'Preemptive strikes needed to prevent N.K. nuclear attack'

'Preemptive strikes needed to prevent N.K. nuclear attack'

www.koreaherald.co.kr

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young yesterday said Seoul would have to conduct "preemptive" strikes if it detects signs of possible nuclear aggression from North Korea.

"We will need to carry out preemptive strikes immediately as soon as we see definite signs of a nuclear attack from North Korea because there would be too much damage if we tried to first block the attack and then respond," Kim said at a forum on military reforms and inter-Korean relations.

The defense minister's remarks come as relations between the two Koreas appeared to be strained once again in the aftermath of a furi

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
english.yonhapnews.co.kr

Its always been a worry that a nuclear North Korea would attack the South, but this kind of talk has not been heard before, atleast not publically.

The main problem here is the lack of interest China seems to have, its virtually allowed N.K to go nuclear and due to its tactics is well on its way to allowing Iran to do the same. The Chinese ego has to be slightly bruised but the sphere of US influence in the region, and with Russia as a closer ally than ever before, China has the benefit of the Russian bears cold war experience, so surely it would not be too far from reality to think that allowing N.K and Iran to go nuclear, is a preferable method than going head to head with the White House.

www.koreaherald.co.kr
(visit the link for the full news article)

Just found out I got orders back to Korea and my wife is pregnant.

I PCS (permanent change of station) around July.

Now I hear this, that is kind of unsettling, but I guess it explains it.

[edit on 1/20/2010 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

Can anyone say necluer apacolypse? if you haven't seen the book of eli, id suggest so, its sooo awesome when it comes to this scenario.

There's nothing awesome about nuclear war. But unfortunately we have mad men running the world and it is inevitable. I personally have no desier to live in a post apoclyptic scenario. So if it's going to happen in my lifetime there isn't much I can do except live life to the fullest and cherish my time here on Earth.

Sadly, this expression of emotion can define the human race; in the OP, it was said, something along lines of "There's no way recovery can occur after attack.... preemptive strikes would immediately NEED to be deployed." If you're going to be destroyed and nothing can stop it nor repair damage, then only logical conclusion is to make sure you can get your last swing in?? LMAO are you serious? Instead of seeking short/long term attempts at peace, we assure we can hit you back if you're able to swing first?? Wow... how very mature we are. Who cares at this point? At this nexus in time, it's ME aiming MY weapons at YOU while YOU aim YOUR weapons at ME. lol.. Good luck advancing, my good friends. Heaven forbid you act as catalyst of learning/teaching for the other densities and die?? Hahaha, as if there's nothing worse... Good Luck, my fellow Humans.

reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo


Hey, that's really bad news, sorry to hear that!

What else did they say to you or are your bosses always vague as to why you have to go to places and what you will be doing?

Kind of cool to hear from a proper solider in the know, cheers and good luck!

Any other info would be very welcome by the way?

Look, this is more of the same kind of talk that takes place on the Korean pennusila every day, week and month since the 1950's. North Korea is not going to attack anyone and the South is not going to do anything either. It is much more productive for both sides to throw verbal shots at each other than actually resume the war.

North Korea (while the leadership is crazy) does not want to do anything that would put the leaders of the country in a position to lose what they have. Think about it, the leaders of NK have absolute control over everything and a war might put them at risk of losing control of their people. There will be "no strike" by either side and that is the bottom line.

No-one can ever be sure of what will happen, i recall a British politician in 1939 saying Hitler wouldnt invade poland, and was it not said that a black man would never be president?

reply to post by minkey53

Ground Zero is off line, and I don't propose to answer the question you asked him about his upcoming tour of duty in South Korea. But, this is quite a common occurance in the U.S. military. Thousands and thousands of soldiers get sent to Korea each year to replace the thousands and thousands who are returning from their one year deployment. This has been an ongoing tradition for decades. Some soldiers really like being deployed to Korea. Inexpensive products. Bath houses. One can hire cheaply locals to clean equipment and maintain uniforms and boots. Lots and lots of cute girls, etc. Quite a few guys return with brand spanking, heh, new wives.

Originally posted by Common Sense says...
North Korea (while the leadership is crazy) does not want to do anything that would put the leaders of the country in a position to lose what they have. Think about it, the leaders of NK have absolute control over everything and a war might put them at risk of losing control of their people. There will be "no strike" by either side and that is the bottom line.

Although you are perfectly correct in your assessment of Kim Jong-Il and NK's position, South Korea however may have their hand forced by deception.

It wouldn't take much if you were a powerful nation or sufficiently rich organisation to set NK up for a fall. Some political movement of said nuclear material for financial gain could be construed by design to look like nuclear munitions being readied.

Then an anonymous tip off could tip the very finely balanced scale.

This could then escalate.. but my personal view is that if a scenario were to play out as I outlined above, it would be a very limited theatre of operations and completely localised around Korea... Though I am sure Japan would royally soil their panties

All the best,

Korg.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Korg Trinity]

reply to post by Korg Trinity


totally agree, the threat of attack will be enough, even if NK never actually intends to attack, thus forcing SK to attack first, then Kim has the moral high ground to attack back.

A few items of clarification here.

