It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea Warns Of Disaster

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2003 @ 04:38 PM
link   
North Korea condemned on Tuesday a recent summit between President Bush and South Korea's president, and warned of an "unspeakable disaster" for the South if it confronts the communist state over its nuclear weapons programs.

The threat, made during inter-Korean economic talks in Pyongyang, was North Korea's first reaction to last week's meeting between Mr. Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in Washington. The two leaders said last week they would "not tolerate" atomic arms in North Korea. Mr. Bush and Roh said they would seek a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff, but would consider "further steps" if Pyongyang escalates tensions.

North's Korea's chief negotiator, Pak Chang Ryon, criticized the summit on Tuesday. "The South side will sustain an unspeakable disaster if it turns to confrontation, talking about 'nuclear issue' and 'additional measures,'" he said in comments carried by the North's official news agency KCNA.

CBS News Link



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 06:31 PM
link   
The destruction of SK will definatly lead to the end of NK as well by us, the United States.



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 06:32 PM
link   
IF NK decides to get too cocky, they will likely be taken out either by China, or if not, by Japan, who has already publicly indicated thier willingness to act preemtively if they construe any activities in NK as a threat.



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Those pesky North Koreans...



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The real problem with this threat is that in order to attack South Korea the North could do it without using any missiles and they can be very thorough about it.

Yes, DragonRider a clear indication of China's point of view is with respect to how the US is proceeding.



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 07:58 PM
link   
North Korea need to stop talking #. Actions speak louder than words. not that i wantt hem to do anything but all this bluffing is getting on my nerves.



posted on May, 20 2003 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Yes, DragonRider a clear indication of China's point of view is with respect to how the US is proceeding. Posted by Toltec

That is very true. I have been of the opinion that we are essentially egging NK slightly, and then sitting back as they get more and more obnoxious, until China is compelled to remind them of thier place.... forcefully.



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 01:47 PM
link   
We could have us troops fighting along the SK's side within hours after a NK invasion. I doubt they would get too far into the country before we got there. You have to remember we have planes, troops, tanks, ect in that area.



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 02:03 PM
link   
NK: "Gimmee your money, or I'll cut you man!"

Same punk talk, from the same punk leader....

Time to bring the assassination squads out of retirement...



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Nah. Let them get on with it.
The hard talk only shows how weak and desparate they are getting. Their system is on the road to implosion. If they want to survive they're going to have to cut their weapons program and start spending the money on the necessities that keep thier people alive. They are going to have to adapt or fall.

The North Koreans know that. They just don't want anyone else to know.



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 03:57 PM
link   
from watching their suppliers...huh? Oh well....



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Does anyone know the amount of troops in NK i know there are 200,000 + in sk with highly advanced weapons and better training



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
NK: "Gimmee your money, or I'll cut you man!"

Same punk talk, from the same punk leader....

Time to bring the assassination squads out of retirement...



I second that motion.

At least the right people will be killed, unlike in Iraq.



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Does anyone know the amount of troops in NK i know there are 200,000 + in sk with highly advanced weapons and better training Posted by Quicksilver

Not sure of the exact number, but reportedly NK can field in excess of 2-3 million. Not all of them very completely trained, or armed with high tech weapons, but each one of them will show up with a fully loaded and perfectly functional AK-47.

Not that NK neccessarily relies on high tech weapons, as they have the manpower to run large numbers of human wave attacks, which has been a longtime favorite tactic for many communist powers.

The reason that NK is able to field such a large army is because they essentially focus thier entire society into the military. A friend who once served in the DMZ told me essentially that NK was in fact a volunteer military: however, the only people in NK to get food was the military, therefore they have virtually a 100% volunteer rate.



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Is that what your were wondering sir???



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 11:16 PM
link   
South Korea

Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2002 est.)

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 14,194,960 (2002 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 8,990,488 (2002 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 394,397 (2002 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$12.8 billion (FY00)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.8% (FY00)


North Korea

Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2002 est.)

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,032,376 (2002 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,619,535 (2002 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 179,136 (2002 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$5,124.1 million (FY01)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
31.3% (FY01)

source of information......

www.odci.gov...



[Edited on 22-5-2003 by Toltec]



posted on May, 21 2003 @ 11:22 PM
link   
so really SK coudl have a larger ARMY than NK?? Oh yeah abraham i was wondering the number of sk troops



posted on May, 22 2003 @ 12:12 PM
link   
If you don't factor in the US assistance, and that is a BIG factor...


NK could never "win" such a confrontation. the most they could hope to do is inflict casualities with a first strike, and even then, a lot of those are older, inaccurate, Russian missiles, with but a sprinkling of the newer ones. Nukes are the bigger worry, in a first strike scenario, and while it is unlikely that they have even an insignificant number, their use would simply seal NK's fate, and necessitate the complete (conventional) bombardment of the country. If they didn't strike first, the missiles would be taken out before they ever launched, and then NK'd really be screwed....

This wouldn't be about land forces at all....similar to Gulf War I tactics....not the Iraqi war.



posted on May, 22 2003 @ 08:27 PM
link   
NK has been talking a whole lot of shoot but it could detonate a nuke in SK without a missile, It could use a van or a tunnel as a means of delivery.

What is really incredible about this, is with respect to history the Orient, which like American Indian cultures think in terms of at the very least. A human presence on Earth in terms of a quarter of a million years.

Threatening to destroy SK is insane given this perspective; actually trying to do this goes
Beyond insanity



posted on May, 22 2003 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Threatening to destroy SK is insane given this perspective; actually trying to do this goes beyond insanity Posted by Toltec

I would agree with you on this to a point: That point being that I dont believe Kim is sane, or cares about material/personnel losses to his country.

I believe Kim has a very bad case of "Gettin too big for your britches" and is getting obsessed with being able to (at least in his mind) take on the US... I dont think that "victory" even factors into his equation, as long as he can at least inflict heavy casualties on the US before his ultimate demise.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join