North Korea threatens 'resolute military action'

"But more to the point, you said some pretty harsh things about my truthfulness on this issue, S3."

CZ,

If it's ignorance that is behind statements I have seen you make, then I certainly apologize for believing you to be purposefully lying. If you are disseminating untrue information intentionally, I guess only YOU would know that. For me to infer that kind of knowledge about you, would be a mistake on my part.

Let's not delude ourselves into believing the same people that backed BushCo, and sent the ball rolling on the War on Terror lie for invading and occupying foreign nations, isn't just as in control of ObamaCo, as well?

Otherwise we, the people, have no chance in hell at getting to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!!!

...and I know that the last sentence of that last post is awkward -- like the author skipped a word or two -- but that is the way it appeared in the text. My best GUESS is that he was saying that he thought that while the US WOULD ultimately prevail in a military engagement with North Korea, the total devastation to South Korea would be extreme -- especially because of our ongoing commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and to the War on Terror in general. I think that is a reasonable conclusion and consistent with his language here.

In case you all missed this "subthread," I think the information below is of interest to this discussion.

Spanky! What an incredibly PERSUASIVE argument! I am "negative" and "full of shit." Well, I can't deny the latter charge, but the last thing I want to be is negative. I consider myself to be a concerned patriot and simply want to know, as accurately as possible, what the threats are to the United States and to our ideals of liberty and freedom.

The following is from the current CIA Factbook for 2009:

"North Korea's history of regional military provocations, proliferation of military-related items, and long-range missile development - as well as its WMD programs and massive conventional armed forces - are of major concern to the international community."

This next piece is from Bush's National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte, in his 2007 Annual Report:

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us...North Korea’s threat to international security is also grave. Last year I highlighted that point. In
the intervening twelve months, Pyongyang substantiated our concerns. In July it flight-tested
missiles and in October it tested a nuclear device. We remain concerned it could proliferate
these weapons abroad. Indeed, it already has sold ballistic missiles to several Middle Eastern
countries. By pressing forward with its nuclear weapon and missile programs, North Korea
threatens to destabilize a region that has known several great power conflicts over the last one
hundred years and now comprises some of the world’s largest economies.

And this next one is from Director Deutch, a decade earlier:

North Korea. Under Kim Chong-il, North Korea remains isolated, xenophobic, militaristic, and resistant to reform and its hostility toward the South is unabated. Since the early 1980s, P'yongyang has devoted perhaps a QUARTER of its Gross National Product to building a 1.1 million-man military machine. The army's force structure, deployment, and training emphasize offensive operations and it is positioned and equipped to launch an aggressive attack southward with little or no warning. Late last year North Korea deployed numerous combat aircraft to bases near the DMZ, and since the early 1990s, it has deployed long-range artillery and rockets near the DMZ, threatening Seoul and reducing allied warning time.

And, last but certainly not least, This assessment is from a trio of American military experts (Bill Rice, Marvin Hutchins, and the third guy's name escapes me for the moment) who have published numerous books, articles and newsletters on the subject (this one is from late 2005):

The DPRK is a significant military threat to the United States and our allies, most notably South Korea and Japan. Despite massive economic failure resulting in one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world, the DPRK maintains a million-man military (Korean People’s Army, or KPA) capable of doing significant damage to South Korea and other countries. Their quest for nuclear weapons, now probably a reality, makes them all the more dangerous.

One primary issue in a conventional war on the peninsula is that more than 25% of the South’s population lives near their Northern border. Seoul, the capital of the ROK, is less than forty miles from the DPRK. The KPA keeps most of its forces along the 120 mile DMZ . The KPA has built extensive underground fortifications housing thousands of artillery and short-range rocket launchers capable of inflicting massive damage on Seoul and its surroundings on short notice.

Despite the size of the KPA, it is a technologically backward force. Their strength is in shear numbers and firepower. That the United States would ultimately prevail in such a conflict, though with current strains on US forces in the War on Terror, the total devastation to South Korea would be extreme.

I believe that CHINA must take the lead in confronting N. Korea, not the US. As a neighboring country China has to assume the role of leadership here, this matter is extremely sensitive and therefore the regional powers must take control in containing this freaking beast.

