PDA

View Full Version : AP: Nuclear War just a head ache for Obama


Iceman1977
14 Jun 2009, 1:23 PM EDT
NKorea warns of nuclear war amid rising tensions


Email this Story

Jun 14, 7:26 AM (ET)

By HYUNG-JIN KIM



SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea's communist regime has warned of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula while vowing to step up its atomic bomb-making program in defiance of new U.N. sanctions.

The North's defiance presents a growing diplomatic headache for President Barack Obama as he prepares for talks Tuesday with his South Korean counterpart on the North's missile and nuclear programs.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak told security-related ministers during an unscheduled meeting Sunday to "resolutely and squarely" cope with the North's latest threat, his office said. Lee is to leave for the U.S. on Monday morning.

A commentary Sunday in the North's main state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, claimed the U.S. has 1,000 nuclear weapons in South Korea. Another commentary published Saturday in the state-run Tongil Sinbo weekly claimed the U.S. has been deploying a vast amount of nuclear weapons in South Korea and Japan.


North Korea "is completely within the range of U.S. nuclear attack and the Korean peninsula is becoming an area where the chances of a nuclear war are the highest in the world," the Tongil Sinbo commentary said.

Kim Yong-kyu, a spokesman at the U.S. military command in Seoul, called the latest accusation "baseless," saying Washington has no nuclear bombs in South Korea. U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea in 1991 as part of arms reductions following the Cold War.

South Korea's Unification Ministry issued a statement Sunday demanding the North stop stoking tension, abandon its nuclear weapons and return to dialogue with the South.

On Saturday, North Korea's Foreign Ministry threatened war on any country that dared to stop its ships on the high seas under the new sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council on Friday as punishment for the North's latest nuclear test.

It is not clear if the statements are simply rhetorical. Still, they are a huge setback for international attempts to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions following its second nuclear test on May 25. It first tested a nuclear device in 2006.


In Saturday's statement, North Korea said it has been enriching uranium to provide fuel for its light-water reactor. It was the first public acknowledgment the North is running a uranium enrichment program in addition to its known plutonium-based program. The two radioactive materials are key ingredients in making atomic bombs.

On Sunday, Yonhap news agency reported South Korea and the U.S. have mobilized spy satellites, reconnaissance aircraft and human intelligence networks to obtain evidence that the North has been running a uranium enrichment program.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said it could not confirm the report. The National Intelligence Service - South Korea's main spy agency - was not available for comment.

North Korea said more than one-third of 8,000 spent fuel rods in its possession has been reprocessed and all the plutonium extracted would be used to make atomic bombs. The country could harvest 13-18 pounds (6-8 kilograms) of plutonium - enough to make at least one nuclear bomb - if all the rods are reprocessed.

In addition, North Korea is believed to have enough plutonium for at least half a dozen atomic bombs.

North Korea says its nuclear program is a deterrent against the U.S., which it routinely accuses of plotting to topple its regime. Washington, which has 28,500 troops in South Korea, has repeatedly said it has no such intention.

The new U.N. sanctions are aimed at depriving the North of the financing used to build its rogue nuclear program. The resolution also authorized searches of North Korean ships suspected of transporting illicit ballistic missile and nuclear materials.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the new U.N. penalties provide the necessary tools to help check North Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The sanctions show that "North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver those weapons through missiles is not going to be accepted by the neighbors as well as the greater international community," Clinton said Saturday at a news conference in Canada.



hopefully - obamas diplomacy approach is going to work because so far Obama's approach and the UN's approach seem to be accelerating NKs thirst for nuclear war.

thing certainly haven't gotten better since secretary clinton has been appointed.

daffy87
14 Jun 2009, 7:29 PM EDT
John Bolton was on Bill Maher's show talking about how the sanctions put in during the Bush years were actually effective at first, we were cutting off so much of their money their research and development of nukes was declining. But then one of the stipulations of getting them into those "6 nation talks" was that we loosen the noose a bit....which we did...and they immediately started back down the road to nukes. Most recently the U.S along with Japan and South Korea tried to slap extreme sanctions down and China and Russia essentially watered them down so they wouldn't be as effective. Diplomacy can work but not if the world isn't on the same page, if things keep up as they are some sort of military action will happen sooner or later whether it be by the U.S. or another country.

