US general says US ready for NKorean attack

US general says US ready for NKorean attack

www.google.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. military commander in Korea said Tuesday that U.S. and South Korean forces are prepared for "anything North Korea can throw at us," regardless of the state of leader Kim Jong Il's health or of internal North Korean politics.

General Walter "Skip" Sharp told reporters that Kim should stop threatening the world with nuclear and missile tests and instead take care of his people and follow through on past commitments to abandon nuclear weapons programs.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com

Well, it seems that the news of Kim Jong Il's pancreatic cancer is starting a showdown of new threats. Lets hope hes not pressured into doing something very bad if he has months or live. We have already seen how rapidly thin his hair and body are becomming.

Question is, why even announce that the US is ready? The world already knows that. Just gotta stir the pot.

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wish the people of NK well - I hope they are not another victim of the US imperialists.

Don't support war against NK - they are suffering under sanctio0ns - and simply don't want to end up like another Iraq.

That's the downside to his poor health status. He has in line to the throne, his youngest son who is 26.

Various analysts and NK defectors have already stated that it will be unlikely that the military will recognize such a young man with absolutely no experience as their leader. Especially if Kim dies before properly "grooming" him. His son was only promoted to a prominent position a couple of months ago.

One can only hope (because with Kim one never really KNOWS) that he doesn't decide to start a war hoping that due to the sudden reality of war the military won't have time to question his son's leadership -- and instead will just follow suit. My guess would be that if they did start a war, the voice and face of the North Korean army would become his son.

Unfortunately, by throwing his son into that position, he gains a platform to show that he is capable of taking control of North Korea. Thereby reducing the chances of a military coup when/if his son takes over.

reply to post by Cyprex


i don't think it's as much stirring the pot, as it is assuring the world (especially SK and the US) that despite already fighting two wars (one ended -- sort of, but our military is still there) and facing total bankruptcy -- the US will still be armed, ready, and victorious.

Truth to be told, I don't the same confidence in the military is there anymore. Iraq can't be called a "win", at least not in my opinion. By all media accounts, we are losing in Afganistan. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think it's the fault of the soldiers. You can only stretch people so thin.

Now, fighting with NK would be a totally different war. But the US' track record right now certainly isn't what it was. Further, South Korea and Japan rely solely on the US for protection and if they think the US incapable of providing said security, they would be more likely to seek other agreements or simply "take matters into their own hands" which is yet another thing the US doesn't want to happen.

Funny how things work .

Al-queda woves attacks on China and now this..
What can we see coming from the Middle-East then ?

I think we've spent enough lives and money already. If NK does start a war, than it's time to drop something like a neutron bomb on their forces. Let them surender to South Korea for reunification.

OP... how do we know all this stuff is true what we read? It could be lies!! People stirring up trouble when maybe Jong's not even threatening anyone.... I would like to hear it from his mouth to tell you the truth....

Do you think that NK Leader Kim will want to make his place in history? Do you think he might do something extreme in war terms, because he is dying and might not care.

reply to post by Amagnon


Reading is a wonderful thing as is knowing the basics of a topic.

North Korea is the aggressor not the US. The US is simply responding to their threats.

To compare this to Iraq is absurd.

reply to post by Blaine91555

To compare this to Iraq is absurd.

Why?

It is similar considering

1. It is a long way from the USA
2. A leader is making threats
3. WMD
4. Innocent allies nearby
5. Country under sanctions
6. Brainwashed population
7. A history of wars with a neighbour

More profit for the military industrial complex. How incredibly surprising.

The exact same fear mongering was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. First it was iraq had weapons of mass destruction which was latter proven to be false. Then it was Iraq was assisting terrorist organizations, and those allegations were also proven to be false.

Then the US government stated that they were in Iraq to free the populace from an evil dictator.

If they had just stated from the beginning that they were going to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people from the clutches of an evil dictator, there would have been far more support for the invasion.

Now, with North Korea, their missile launches have been sensationalized by politicians and the western media alike. The missile launches have now been followed by allegations that hackers from North Korea have compromised the websites of government and mainstream media websites throughout the United States and South Korea.

I'll conclude by stating that we have already allowed them to fool us once.

Could we really be gullible enough to let them fool us again?

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Truth to be told, I don't the same confidence in the military is there anymore. Iraq can't be called a "win", at least not in my opinion. By all media accounts, we are losing in Afganistan. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think it's the fault of the soldiers. You can only stretch people so thin.

In what way is Iraq not a "win?" What exactly did we not accomplish? In what ways were we defeated by Saddam's government, or by the insurgents?

1. Is Saddam still in power? Or was he deposed, captured, and executed?
2. Is Iraq under control of a hostile group or government? Or is it under the control of a democratically elected government that is friendly to the U.S.?
3. Is the country being left in control of warlords and radical clerics? Or is the Iraqi government taking control as U.S. forces pull out?
4. Are U.S. troops hightailing it out of the country in full retreat? Or are we pulling out gradually as part of a planned strategy to let the Iraqi government take control?

As for Afghanistan, the U.S. is beginning a new strategy there that sounds very promising. Time will tell if it's a good idea or not, but the idea is to put more troops in the area and cut back on civilian casualties. If it works, then it should be promising.

Now, fighting with NK would be a totally different war. But the US' track record right now certainly isn't what it was. Further, South Korea and Japan rely solely on the US for protection and if they think the US incapable of providing said security, they would be more likely to seek other agreements or simply "take matters into their own hands" which is yet another thing the US doesn't want to happen.

