N. Korea threatens U.S. with 'nuclear war'

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

poindexter

Well-Known Member
Bronze Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2002
Messages
29,699
Happy July 4th, everybody! :)

N. Korea threatens U.S. with 'nuclear war'
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/north.korea.ap/index.html
Monday, July 3, 2006; Posted: 12:37 p.m. EDT (16:37 GMT)
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea would respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear war," the state-run media said Monday, heightening anti-U.S. rhetoric amid close scrutiny of its missile program.

The Korean Central News Agency, citing an unidentified Rodong Sinmun newspaper "analyst," accused the United States of increasing military pressure on the isolated communist state and basing new spy planes on the Korean Peninsula.

The North Korean threat of retaliation, which is often voiced by its state-controlled media, comes amid U.S. official reports that Pyongyang has shown signs of preparing for a test of a long-range missile. North Korea claims it has the right to such a launch.

On Friday, Pyongyang accused the United States of driving the situation on the Korean Peninsula "to the brink of war," and said it is fully prepared to counter any U.S. aggression.

Monday's report accused Washington of escalating military pressure on the country with war exercises, a massive arms buildup and aerial espionage by basing new spy planes in South Korea.

"This is a grave military provocation and blackmail to the DPRK, being an indication that the U.S. is rapidly pushing ahead in various fields with the extremely dangerous war moves," the dispatch said.

"The army and people of the DPRK are now in full preparedness to answer a pre-emptive attack with a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear deterrent," the report said.

DPRK stands for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

White House spokesman Tony Snow refused to respond to what he called "a hypothetical situation."

"It is a statement about what may happen if something that hasn't happened happened, if you follow my drift," he said.

North Korea routinely accuses the U.S. of aerial espionage, issuing a tally of such flights at the end of every month. The U.S. military doesn't comment, although it acknowledges monitoring North Korean military activity.

Washington and Japan have said in recent weeks that spy satellite images show North Korea has taken steps to prepare a long-range Taepodong-2 missile for a test-launch.

Estimates for the range of the missile vary widely, but at least one U.S. study said it could be able to reach parts of the United States with a light payload.

Speculation that Pyongyang could fire the missile has waned in recent days since the country's top ally and a major source of its energy supplies, China, reportedly urged North Korea not to go ahead with the test.

Meanwhile, a South Korean government official said Seoul is considering buying U.S. shipborne SM-2 missiles to bolster its missile-defense system.

The move is the latest by South Korea and Japan to strengthen their defenses amid signs of the North Korean missile test. Seoul announced last week the purchase of Patriot interceptor missiles from Germany.

SM-2 missiles, however, are reportedly effective against cruise missiles and at striking aircraft but would not be able to hit a long-range missile.

"I understand that we have requested information" on the missiles for purchase, said Park Sung-soo, an official at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, without elaborating.

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of the possible sale last week, according to its Web site. The order would be for 48 SM-2 Block IIIB tactical standard missiles and associated equipment and training.

The agency estimated the cost at $111 million.
 
BitterYoungMatador2 said:
Depending on what they target, this might not be such a bad thing [/sarcasm]

No, Bristol is on the east coast. Their missiles wouldn't make it that far.
 
Please don't take this as me siding with the Koreans or against the U.S., but I've long wondered ...

What gives us the right to dictate to another country whether or not they can develop or test nuclear weapons? I understand the argument that we don't want power-hungry or crazy leaders to have access to nukes -- believe me, I don't want Iran or Korea to have them -- but how does that give us the right to say, "We can have them, but you can't"?
 
alleyallen said:
Please don't take this as me siding with the Koreans or against the U.S., but I've long wondered ...

What gives us the right to dictate to another country whether or not they can develop or test nuclear weapons? I understand the argument that we don't want power-hungry or crazy leaders to have access to nukes -- believe me, I don't want Iran or Korea to have them -- but how does that give us the right to say, "We can have them, but you can't"?

Mayby they dont want nuclear missles to be in the hands of an alcoholic ex-cocaine user that has shown questionable judgement in starting previous fights?And really, who can blame them?
 
Boy am I glad we spent the last five years on Iraq.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Well, Iran is next on the list. Maybe we can put N. Korea in the hole, so to speak.
 
alleyallen said:
Please don't take this as me siding with the Koreans or against the U.S., but I've long wondered ...

What gives us the right to dictate to another country whether or not they can develop or test nuclear weapons? I understand the argument that we don't want power-hungry or crazy leaders to have access to nukes -- believe me, I don't want Iran or Korea to have them -- but how does that give us the right to say, "We can have them, but you can't"?

I agree wholeheartedly, AA. North Korea just wants to play like everyone else.
 
alleyallen said:
Please don't take this as me siding with the Koreans or against the U.S., but I've long wondered ...