S3,

I can see that you have an extremely low opinion of me and of my "fairy tale" story about the illegality of Americans assassinating foreign leaders. Perhaps this will help:

In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

I am nobody's mouthpiece. Until the Bush Administration I had always considered myself to be a moderate Independent, politically. I am simply disgusted and ashamed of what the Bush Administration did to our economy, to our institutions and to our image. I am equally disgusted by the fact that the Republican Party did not rope him in even when most of them KNEW he was acting WAY outside the bounds of reason.

I don't like your language or your tone -- I don't recall ever treating you with similar disrespect. But it's a free country...if you think that kind of rhetoric is persuasive.

A world in economic chaos, what a surprise that we are on the brink of world war!

I have to agree with clownpuncher that it seems North Korea has started acting more agressive since Bush has quit the post of president.

Certainly this is a good test for the Obama administration policies, too bad there are so many lives at stake if things turn out wrong.

North Korea is doing as they please because they know Obama is spineless and wont do a damn thing to them.

Why cant they knock off there crap and quit acting like there crap dont stink. Its going to be bad if they piss the wrong country off and i hope the destroy N. Korea of the face of this earth. Maybe after doing that it will set an example to end mindless and meaningless war.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, BK. The problem, at least to my mind, is that if you wait until THEY attack, we can't possibly mobilize in time to save South Korea. If we try to strike FIRST, I just can't see how we could gather a force that large without provoking North Korea into an attack well before we and our allies would be ready. This is not at all like Gulf I where Saddam had little choice but to stand by and watch while we spent months building the force to retake Kuwait. Iraq's army was like a troop of cub scouts compared to the North Korean military. And if you look at a map of North and South Korea... WHAT neighbors? China sure as heck is not going to join us in an attack of North Korea -- or allow anyone else to do so from inside China. Who else around there has any real military capacity?

That is what I meant by a lack of military solutions.

I completely agree cz but what i was getting at is if North Korea did attack South Korea or Japan the surrounding nations would have no chance but to attack them. The best way would be a social or economical resolution but that country is so dillusional and cealed tight that it's next to impossible to get in there and help. Like what delia said we would go in not neccesarliy with ground forces but with air offensive and with the help of the neihboring countries and allies we would have the upper hand. I do not wish upon a war to North Korea but we may have no choice.

"Take them out???" Please tell me that you don't mean we should sentence the better part of 25 million North Koreans, 99% of whom have suffered in ways few Americans could possibly understand, to death or horrible mutilation via nuclear holocaust. That would be...bad. We are not particularly popular now. Such an action would immediately vault us to the most immoral nation on the planet--and justly so. Who are we to decide to eradicate a country just because they MIGHT invade their neighbors or they MIGHT acquire WMDs? Heck, there are days I don't think the FRENCH should have nuclear weapons...

Kim Il-Sung's recent poor health, and his decision to tap his (fourth?) son as his successor add some wrinkles to the overall problem. I recall fairly vividly the death of Kim Il-Sung's father and the hope at the time that the son MIGHT be a better bargain. Nope. So I am not hopeful about THIS son, either. But we lack good options.

The country that seems to have the most influence with North Korea is China -- but I actually think they have less influence than they would like us to believe. I don't really think the fact that the North has three of China's largest competitors (U.S., Japan and South Korea) tied up in knots is causing the Chinese to shed many tears. I am sure they would prefer just a stitch more STABILITY at the top of the North Korean governmental and military structure, but they are not likely to exert any pressure that might result in the North Koreans turning those weapons systems in THEIR direction.

My greatest concern for the past several years is that the disparity in standard of living between the North and the South just seems to keep on growing. We can't very well ask the South to stop that process, but I worry that if the wrong person in the North gets a little too soft in the head, they might decide they can just TAKE that standard of living by force.

I agree that finding some way of improving conditions in the North is the best way to sort of "bleed off pressure" if one thinks about the situation as kind of a pressure cooker that could blow up if the pressure gets high enough.

But that has its own set of problems. We don't want to be seen as responding to blackmail for one. The U.S. doesn't have any resources to give to the North -- even if Congress were inclined to go down that road.

I think we have to take our cues primarily from the South Koreans. They share a common language and presumably at least SOME cultural identity despite the many years of separation. Of course there are deep divisions even among the South Koreans on how to handle the North.

