Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

North Korea Threatens US With Preemptive Nuclear Strike

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @09:47AM (#43103615)

    You dead, yankee scum!

  • How long before.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scsirob (246572) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @09:49AM (#43103627)

    How long will it take before an 'unfortunate accident' at one of these nuclear sites makes an end to their aspirations?

    • by m.ducharme (1082683) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:05AM (#43103773)

      Only as long as it takes to convince China that they need our purchasing power more than they need to protect the twerps in Pyongyang.

      • by CohibaVancouver (864662) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @11:27AM (#43104661)

        Only as long as it takes to convince China that they need our purchasing power

        China's buyers aren't going anywhere soon. NK could nuke Seattle and we'd still be salivating for the latest iPhone, big-screen TV and salad shooter.

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @09:50AM (#43103631)

    The president should make an address and announce the following message for Kim jong Un "Come at me bro".

  • Nope (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) * <(ten.3dlrow) (ta) (ojom)> on Thursday March 07, 2013 @09:50AM (#43103635) Homepage

    They said that if the US is about to start a nuclear war they reserve the right to make a pre-emptive strike, just like all nuclear armed countries do. There is no threat of action, merely a warning to the US that NK will defend itself.

    • Well, color me reassured.

    • Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:01AM (#43103721)

      Actually, they said that SINCE the US is about to start a nuclear war, they ARE going to make a preemptive strike. That sounds like a threat of action to me, regardless of the fact they make such statements every week or so.

    • "Defending" yourself by striking first whenever you fabricate arbitrary threats is not defense, that is offense. If the U.S. and DPRK were currently fighting and at war, then your point would be right, but they aren't. In the DPRK's mind, the cold war style military drills are the escalation justifying preemptive strike (at least, if you take what was said at face value).
      • Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)

        by m.ducharme (1082683) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:06AM (#43103795)

        Actually, they are at war. There's a cease-fire in place, there's no fighting to speak of, but the Korean war hasn't actually ended.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          armistice , not a cease fire.

          Similar, but different for important reasons. A cease fire is a temporary stop for a specified period of time.
          There can be a lot of reason for that, but peace discussion usually isn't one of them

        • Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)

          by 0101000001001010 (466440) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @11:42AM (#43104817)

          They said that if the US is about to start a nuclear war they reserve the right to make a pre-emptive strike, just like all nuclear armed countries do. There is no threat of action, merely a warning to the US that NK will defend itself.

          Actually, they are at war. There's a cease-fire in place, there's no fighting to speak of, but the Korean war hasn't actually ended.

          Correction to two posts above:

          1. Not every nuclear nation reserves the right to a pre-emptive strike. Russia for example has a no-first-use policy. The U.S. on the other hand changed to a more aggressive stance under Bush II, where it may use ("mini") nukes to attack targets not reachable by conventional weapons.

          2. N.K. has quit the armistice with an effective date of March 11. So ever so technically we'll be back to an active war.

      • Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hamburger lady (218108) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:34AM (#43104065)

        "Defending" yourself by striking first whenever you fabricate arbitrary threats is not defense, that is offense.

        how ironic that NK has adopted the Bush Doctrine.

  • Rodman (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @09:50AM (#43103637)

    Whelp, guess obama and Jong Un aren't gonna have that lovely conversation about basketball I was oh-so waiting for. /sarcasm

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nhojovadle]> on Thursday March 07, 2013 @09:50AM (#43103639) Journal
    I didn't see any quotes from DPRK in the article so ... They're trying to influence a UN vote that happens today on the new set of sanctions (harshest yet) [cbsnews.com] that the US has proposed and will most certainly be ushered in days after they were proposed. North Korea's statement:

    The statement said North Korea "strongly warns the U.N. Security Council not to make another big blunder like the one in the past when it earned the inveterate grudge of the Korean nation by acting as a war servant for the U.S. in 1950."

    It's their standard MO and I hope it doesn't affect the UN's resolution [hani.co.kr]. Another quote from North Korea:

    "Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to a preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest," said the statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.

    More details from reuters on what the new sanctions mean [google.com] as well as South Korea's push back [nytimes.com].

    And I'm pretty much done with any Slashdot discussion on this since the apologists and "MAD is good" folks have been mighty thick on these past few news stories. We have entered into the era of "Hey everybody, we have nuclear weapons now do what we say or we will nuke you!" Like a teenage gang member who found his first handgun ...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:14AM (#43103869)

      The harshest sanctions yet? Are the UN planning to make a *gasp* sternly worded phone-call?

      • by eth1 (94901)

        The harshest sanctions yet? Are the UN planning to make a *gasp* sternly worded phone-call?

        Worse. They're planning on calling them a "lot of second-hand electric donkey-bottom biters."

    • If the US decided right now to nuke NK the bombs would be falling within the hour. Everybody knows that. And NK surely knows that if they somehow lobbed one of their weapons at us the response would be, well...excessive.

      All this over sanctions. NK would rather try to make bombs and force the world to feed its citizens than figure out agriculture.

      Crazy. North Korea is fascinating.

    • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @11:05AM (#43104401)

      And I'm pretty much done with any Slashdot discussion on this since the apologists and "MAD is good" folks have been mighty thick on these past few news stories. We have entered into the era of "Hey everybody, we have nuclear weapons now do what we say or we will nuke you!" Like a teenage gang member who found his first handgun ...

      MAD actually *is* good... when the nuclear weapons are in the hands of rational people. It worked during the cold war because the Soviets had enough to lose, and were intelligent about it. It's worked in the India/Pakistan conflict because the leadership in both countries is intelligent and rational. It'll work in Israel/Iran for exactly the same reason (which is why I'm not worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons: Israel being the only nuclear power in the region is actually destabilizing things, and there needs to be an opposing nuclear armed state to restore the balance of power). Historically, we've enjoyed more world peace since the development of nuclear weapons than ever before. Even with all the clusterfuck going on in the world today, we're still better off than we were 100 years ago by a very wide margin.

      North Korea, on the other hand, has nothing to begin with, and they have an irrational despot calling the shots. Even China backed the last round of sanctions (rather than abstaining like they usually do)... that says it all.

      • the leadership in both countries is intelligent and rational. It'll work in Israel/Iran for exactly the same reason

        The Iranian leadership is 'intelligent and rational?'

        What have you been smoking?

        • The Iranian leadership is 'intelligent and rational?'

          Making value judgments isn't all that productive, but empirically they've maneuvered in a way to avoid being liberated from their oil by the axis of evil decider [veteranstoday.com].

        • Iran hasn't started a war of aggression in 150 years, so yes, I do consider them to be intelligent and rational. They're doing better than the US has on that front, by a wide margin. My personal values and beliefs are more in line with those when it was still called Persia, but the current leadership in Iran isn't stupid.

  • by Looker_Device (2857489) * on Thursday March 07, 2013 @09:53AM (#43103675)

    Dear Glorious Whatever,

    Look, little fella, I know you have something to prove and all, but really hope you didn't buy into your father's bullshit. Believe it or not the U.S. has absolutely no interest in restarting the Korean War. Frankly, we're kind of warred out right now. So please stick to playing basketball with Dennis Rodman and leave us out of your grandstanding and dick waving. We've already got enough of that at home.

    We'll be happy to keep sending you D-list celebrities if you'll just STFU.

    Yours truly,
    The American People

    P.S. I would point out the obvious fact that the U.S. will bomb your country back to the stone age if you try to attack anyone with nukes. But, looking at a satellite photo [newscientist.com] of the Korean peninsula at night, I'm not sure that would amount to much of a threat.

  • Will (Score:5, Funny)

    by mybeat (1516477) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:05AM (#43103777) Homepage
    "Nuclear launch detected!" be followed by: "Battle-cruiser operational"?
  • by NynexNinja (379583) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:06AM (#43103785)
    For over 50 years the propaganda war machine has been putting out highly inflamed offensive speech declaring war on various entities, so really at this point until they actually fire that first missile, I wouldn't worry about it. And when they do actually fire that missile, they will be wiped off the map.
  • Iraq for less (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cosm (1072588) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (3msoceht)> on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:06AM (#43103791)
    We went to iraq on a much looser pretext.
    • by PseudoCoder (1642383) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:42AM (#43104163)

      Seems the FUD on oil and the Iraq war has proven to be quite sticky. Fact is, there are many other oil-rich countries that would have been a hell of a lot easier and convenient to take over than Iraq. Seeing as how the accusation is that the U.S. fabricated a case, it would have been just as easy to fabricate a case against any of them. If I had to plan such a thing, Venezuela would be the first to come to mind, but it's not the only one I would consider.

      The war in Iraq was about one thing; Iran. Stabilizing the Middle East by reducing the amount of megalomaniacs by one. By calling Saddam's bluff (which was aimed more at Iran than the U.S.) the coalition slowed down a Middle-East arms race that was just getting started, but was going to speed up quickly once Iraq rebuilt its military capacity. One of the stated goals of the first Gulf War was to reduce their military capability for 10 years. Did the U.S. go about it the right time? Not optimal, but necessary, since it had been roughly 10 years since the first Gulf War. Did the U.S. go about it the right way? Definitely not. Rumsfeld screwed up the war strategy big time, starting with using half the troops that would have been needed for securing the borders. Nation-building and long-term occupation? No thanks; trying to quit.

      North Korea presents a decent enough military threat overall, only because they've starved their people in order to pay for their military capability and have thoroughly indoctrinated them into fighting to the death to stay enslaved, but their tension with Japan and South Korea still does not amount to megalomaniac A vs megalomaniac B.

  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:09AM (#43103823) Homepage Journal

    ...is if they're truly feeling suicidal or not.

    If you think that they could get through anything like that alive you're smoking something.

    It's not only the US or NATO that would strike either, it would be Russia and their buddies in China as well. There would be nothing left.

    Go read Dune. When one family uses "atomics" then everyone else combines and destroys them.

