North Korea vows Nuclear attack on U.S., targets D.C.

[Bob Saget]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/07/north-korea-vows-nuclear-attack-on-us-ahead-un-sanctions-vote/

[Fallen Guardian]

North Korea tends to threaten quite a bit, and it mostly amounts to not. Though the idea of a North Korea that is not only nuclear armed but capable of delivering those nuclear arms is quite a scary one. Hopefully they're blowing hot-air.

[VeniVidiVicous]

Well with Bin Laden now dead I suppose the US needs another boogie man, despite what one may think of the government in North Korea it's leaders aren't stupid enough to declare war on the US.

 

Just an question on my part here because I honestly want to hear what people here think:

Why is it that the US/UN insists on sanctioning countries and then is always surprised when these countries dislike them for it? I think the US just likes to have an enemy to point to in their news rooms.

 

As for having nuclear weapons I only know of one government that used them in a war and it wasn't North Korea's.

[Bob Saget]

North Korea tends to threaten quite a bit, and it mostly amounts to not. Though the idea of a North Korea that is not only nuclear armed but capable of delivering those nuclear arms is quite a scary one. Hopefully they're blowing hot-air.

 

They're hardly a threat. They barely have the technology to get it close to our shores, if they actually had an effective delivery system that could get past our defenses then I'd be impressed. Fortunately, they don't have a way.

[Sabretooth]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the next Homefront game too.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Well with Bin Laden now dead I suppose the US needs another boogie man, despite what one may think of the government in North Korea it's leaders aren't stupid enough to declare war on the US.

 

Just an question on my part here because I honestly want to hear what people here think:

Why is it that the US/UN insists on sanctioning countries and then is always surprised when these countries dislike them for it? I think the US just likes to have an enemy to point to in their news rooms.

 

As for having nuclear weapons I only know of one government that used them in a war and it wasn't North Korea's.

 

This brings up the question: when, if ever, is it ok to get involved in the affairs of another country? Another person?

 

I think the answer is if an entity willingly subjects itself to the rule(s) of another, ie, when a person joins an organization, or becomes a citizen of a country.

 

N. Korea has done so, so America and co.'s actions of imposing sanctions on them are appropriate, and approvable, imo. The parties in the UN are simply saying, "If you want to trade with us, you've got to play by our rules (the rules you agreed to, when your signed up to be a part of our group)."

 

Even if NK/DPRK didn't sign up to be in the UN, their actions are still appropriate. People and countries have a right to associate and not associate with others, according to their desires. In this case, it's just about the same as a group of people shunning someone because they find their actions morally reprehensible (Eg, not being friendly with the guy down the road because he beats the **** out of his kids).

 

Now, if that guy, out of frustration at your lack of amicability no less, threatens to attack *your kids* (while firing gunshots into the air); then you have a right to get your shotgun, brandish your teeth, and tell him to gtfo.

 

Make sense?

 

 

I don't know about previous sanctions, but the latest ones in UN Resolution 2094 are aimed at intercepting anything related to NK's weapons program, that may be moving through UN countries. Given by NK's latest tantrum, it seems to have struck a nerve. (Or perhaps, it's the outlined interception of certain, as yet ambiguous, "luxury items"...)

[mimartin]

I don’t get it, why are people upset about this; they said they are targeting Washington as long as they make sure Congress is in secession at the time, I don’t see the big deal. What you’re all worried they will hit Washington when Congress is on break?

[Tommycat]

I don’t get it, why are people upset about this; they said they are targeting Washington as long as they make sure Congress is in session at the time, I don’t see the big deal. What you’re all worried they will hit Washington when Congress is on break?

 

No, I'm worried they might not hit Washington. Far as I'm concerned if NK took out Washington, all the politicians and lobbiests, I'd have a hard time being angry with them.

[Sabretooth]

I think the US just likes to have an enemy to point to in their news rooms.

 

Just like North Korea, Iran or Russia, then?

 

Off the bat, I can't think of a country, that directly or indirectly, has no grand bogeyman engineering its destruction.

[Tommycat]

Just like North Korea, Iran or Russia, then?

 

Off the bat, I can't think of a country, that directly or indirectly, has no grand bogeyman engineering its destruction.

 

Greenland?

[mimartin]

Greenland?

You don't know about the Cold War feud between Greenland and Iceland? Each wants the others name. The question is who will fire the first Herring.

[Q]

I don’t get it, why are people upset about this; they said they are targeting Washington as long as they make sure Congress is in secession at the time, I don’t see the big deal.

That would be grounds for granting "most favored nation" status.

 

Jokes aside, I take any threat involving use of nuclear weapons against the US very seriously. If NK actually launches, this should be the result, whether they hit their target or not:

 

[90SK]

^ I agree, not really a joke or anything to not take seriously. Sounds like N. Korea is a cold calculating force in the modern world. I bet USA would kick their asses but at what cost?