We don't assassinate foreign leaders (by that I mean Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers, and that ilk) of course -- illegal. If we DID do so, you would be seeing folks disappearing all the time.

So I would think that we need to continue to play a direct role in diplomacy, taking our cues from South Korea and Japan (the countries most directly threatened at the present time). If we can find a way to make investment by China in North Korea seem to be in China's best interests, that would be a good thing. I was wondering the other day whether North Korea could actually be a source of super cheap labor in China someday as the standard of living continues to rise in China. But there are still so MANY desperately poor people in China that we could be talking a decade or more. On the other hand, I would bet that there are many North Koreans who would work a 12 hour day for a roof and two decent meals.

I don't see any good military options -- or even any so-so military options.

The biggest reason that the US, China, and South Korea do not want a military conflict with North Korea is because no one wants to deal with a unified Korea. Even if the North were to fall in a peaceful situation as occurred with East Germany, this would have long term and painful consequences for the global economy. The fall of the Berlin Wall results in a complete down turn in the economy of Europe. Even today, West Germany still has to subsidize the Eastern part of the country. East Germany had a much smaller population and the highest standard of living in of the Soviet Satellite States. With North Korea, you have a much larger population and the differences between the North and South in standard of living would basically result in the compete collapse of the South Korean economy. This would lead to a serious down turn in the entire Asian-Pacific economic system. Massive amounts of people would not only flood into South Korea, but also into China leading to a massive refugee problem.

As horrific as the current situation is in North Korea, all parties involved would rather a gradual increase in the North Korean standard of living before any thought of regime changes enters the discussion. This was the primary reason behind the South's "Sunshine" Policy. Of course now that policy is gone due to both the posturing of the North and the South government changing and taking a harder line stance with the North.

One item not normally considered when debating the issue of the North invading the South is the effect that the "culture" shock would have on the invading soldiers. Keep in mind that the entire country is giving propaganda 24/7 and most don't even know what the current standard of living is anywhere outside of their country. Many soldiers could not handle the fact entering South Cities and realizing their entire lives have been a lie. This, I guess is assuming that the North just doesn't shell most of the country with nuclear artillery....Sorry about the rambling length....

after seeing that gulag story here and then watching a few documentaries on youtube (and a pod on current cable tv about a year and a half ago), i just think mofo needs to be taken out. i know the people are used to their sh^tty life but maybe the children can be saved before they get comfy with that prison-hell of a country.

good points though cztheday...i guess it would need to be a group effort.

Am I the only one thinking that we need to take North Korea out? They're going to try to take over South Korea and launch nukes at countries who try to stop them--probably targeting Japan, Hawaii, and California. I can't see why else they're doing all this shit.

North korea has been a threat all along . We should have focused on it better .

@RichWhite on twitter says "North Korea throwing another temper tantrum it looks like - - silly dictator"

Um, Delia and BK, if you guys really think that either South Korea OR the United States is in a position to give North Korea a "beat down" or a "bruisin," I am afraid I have some REALLY bad news for you.

One of the reasons North Korea is so poverty stricken is that Mr. Happy Pants, their "Dear Leader" -- and his father before him -- have for decades directed every bit of loose change to maintaining of the the three or four largest, best trained and best-equipped militaries in the world. The number of conventional missile systems they have trained on Seoul and the northern third of South Korea is WAY beyond staggering.

Virtually every military analysis of the situation I have ever seen predicts that if North Korea decided to invade at any moment, they would completely overrun the South Korean Army and the 25,000 to 35,000 American troops (the number fluctuates because of "borrowing" to feed the demand for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) within (LITERALLY!) minutes. The entire Seoul metropolitan area COULD be reduced to a smoking ruin in less than half an hour after the start of the invasion.

Most think that Lil Kim would prefer to POSSESS the assets in Seoul, but there is frankly no doubt whatsoever that he could simply eliminate them with an order of three words or less.

You may be skeptical of this analysis. I certainly invite you to research the matter yourselves, but I can assure you that you will come to the same conclusion. I actually took a course not long ago that spent a couple of weeks just going over this situation. Sobering.

Basicly if they do anything stupid they'll get a beat down from South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US. North Korea is so isolated and crazy that nobody has their backs. Not even the communist countries like them.

The term "cruisin' for a bruisin'" comes to mind...