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:25AM (#43103971)
    I would have thought that even the looniest dictator would think twice before threatening "weapons of mas destruction", "a mother of all battles", and so on.
  • subject (Score:4, Informative)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @11:18AM (#43104531) Homepage

    NK threatened this about a decade ago when we were getting ready to invade Iraq for no plausible reason, but apparently no one gave a shit. No one's going to give a shit this time either since NK still doesn't have a credible delivery system. People will suddenly start giving a shit by the time they DO have one.

  • Six minutes ago it was announced the new sanctions are approved. To those of you still following or interested in this, Reuters even updated one of the links in my original comment [slashdot.org] that you can now find here [google.com] to read:

    UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council has voted unanimously for tough new sanctions to punish North Korea for its latest nuclear test, a move that sparked a furious Pyongyang to threaten a nuclear strike against the United States.

    The vote Thursday by the U.N.'s most powerful body on a resolution drafted by North Korea's closest ally, China, and the United States sends a powerful message to North Korea that the international community condemns its ballistic missile and nuclear tests — and its repeated violation of Security Council resolutions.

    The new sanctions are aimed at making it more difficult for North Korea to finance and obtain material for its weapons programs.

    I apologize for making it sound like the United States was the sole proposer of the new resolution -- I actually got that vibe from the DPRK press releases. I didn't know until I read this that China (at least is reported to have) co-authored them with the US.

    • The thing that is even more remarkable is that not only did China co-sponsor the sanctions, but they've gotten to that point very rapidly after a long history of abstaining from these kinds of votes.

      China could veto any Security Council resolution they want with zero reprecussions. They can choose not to vote, letting the other members decide. They could vote yes on something another country puts on the docket.

      Or they could put it on the docket themselves, which they did. China has had enough of the Kim

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:21PM (#43105271)
    I'm almost not joking when I say we could be staring at a "Mouse That Roared" real world scenario. They are dead broke and can't feed their people. Their infrastructure is collapsing as are many of their newer buildings that were cheaply constructed. There is no chance of them financially turning the country around within a generation and they are facing a complete collapse within a generation or less no matter what. They could be staring at the 60 billion we just blew rebuidling Iraq and we have only started there. It may be worth loosing a few hundred thousand lives for a 60+ billion dollar payday. If they loose a city or two we'll rebuild them and since around 20 billion went missing in Iraq between the war and the rebuild there will be lots of money to steal. Say they launch a nuke that blows up half way across the Pacific and we retaliate wiping out a city. They surrender conditionally, their leaders get some protections essentially, and they plead dire hardship due to the "war". We start shipping in food and building materials and Little Kim Jr retires to EuroDisney with a few billion in his pocket and is forced to live in exile. The remaining leaders line their pockets and we update all their factories and bring the rest of the country into the 20th century. Guarantees of not bringing Little Kim Jr to trial is the iffy potential deal breaker but the rest of the scenario sounds a lot like what happened in Iraq although Iraq was already a wealthy country. Kim could just hop the border to China who would likely set him up in a palace with what money he could steal and he could cut a deal with the remaining crooks to send him a cut of what they steal in exchange for arranging exits to China if the need arose.
  • Scandinavia (Score:5, Funny)

    by WilyCoder (736280) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @12:50PM (#43105637)

    A Scandinavian country should invade and conquer North Korea. Then we can call it Norse Korea.

  • They aren't crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rabtech (223758) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @02:24PM (#43106915) Homepage

    The North Korean regime is based on several odd pillars.

    One is that the Korean people are racially superior to others; their naturally superior, child-like nature is why they've been repeatedly conquered in the past. Kim is their mother-protector who gently guides them while sheltering them from the evil, corrupt world outside. They are encouraged from a young age not to think about things, merely to embrace their instincts and emotional reactions; as the naturally most superior race, their instincts are pure and right and thinking too much can lead them astray.

    A corellary to that is Americans are inferior half-breeds who can't help but be aggressive war-mongers and Korean baby-killers. Not even American women and children can be spared or trusted because their nature precludes it. Korean mothers are told if they leave their kids alone with American children, the American children will attack or kill theirs because of their nature. That isn't treated as a weakness by the way... Merely a result of the natural state of Korean innocence. In fact the Chinese, Europeans, Africans, et al are all inferior races, naturally untrustworthy, and beneath contempt.

    Second is that the NK population is well aware they have a reduced standard of living, but it is a sacrifice they must all make to ensure they aren't conquered by a foreign power again... Necessary to preserve the superior race of the Korean people. It's the military first policy. The information firewall has been down for some time - that's why they came up with the military first policy as a way to explain the discrepancy. Think Germany in January 1945. They've obviously lost the war, yet they fight on... Some even fanatically so. Why? Why bother showing up to build tanks? Why volunteer for suicide missions? To protect the homeland (and what else can you do anyway?)

    So without an ever-present enemy threatening to massacre the Korean people in a genocidal rage, an enemy that can't be reasoned or negotiated with, the reason for the NK's existence is removed.

    Remember: they have been repeatedly promising that when the US is vanquished from the penninsula, the one true master race will finally be united.

    When you understand these things, NK's actions make plenty of sense.

The Force is what holds everything together. It has its dark side, and it has its light side. It's sort of like cosmic duct tape.

Working...