First, Ground Zero has PCS orders for Korea, this is what the US military calls the paperwork transferring a service member from one post to another; he happens to be going to Korea to join the other 25,000 US service members already there. Nothing alarming here.

Second, NK has repeatedly expressed its desires to develop WMDs, and has physically demonstrated this with repeated missle tests and nuclear weapons tests. South Korea does not do these things. Although one could argue the US nuclear umbrella 'protects' South Korea, so its doesn't have to have its own WMDs.

Third, NK makes repeated threats to do this bad thing or that bad thing to South Korea, the US, and Japan for a host of alleged insults or provocations. It has been doing this kind of military threats since the end of the Korean War, as someone has already pointed out.

Fourth, a little info about South Korea. It is a country of nearly 50 million people, with 10 million living in its capital - Seoul, and almost 25 million living within 50 miles of Seoul. Seoul Korea is dangerously close to its border with NK. In fact, from a military perspective, its within artillery range. So when one of the NK dictatorship's propagandist says 'we will turn Seoul into a sea of fire', its not a wild boast, but rather a stone-cold sobering reminder that regardless of its alliance with the US, that South Korea is immensley vulnerable to the whims of the wacked-out dictatorship to its north. A nuclear attack on Seoul would basically destroy the nation of South Korea, regardless of what would happen to NK in retaliation.

So with all this said, the 'pre-emptive attack' warning by the South Korean Defense Minister is neither crazy or war-mongering, but rather a stern reminder to NK that if there is evidence of an impending attack on South Korea that it will act first. By this warning, South Korea hopes to discourage any thoughts by NK to feign nuclear attack preparations, or further increase its bellicosity. With the NK development of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, the previously 'business as usual' postering by NK is no longer acceptable. Its a huge shift in the way that politics are played out in the Korean peninsula.

The South Korean declaration is probably also meant to nudge China and Russia into a more proactive stance in its activities to discourage NK from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is believed that these two nations alone, hold any real persuasive powers over NK. And they both do NOT want a nuclear war on their back doorsteps.

Put yourself in the shoes of the South Koreans. For the entire rest of the world, the Cold War is almost 20 years past, for Korea its a sobering daily fact of life. And what's perhaps worse than it ever was when the USSR and the West played the game, in the case of NK, you have a highly erratic, fanatic, and brutal absolute dictatorship with a 'nothing to lose' attitude constantly postering. For all their faults, the USSR was a far more reasonable foe, where diplomacy could be counted on to keep the peace.

reply to post by Sashromi


Starred and flagged, baby. Starred and flag. Could not have explained it any better.

I do want to discuss the following statement you made, however:

So with all this said, the 'pre-emptive attack' warning by the South Korean Defense Minister is neither crazy or war-mongering, but rather a stern reminder to NK that if there is evidence of an impending attack on South Korea that it will act first. By this warning, South Korea hopes to discourage any thoughts by NK to feign nuclear attack preparations, or further increase its bellicosity. With the NK development of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, the previously 'business as usual' postering by NK is no longer acceptable. Its a huge shift in the way that politics are played out in the Korean peninsula.

There's nothing in there that I fundamentally disagree with. However, there is very little certainty in regards to just how much strategic/nuclear capability the North Koreans truly have. What the DPRK has demonstrated, at most, is its ability to run tests, but its hard to say that these tests have yielded results that would indicate the DPRK is in any way capable of fielding these weapons. As a result, I'm not sure there is much "feigning" to do. I think both the ROK, U.S. and even Japan is fully aware that ultimately, the DPRK is in the unfavorable position here.

But I definitely do agree that the ROK's intent is most likely to hold the DPRK right where they are.

omg..how can tis world be understood

i had lately feeling that the NK agenda was over with such headlines :

North Korea urges peace treaty, wants sanctions dropped

North Korea makes peace pledge in New Year column

and we have statements like :

The North said Monday that its return to six-nation negotiations on its nuclear weapons program hinges on building better relations with the United States by starting peace treaty talks. The North also called for the lifting of international sanctions against it.

then we have this.....

U.S. Rejects N. Korea's Peace Talks Proposal

South Korea Warns North on a First Nuclear Strike

guess 2010 is the nuclear year :S

What i find most disgusting here is the attitude some people seem to have that a nation was not allowed to "go nuclear" !?

What right does *any* nation have to stock nuclear weapons, that others do not? If one country is allowed to have nuclear weapons, everyone must be allowed. Simple as cake.

Now don't get m wrong here, i am all for an nuke free world, but as long as this is not a fact then it's nobody elses business if NK or Iran or whoever decides to start making nukes.

Originally posted by above
What i find most disgusting here is the attitude some people seem to have that a nation was not allowed to "go nuclear" !?

What right does *any* nation have to stock nuclear weapons, that others do not? If one country is allowed to have nuclear weapons, everyone must be allowed. Simple as cake.

Now don't get m wrong here, i am all for an nuke free world, but as long as this is not a fact then it's nobody elses business if NK or Iran or whoever decides to start making nukes.

I cannot disagree more...

If you follow this logic then just because some people are responsible enough to hold a licence for a gun then all people should have the right to a gun??

What about those detained for criminal insanity? I know let’s give them an m16 shall we?

Your kind of talk schmacks of anti western culture...

Peace out,

Korg.