It only takes a handful of aircraft or missiles and a simple order to deliver a devastating nuclear strike. There is virtually no chance that there would not be a retaliatory strike. To not retaliate would be to utterly undermine the whole basis of MAD. It would have catastrophic implications for Western power, and furthermore Western leaders would be fully aware of that.

 

This loser is an immigrant living in the US on social security. He digs his old threads out of the sewer and posts to them as though they were a blog.

I've never encountered a creepier person on ET than SA.

 

December 8, 2010

SouthAmerica: United States and North Korea are on the brink of Nuclear War.

One thing is very clear: There are 3 countries that are provoking North Korea and these 3 countries are potential target for a nuclear attack - the United States, South Korea and Japan.

Then Japan becomes the obvious choice for a nuclear attack by North Korea - and to be more exact Tokyo has a big bulls eye as the number one target for such nuclear warheads to land.

All North Korea needs is for 4 or 5 nuclear warheads to land in Tokyo for them to accomplish their goal in a massive preemptive attack.

North Korea would have only one chance and that is that surprise preemptive attack with everything they have against Tokyo.


*****


“US, South Korea eye shift in rules of engagement on North Korea”
By Donald Kirk, Correspondent
The Christian Science Monitor - December 8, 2010

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...e-shift-in-rules-of-engagement-on-North-Korea

Seoul's top general and US Adm. Mike Mullen did not formally announce a shift in rules of engagement. But South Korean analysts believe they are shaping the first possible strategy shift since the Korean War.

Seoul, South Korea - The top US and South Korean military officers edged Wednesday toward a significant shift in the rules of engagement for countering North Korean attacks.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US armed forces, said after meeting his South Korean counterpart that South Korea as a “sovereign nation” had “every right to protect its people in order to effectively carry out its responsibility.”

That remark was seen here to mean that the US would not stand in the way of South Korean commanders ordering fighter jets to bomb and strafe North Korean bases in case of an attack by North Korea on a target in the South.

Admiral Mullen stood beside General Han Min-koo, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the South Korean armed forces, as each of them parried questions about the need to remove constraints on South Korean forces.

The issue has assumed prime importance here in the aftermath of North Korea’s bombardment on Nov. 22 of an island in the Yellow Sea in which two South Korean marines and two civilians were killed. South Korea responded to the barrage by firing cannon ineffectively at North Korean targets while South Korean F15 fighters were scrambled to the area but ordered not to open fire.

No formal change announced, but understanding reached
Neither General Han nor Mullen went into detail on changes in the rules of engagement, but Han said South Korea and the US had “agreed to strongly respond to North Korea’s additional provocations.” They would, he said, be “refining” plans “for the alliance to resolutely respond to further North Korean aggression.”
South Korean analysts believe the two came to a definite understanding.

“They have more freedom in the choice of weapons,” says Kim Tae-woo, a vice president of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. “It is an historical change” – the first, he says, “since the Korean War.”

Mr. Kim a member of South Korea’s presidential commission for defense reform, says “the green light was given even though Mullen did not say so openly.”

US support for any shift in rules of engagement is essential in view of the US-Korean military alliance, dating from the Korean War, and overall US command responsibility for all forces in the South in time of war. The US would not assume command of South Korean forces in response to a relatively minor attack, such as that on Yeonpyeong island, but US agreement is wanted for any essential policy shifts.

Buildup of tensions

Mullen arrived here just as a newly appointed defense minister, Kim Kwan-jin, who had also served previously as chairman of South Korea’s joint chiefs of staff, was settling into his post with a mandate to vastly improve South Korea’s defenses. South Korea’s President Lee Myung-bak appointed him amid widespread criticism of the poor state of the South’s defenses.

Mr. Kim in the past few days has been saying that South Korean planes would attack North Korean targets in the event of an attack similar to that on Yeonpyeong Island. He’s under orders from Mr. Lee to build up fortress-like defenses on the Yellow Sea islands and also south of the 155-mile-long demilitarized zone that has divided the Korean peninsula since the end off the Korean War in 1953.

Intrinsic in the buildup is a commitment by the US for more exercises such as those last week in which the aircraft carrier George Washington led a US strike force into the Yellow Sea for war games with South Korean forces. South Korean forces engaged in still more exercises this week off the east, west and southern coasts despite North Korean threats of “all-out war.”

Mullen emphasized, meanwhile, the need for China to pressure North Korea not to carry out more attacks. He spoke after a trilateral meeting in Washington among Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the foreign minister of Japan and South Korea. At the same time, James Steinberg, deputy secretary of state, planned to go to China next week bearing the same plea.

.

 

.

December 8, 2010

SouthAmerica: Reply to dcraig

The United States is getting desperate to take the attention from its imploding economy and massive financial mess – and Pathetic political system.

The United States is provoking North Korea in every way possible for North Korea to take the initiative of a preemptive nuclear war strike.

That is the only chance North Korea has of surviving.

A north Korean nuclear attack against Tokyo would cause a total collapse of the international monetary system based on the US dollar.

If North Korea manages to land 4 or 5 nuclear warheads on top of Tokyo that would be the trigger for a
international monetary collapse as the world has never seen before.

And we are getting in there one step at the time as the United States is closing the circle on North Korea.

The leaders of North Korea will soon get the message that the day for the big showdown with the United States has arrived, and they would not have any other alternative available to then other than the final showdown.

The only other alternative available for the leaders of North Korea is to be hanged just like Saddam Hussein - if they prefer that outcome.

.

 

.
December 9, 2010

SouthAmerica: The US war drums are getting louder and louder....

Associated Press: US Committed to Defend South Korea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_JzDp8hDnU&feature=player_embedded

I don't speak Korean, but at the end of this video the South Korean General probably said:

Let's get the show on the road!!!!!

.

 

You presume that you know that Nth Korean military doctrine involves a first strike nuclear attack. This is almost certainly nonsense.

Nth Korea has a stupendous volume of heavy artillery, heavily fortified over decades. It is in range of Seoul and US bases. Nth Korea does not need nukes to cause widespread devastation in the south.

Nth Korea is better armed and probably has a lot better morale in the military than Iraq had. It also has much more favorable geography than Iraq for the defenders. Any conventional war on the Korean peninsular would likely be devastating without nukes.

I would think the US would be loathe to get into such a conflict. Do not mistake sabre rattling and maneuvering for immanent war.

This of course does not preclude the possibility of war - miscalculations are always possible.

 

I agree. He is obsessed with Brazil and the destruction of the USA. I think he is just plain crazy.

 

December 9, 2010

SouthAmerica: Reply to dcraig

You said: "You presume that you know that Nth Korean military doctrine involves a first strike nuclear attack. This is almost certainly nonsense."

What I said is that it is the official policy of the US government a preemptive strike - and it was adopted by the Bush administration.

By the way, this is a policy that works both ways, since the United States does not have a monopoly regarding that policy.

A preemptive strike becomes an automatic policy for any enemy of the United States.

Any country can justify a preemptive attack against the United States based on the official policy of the US government.

That's why that was not a smart move by the Bush administration.
If anything that was a very "DUMB" move.

If the US was planning to preemptive attack anyone then it was not necessary to make an official government policy, since by making an official policy of the US government the US is inviting other countries to preemptive attack the USA.

I don't know what kind of idiot thought that was a good policy for the US government to adopt as its official policy.

Whoever came up with that idea is a real moron....

.

 

SA, you are a moron. Please get some medication for your sickness. You appear to be paranoid.