[VeniVidiVicous]

I don't know about previous sanctions, but the latest ones in UN Resolution 2094 are aimed at intercepting anything related to NK's weapons program, that may be moving through UN countries. Given by NK's latest tantrum, it seems to have struck a nerve. (Or perhaps, it's the outlined interception of certain, as yet ambiguous, "luxury items"...)

 

Well I read about some of the other sanctions brought on by the US and I'm not convinced that they're doing the right thing by taking this approach.

It is the right thing from a Military standpoint but i'm talking about morality and all that stuff.

 

Just like North Korea, Iran or Russia, then?

 

Off the bat, I can't think of a country, that directly or indirectly, has no grand bogeyman engineering its destruction.

 

My country for one, I live in Ireland and the only stories I hear of that nature are either American or British, The American news always more outlandish though.

[machievelli]

A little reality check here:

 

First; the UNhas the right to sanction any nation, member or not, that expects the rest of the world to play by their rules. The only reason the UN tends to leave the US alone is that we supplied not only their headquarters, but the lion share of the funds they use when they decide to act in the world; I.E, sending UN troops to the Ivory Coast required the US to supply the transport for both men and supplies.

 

North Korea has been pushing for over two generations that the only reason they lost the Great Patriotic War (What we call the Korean War) was that those horrible Americans stopped them. Logical in that the US footed the bill for everything but the pay for the actual soldiers. However they didn't lose that war because the Communist Chinese footed the bill for them to the tune of 2.5 million troops after Inchon, not to mention supplying them with every material need and bases for supply and fighter aircraft above the Yalu river.

 

One person said in a rather acrimonious argument that the reason for the non proliferation treaty was because we didn't want other nations to have the same toys we have. However hey ignored the fact that every nation that has deployed nukes has put us at the point where we're dependent on the least stable leader in those countries for peace. Saturday Night Live joked about it when they did a sketch about Nixon before he resigned and Kissinger told him they'd disabled his launch button.

 

Now, developing a nuke is child's play. You can find 90% of the specifics and designs online. All you need is two additional things; fissionable materials, which Korea pruduces themselves, and a delivery system, unless you intend to have the US mail deliver it for you. That is why both NK and Iran deciding they wanted to build processing centers for their spent fuel rods was the first indicator we had that they intended such a goal.Their building a processing facility is like you or I building a factory to manufacture parts just for your car. you don't do it unless it cannot be done elsewhere.

 

That is why the Schrub as my Ex called the Second Bush named Korea as a member of his 'Axis of Evil'. Korea has the uranium, Iraq had the delivery system, albeit short ranged. His threat then to Korea, as much as the liberal press labasted him was a repat of Kennedy's threat to Cuba; if a nuke hits anyone fired from Iraq or any nation backing terrorusts, we'll hold you personally responsible.

 

As for delivery systems, the Koreans do not have the range to hit DC, which is good in a way. However they can hit major Naval bases of the US in the Pacific along with Alaska and the West Coast. To have the quantum leap of hitting DC would be like Zimbabwe designing a missile in 2002 and claiming they now field a missile capable of hitting Europe. Without technical assistance from outside, it doesn't happen.

 

Item last, even assuming worst case scenarios where they began processing immediately after they reopened their nuclear plant in 2002, they do not have enough weapons to really matter on the worlds stage. It would be like a street gang here locally in Las Vegas threatening to destroy Metro PD. They could get a few licks in, then every nation around them with nukes would be telling them to surrender now, or face obliteration.

 

Probable losses, Kadena Okinawa, Pearl Harbor, Seattle or San Francisco on our end. On theirs?

 

As my ex would have said, we'd turn the country into a parking lot, and let the survivors paint the lines.

 

And it wouldn't be just US missiles hitting them.

[mimartin]

First; the UNhas the right to sanction any nation, member or not, that expects the rest of the world to play by their rules. The only reason the UN tends to leave the US alone is that we supplied not only their headquarters, but the lion share of the funds they use when they decide to act in the world; I.E, sending UN troops to the Ivory Coast required the US to supply the transport for both men and supplies.

That and as a permanent member of United Nation Security Council the U.S. along with France, Russia, China and the United Kingdom, pretty much have veto powers over any sanctions attempted on the United States.

 

So while the UN has the right to sanction the United States and the power, as long as the United States and for that matter the United Kingdom are permanent members of the Security Council the chances of the US getting sanctions are next to nil.

 

That said 15 to 20 years ago I would have said the same thing about North Korea getting UN sanctions, with China having veto rights, so anything is possible.

[machievelli]

That and as a permanent member of United Nation Security Council the U.S. along with France, Russia, China and the United Kingdom, pretty much have veto powers over any sanctions attempted on the United States.

 

So while the UN has the right to sanction the United States and the power, as long as the United States and for that matter the United Kingdom are permanent members of the Security Council the chances of the US getting sanctions are next to nil.