What gives us the right to dictate to another country whether or not they can develop or test nuclear weapons? I understand the argument that we don't want power-hungry or crazy leaders to have access to nukes -- believe me, I don't want Iran or Korea to have them -- but how does that give us the right to say, "We can have them, but you can't"?

I've always wondered that too. It's especially puzzling when you consider Israel is allowed to have nukes -- there are probably more murderous lunatics in that country's government at any given moment than there are in every Arab country on the planet combined.
 
My brother is an Army tank driver in Korea right now. Saying things are a bit crazy over there. Can't leave the base and lots of sudden training exercises, so not much time to call or e-mail.
 
Double J said:
alleyallen said:
Please don't take this as me siding with the Koreans or against the U.S., but I've long wondered ...

What gives us the right to dictate to another country whether or not they can develop or test nuclear weapons? I understand the argument that we don't want power-hungry or crazy leaders to have access to nukes -- believe me, I don't want Iran or Korea to have them -- but how does that give us the right to say, "We can have them, but you can't"?

I've always wondered that too. It's especially puzzling when you consider Israel is allowed to have nukes -- there are probably more murderous lunatics in that country's government at any given moment than there are in every Arab country on the planet combined.

I also know that part of the equation is that there's a certain number of players in the game and none of those players want more company, but is it worth possibly going to war over it? What's the danger of another nuclear power versus the threats and near war over keeping said country from having said power? I sure as hell hope the war part is worth more than the implied danger part.
 
Kim Jong-Il is one of those looney people who will wake up one morning and say, "Ya know? I feel like nuking California today. Let's see what happens ..."

Yet, Saddam was the bigger threat, right?
 
Funny, I thought Clinton took care of North Korea.

BTW, the moral equivalency argment here is ridiculous.
 
alleyallen said:
Please don't take this as me siding with the Koreans or against the U.S., but I've long wondered ...

What gives us the right to dictate to another country whether or not they can develop or test nuclear weapons? I understand the argument that we don't want power-hungry or crazy leaders to have access to nukes -- believe me, I don't want Iran or Korea to have them -- but how does that give us the right to say, "We can have them, but you can't"?

Very simple answer: We had 'em first, or, well, pretty close to first. We loaded up, we got all the right toys and we hold the ultimate trump card. We say you can't have 'em, you can't have 'em, because we hold the ability to wipe your country completely off the map before you're able to attach that warhead to a missle capable of touching this country. That's one hell of an upper hand and a load of power.

Had we been somewhat overbearing and crazy with this power, I don't think we would've deterred nearly as many efforts by these nutjob countries to build these things. But we haven't. We've been able, for the most part, to talk other countries out of building these bombs by promising them good **** in return. If memory serves, N. Korea is/was getting a ****load of free money from us for staying out of the nuclear game.
 
kingcreole said:
Kim Jong-Il is one of those looney people who will wake up one morning and say, "Ya know? I feel like nuking California today. Let's see what happens ..."

Do the North Koreans even have the ability to reach the mainland U.S., or even Hawaii? They would need an ICBM for that, and unless I've missed something, they don't have that yet.

Of course, North Korea is allies with China, which does have such capabilities.
 
Lyman_Bostock said:
Funny, I thought Clinton took care of North Korea.

BTW, the moral equivalency argment here is ridiculous.

For the love of God, lyman, do we really need to go through this **** again? That timeline of the N. Korea nuclear problems has been posted at least five times on five different threads.

It shows the same thing every time. (Insert president's name) talks to this wacko running that country, he promises not to build the bombs in exchange for some good **** from us. A couple years later, he wants more good **** and he goes back to the well. Repeat that about 10 times now. This is, of course, as advanced as he's gone, which, I suppose, could be an indication of the Fredo administration's pitiful foreign policy work. But I really don't think that anyone, other than yourself, of course, is blaming either side for this. It's been going on a long time now.

I know it's asking a lot, but pick a history book sometime. Or hell, run a Google search on this ****. Not that hard -- it's really not.
 
suburbia said:
kingcreole said:
Kim Jong-Il is one of those looney people who will wake up one morning and say, "Ya know? I feel like nuking California today. Let's see what happens ..."

Do the North Koreans even have the ability to reach the mainland U.S., or even Hawaii? They would need an ICBM for that, and unless I've missed something, they don't have that yet.

Of course, North Korea is allies with China, which does have such capabilities.

It's not a reach to think they could reach Alaska, which wouldn't exactly help the domestic oil industry. And Washington state, Oregon and NoCal might be in range also.
 
Looks like just Alaska, not anything in the lower 48.

_41790682_north_korea416x309.gif
 

Latest posts

Back
Top