Thursday, 6 February, 2003, 16:18 GMT US shrugs off N Korea threat Tensions over North Korea are worrying the South The United States has shrugged off a threat from North Korea that any decision to send more troops to the region might prompt it to make a pre-emptive attack. "Obviously the United States is prepared [with] robust plans for any contingencies," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in a briefing on Thursday. "But this type of talk and the type of actions North Korea has engaged in - or says it is engaging in - only hurt North Korea." US officials announced this week that Washington was considering strengthening its military forces in the Pacific Ocean. North Korea responded with a warning that that any US attack on its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon would trigger "full scale war". Mr Fleischer downplayed the tough words from Pyongyang, saying the US had "heard much talk from North Korea before". The US said reinforcements would help signal that a possible war with Iraq was not distracting the US from its nuclear stand-off with the North. The North said on Wednesday that it had reactivated the nuclear site and its operations were now going ahead "on a normal footing". Pyongyang says it will use the facilities to produce electricity "at the present stage". However, the US and nuclear experts say the Yongbyon reactor, which has been mothballed since 1994, is too small to generate meaningful amounts of electricity. Growing alarm The threat to strike first against US troops in the region came from North Korea's foreign ministry deputy director, Ri Pyong-gap. Speaking to the BBC's Mike Thompson in Pyongyang, Mr Ri said his government was becoming increasingly alarmed at signs that Washington planned to send more aircraft carriers, bombers and troops to the region. He said such actions would mean that the US was either planning to invade the North or launch attacks against it. In response, he insisted, Pyongyang would not just sit and wait, and might decide to strike first if necessary. The country currently has a standing army of more than one million soldiers. The US has about 37,000 troops based in South Korea. Our correspondent says tensions on the streets of Pyongyang are tangible. Air raid drills and blackouts are becoming twice-daily rituals and huge posters calling for courage in the fight ahead cover billboards and walls. North Korean denial The North Koreans are believed to possess one or two nuclear weapons already, as well as enough spent fuel rods to make four to six more. However, analysts say that reactivating Yongbyon reactor gives North Korea the capacity to mass produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, raising fears of a nuclear arms race in east Asia. Tension has been building in the region ever since claims by Washington that the communist regime in Pyongyang had admitted resuming the development of nuclear weapons in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. North Korea denies the allegations, which it says are being used to justify an imminent American invasion. Analysts say the North may be trying to force the US to negotiate a non-aggression pact, or strengthen its nuclear arsenal while the US is preoccupied with Iraq. The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose inspectors were expelled from the plant in December, is due to hold an emergency meeting next week on the nuclear crisis.
I believe it is in our best interest to have the UN dismantle *our* nuclear arsenal. The "deterrent" thing is just ancient rhetoric, and the fact we have an arsenal for defense is a large reason why other countries want them, too. Why are we special.
the best navy versus the rest of the world's navies combined keeps me warm at night. nukes give me nightmares
Once the genie's out of the bottle it's hard to cram him back in. You would also have to have the U.N. concurrently disarm every nuclear power in the world, consistently monitor every nuclear facility in the world to ensure there's no weapons grade material being produced, authorize immediate military action against any nation found to be developing nuclear weapons, and aid the development of a worldwide system to shoot down ballistic missiles. Sounds good in theory, but I'm not sure how workable it is in the real world.
Does it bother anyone else that we seem to be biting off more than we can potentially chew? Simultaneous wars <ahem, military action> against Iraq and North Korea? I know we're a bunch of bad asses, but damn.
Disregard this if you are being sarcastic.... But do you really think Russia, China, India, N. Korea, Pakistan would disarm themselves also? If you get rid of all the nukes then you still have other powerful weapons, do you get rid of those because us having them is the only reason the rest of the world wants them? And so on....? Buck said what I am trying to say also...
Treeman--- I'd be interested to know your take on a possible conflict with North Korea....what are their capabilities etc?
Although we could win in Korea, it would be long term and very nasty. Most argue that it would go nuclear with China getting involved. N. Korea has a strong army massed right on the border with S. Korea and they could devistate our ~40k troops there. It would be similar to the first Korean war, the US would be overwhelmed at first with heavy losses, but recover and regain the lost ground, begin to drive north and then the Chinese could enter the picture. Korea is a scary situation, if you ask me. Good read on N. Korea army from 2000 from CNN They say 2 million troops guard the border on both sides...
BobFinn* - to add to you article yahoo link So if we try to hit their nuclear plants, they will invade S. Korea.
It isn't our intention to be the only nuclear power on earth. We are trying to disarm nations that the UN has decided can't have nukes. Iraq and North Korea are the 2 largest offenders. Neither the UN nor the US have complained about any other industrialized nation that has them, even India and Pakistan.
Buck and Sonny, Did I say anything about everyone else disarming??? I said that I'd like to see us unilaterally disarm. Nukes are not a defense. Even if we get hit, I do *not* want us to retaliate with nukes. Our ever-mobile, impossible to destroy with a nuke, Navy is our defense. Quite frankly...I believe the idea of Nukes as a deterrent is as flawed and naive of a theory as a Star Wars defense shield. It was necessary during the Cold War, but things change. put it this way. If you were SmeggySmegg blissfully enjoying a beer in an outback bar, and North Korea loses its mind and takes out the US's 37,000 soldiers in S. Korea...do you want to see the US use nukes back, then China freaking out at hitting Taiwan....then all hell breaks lose and you have to throw away your beer because it is now contaminated. Or would you rather the US retaliate with conventional weapons of the strongest Navy ever. Nukes don't work, because even if they are used, I still would NEVER use them back with that freaking Navy that we have. Why? It is foolish, imo, and I don't ever want one of Presidents to ever use them again, for *any* reason. I say, take their buttons away for good. If the US disarms, maybe eventually the UN can get others to, but who really cares, that would just be an added bonus if just one other country would eventually follow suit. My point is to make your own statement.
Admittedly, not the greatest book in the world, Heypartner, but did you ever read Dale Brown's Fatal Terrain?
no...was it fun? maybe I could look in 1/2 price books and read it on the way to Dallas this weekend.
No, but the scenario I outlined is the only way it could happen, imho. I understand and agree with your sentiments regarding nuclear retaliation.
Buck..I don't get it...So you're saying that, in order for us to disarm, we would have to be assured of no threat from any other party, right? Why? Every nation of whom we are demanding disarmament is in the opposite situation. We are telling Iraq that they can't be in the room if they're carrying, meanwhile we've got a cannon in our pocket...Who apponted us the arbiters of nuclear justice? As I have said many times before, if you're going on record, there is only one nation on eatht who has ever used nuclear arms against an enemy...the ol US of A...Why do we get the right to decide who can and who can't be responsible with them, especially given that we have been the least responsible ourselves?
It was OK.....I didn't much care for the part where one of our carrier groups was deystroyed by nukes though.