 

That said 15 to 20 years ago I would have said the same thing about North Korea getting UN sanctions, with China having veto rights, so anything is possible.

 

You're ignoring the fact that if aq permanent member is being sanctioned, they are not allowed to vote on the matter. As for Korea, up until this recent unpleasantness about wanting Nukes, Kim Il Sung was a rock of stability compared to his son and Grandson. Jong Il was a man who wanted to be a movie producer/director, and as you can tell by looking at what Hollywood pumps out, how many of them have a keen grasp of what is or is not actually possible?

 

Right off the top of my head, I don't know what the Grandson is named, but igonring their sole patron (China) to threaten nuclear violence is not what I would call a hallmark of stability.

[mimartin]

You're ignoring the fact that if aq permanent member is being sanctioned, they are not allowed to vote on the matter.

No I am not....You really think United Kingdom wouldn't veto it? and vise versa?

 

Plus it would never ever get to the point of a vote.

[urluckyday]

Does anyone take North Korea seriously anymore? It's like someone continually pulling the fire alarm, and you just stop running out of the building because it's always a false alarm. I can't imagine if there will ever be a "fire" in that sense. Would they really be that dumb? They're pretty damn stupid in general...but they know they'd be annihilated.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Well I read about some of the other sanctions brought on by the US and I'm not convinced that they're doing the right thing by taking this approach.

It is the right thing from a Military standpoint but i'm talking about morality and all that stuff.

 

Keep in mind that you are talking about a government that brutalizes its people on the slightest hint of political dissidence; that has *labor camps* with the most horrible conditions; that is suspected of having some of the highest counts of human rights violations in recent history.

 

Disregarding all that, within the context of morality, they signed their rights to be undisturbed in their evil dickery away when they joined the UN.

[machievelli]

Does anyone take North Korea seriously anymore? It's like someone continually pulling the fire alarm, and you just stop running out of the building because it's always a false alarm. I can't imagine if there will ever be a "fire" in that sense. Would they really be that dumb? They're pretty damn stupid in general...but they know they'd be annihilated.

 

It isn't that simple. First, Kim Il Sung never threatened Nuclear annihilation. He didn't have the capability, and China had nukes, but no intercontinental delivery system until a disgruntled US Air Force employee gave them the Titan III blueprints. That was because both Mao and Deng were too unstable for Russia to assist them. So their 'big brother' wouldn't back their play.

 

KIm Jong Il however wanted the capability. and didn't care if he'd be backed or not. As I pointed out above, a wannabe movie director. You can create any end you want in a move, and I think, toward the end, he believed the world would let him have what he wanted. But while he couldn't deliver on his threats, we didn't shoot down his few missile tests.

 

Now we have Kim Jong Un, raised to believe his word is law in NK, and believes it should be with the world. Again, as I mentioned, all of NK's problems are caused by the US. Starvation in his own country, caused by sellling food overseas to 'prove' his nations productivity, is explained to his people by us not allowing them to buy their needs. The UN would not be warning about sanctions if the US did not demand them.

 

What worries me is that no one inside either NK or China has given any indication that he's blowing smoke. Like a poker game, we're going to come to the point where he has to show his hand, and to admit he cannot might not be possible. Look at the difference:

 

When the US blockaded Cuba and threatened to Nuke Russia if a missile was fired, the Russians backed down after a week of posturing because they believed us. When the Shrub threatened to nuke NK if a terrorist organization deployed a nuke, CIA reported that their contacts with such organizations dropped off. Why, because we could do it.

 

It might come down to 'put up or shut up. The problem is; in my estimate above, we're looking at about 4 million casualties against 30+ million because the only North Koreans who survive will be the ones in their bunkers.

 

addenda: I forgot the real sweet piece here; Back when the World Court was formed, a bunch of nations jumped on to the bandwagon to have the US declared as War Criminals because we used the only two nuclear weapons fired in anger. After a fierce debate, the World Court decided that using such a weapon was not in anod of itself a War Crime. However in 1996, they added that 'preemptive use of a nuclear weapon is an acceptable tactic.'

 

Smoke that, guys.

[kyrie]

Isn't Kim Jong Un supposed to be the more stable of the sons too?

[Sam Spain]

lol Fox News. North Korea's threats might not seem like a big deal to America but for the UN and South Korea this is a big problem. They could kill millions of people.

[90SK]

I feel like this is big news, I'm not very plugged in to the news right now so I can't tell how big of an impact this is making but they're basically threatening war right? What's our terror alert right now? I also feel like this is a threat against the west, not just a threat against the US. Like, pushing back basically, against all the Western based globalization.

[Bob Saget]

lol Fox News. North Korea's threats might not seem like a big deal to America but for the UN and South Korea this is a big problem. They could kill millions of people.

 

I personally am not a fan Fox news but considering how pretty much every other site is saying the same thing, might as well.