Are you sure you want to say that they rely "solely" on the U.S.? South Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world, and Japan has one of the most advanced. They are U.S. allies and they do have defense agreements with the U.S., but that's not to say that they rely solely on those agreements.

There is one small difference between NK and Iraq - NK HAS nukes and WILL use them

the ABL has allready been dumped to the `its nice but its pointless` bin , they`ve built 1 and thats it, which leaves THAAD and SM-3 - NK`s rockets whilst in the firm IRBM camp , don`t have the ICBM range needed for hitting CONUS

which leaves SK and japan.


SK has enough tubes pointed at Seoul to flatten it within an hour by 155mm shells anyway and US bases are well within range.


say they drop a 10kt nuke on a US military base - and only hit military targets - knowing the population is brainwashed and oppressed how would the arm-chair generals here respond?

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Truth to be told, I don't the same confidence in the military is there anymore. Iraq can't be called a "win", at least not in my opinion. By all media accounts, we are losing in Afganistan. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think it's the fault of the soldiers. You can only stretch people so thin.

Can you point out exactly the details of this loss?
Myself and many of my family have served or is serving what exactly do you mean by not confident? and If by "all media accounts" you are referring to all the gloom and doom accounts here at ATS. Then no wonder you are confused.

Here is a whole bunch of reports say what you may after reading them.

U.S. launches 'major operation' in Afghanistan

reply to post by Harlequin

the ABL has allready been dumped to the `its nice but its pointless` bin , they`ve built 1 and thats it, which leaves THAAD and SM-3 - NK`s rockets whilst in the firm IRBM camp , don`t have the ICBM range needed for hitting CONUS

Can someone translate this quote into English please.
Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Amagnon
I wish the people of NK well - I hope they are not another victim of the US imperialists.

Don't support war against NK - they are suffering under sanctio0ns - and simply don't want to end up like another Iraq.

Well! That IS amusing! They don't want to end up like another Iraq, yet insist on shooting off their mouths, throwing out 'threats' willy-nilly, and generally behaving as Iraq did pre-Iraq war, and expect a different result?

How does one define 'insanity' again?

Oh, and 'imperialists'... good, solid Red Scare word from the good ol' days you have there. Do socialists ever update their dictionaries?

Can I get a good, solid 'hegemonists' or the ever faithful 'running dogs' from the choir?

[edit on 2009/7/14 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by lightchild
reply to post by Harlequin

 

the ABL has allready been dumped to the `its nice but its pointless` bin , they`ve built 1 and thats it, which leaves THAAD and SM-3 - NK`s rockets whilst in the firm IRBM camp , don`t have the ICBM range needed for hitting CONUS

Can someone translate this quote into English please.
Thanks in advance.

CONUS=Continental United States

IRBM=Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles.

THAAD=Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

ABL=ABL YAL 1A Airborne Laser - Air Force Technology

SM3=RIM-161 SM-3 (AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense)

reply to post by lightchild


i fully understand that english is not your first language - but thats ok , education is a privilege in the UK , especially for those who gained entry via the back of a lorry.

so in that note i shall repeat in small words just for you.


oh hows the citizenship exam? did you read it well enough?


here we go - try and keep up:

the ABL has allready been dumped to the `its nice but its pointless` bin , they`ve built 1 and thats it,

www.defense-aerospace.com...

-- Cancels the second Airborne Laser (ABL), and refocuses the ABL program as a technology research effort. The ABL had significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role was highly questionable

the USA DoD have cancelled the programme

next:

which leaves THAAD and SM-3

THAAD

SM-3


please read and enjoy the USA missile defence available at this time.

NK`s rockets whilst in the firm IRBM camp , don`t have the ICBM range needed for hitting CONUS

this is quite simple- easy enough for yourself to understand

the north korean Taep’o-Dong-2 , is at this time in the IRBM range of missiles , as are ALL of iran`s missiles - it is not yet an ICBM but the successor could be.


i would hope your unerstanding of english and of missiles is improved now.

reply to post by lpowell0627


What the General said is reasonable given the threats by the NK. He is telling them throw at us what you wish, but be ready to face the consequences. The South Koreans have a pretty decent military in their own right. Theirs, along with the US, is quite a formidable force to the North Koreans. Plus, the two armies will most likely get good logistical support from the Japanese, and in addition to military support; if they are provoked. If it gets hairy over there, tactical nukes may be deployed. That is a scenario I hope doesn't happen, because it will open up Pandora's Box and that will be first time since WWII.

We have not won in Iraq? I think we won in the sense that we accomplished what we set out to do and that was depose Saddam Hussein. The US has completed that task quite successfully. The US left Iraq with some semblance of order following the success of the surge and after the troop withdrawal from cities last month. Now don't get me wrong, there have been some sporadic attacks across the country, but nothing we have seen prior to the surge. The military also won every combat engagement they faced and we were able to kill the ruthless Al-Qaeda leader, Abu Musab Al-Zaqawi. It appears for the moment that Iraqi leadership is ready to govern but who knows what will happen down the road. So up to this point, I think the conflict has been a success.

In regards to Afghanistan, I think it is a totally different animal. For instance the terrain is formidable compared Iraq. You have mountains and harsh winters. Moreover the people are practically starving and distrustful of the Americans. Plus they are a tight-knit tribal society unlike Iraq and are leery of outsiders(The US and its' Nato allies). Also the US has been exacting a lot of collateral damage against the civilians of late. So Afghanistan is a tinder-box waiting to explode. This conflict is one that could really escalate out of control if the US and Nato isn't careful. Time will only tell with the progress in Afghanistan because the US is playing catch up after 8 years of Iraq.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Jakes51]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Jakes51]