Psychokilla8888
14 Jun 2009, 7:43 PM EDT
hopefully - obamas diplomacy approach is going to work because so far Obama's approach and the UN's approach seem to be accelerating NKs thirst for nuclear war.

thing certainly haven't gotten better since secretary clinton has been appointed.

I certainly hope his diplomacy works. I hope we get a lasting peace. Because the only other option is to turn the north into glass. I will not fight in a war against the North its not my fight. We should not commit any more troops than are already on the peninsula. We are stretched to thin and a draft shouldnt be supported to help south korea.

MetalRocker
14 Jun 2009, 9:40 PM EDT
hopefully - obamas diplomacy approach is going to work because so far Obama's approach and the UN's approach seem to be accelerating NKs thirst for nuclear war.

thing certainly haven't gotten better since secretary clinton has been appointed. NKs thirst for nuclear war Since our stockpile of nuclear weapons is much greater than NK , does that mean our thirst for nuclear war is also greater?

Pennywise38
14 Jun 2009, 10:11 PM EDT
Since our stockpile of nuclear weapons is much greater than NK , does that mean our thirst for nuclear war is also greater?

That's flawed logic and not related to the point he was making. America isn't making the direct threats.

MetalRocker
15 Jun 2009, 6:58 AM EDT
That's flawed logic and not related to the point he was making. America isn't making the direct threats. "Our nuclear deterrent will be a strong defensive means...as well as a merciless offensive means to deal a just retaliatory strike to those who touch the country's dignity and sovereignty even a bit," said the commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

It appeared to be the first time that North Korea referred to its nuclear arsenal as "offensive" in nature. Pyongyang has long claimed that its nuclear weapons program is a deterrent and only for self-defense against what it calls US attempts to invade it.
His point was exaggerated , the US has made similar "threats" during the cold war. After Iraq they have reason to rattle their saber, but that doesnt mean they " thirst for nuclear war". I was being sarcastic.

GB_Owl
15 Jun 2009, 7:19 AM EDT
I don't think that Obama's foreign policy is that bad. In fact, as much as I criticize him, I think he's doing the right things in regards to improving our international image, especially in the eyes of the muslim world. Maybe one day we won't be the "Great Satan."

However, Kim Jong Il is the sort that will take every inch you give him and then push back a mile. Diplomacy won't always work. I do suspect that once his threats get more outrageous and provocative then nations like China and Russia will be more amenable to a military or a broader economic sanctioning program.

Fantasmo56
15 Jun 2009, 11:57 AM EDT
His point was exaggerated , the US has made similar "threats" during the cold war. After Iraq they have reason to rattle their saber, but that doesnt mean they " thirst for nuclear war". I was being sarcastic.

I agree. North Korea isn't going to attack anyone, that would be suicide.

Iceman1977
15 Jun 2009, 12:08 PM EDT
Since our stockpile of nuclear weapons is much greater than NK , does that mean our thirst for nuclear war is also greater?

who do you think is more likely to launch a nuke? a crazed capitalist hating dictator or the US?

I am perfectly fine with destroying our entire nuke arsenal. Do you think Russia, China, India, Pakistan, NK, and Iran will do the same?

MetalRocker
15 Jun 2009, 2:17 PM EDT
who do you think is more likely to launch a nuke? a crazed capitalist hating dictator or the US?

I am perfectly fine with destroying our entire nuke arsenal. Do you think Russia, China, India, Pakistan, NK, and Iran will do the same?who do you think is more likely to launch a nuke? a crazed capitalist hating dictator or the US?According to history.

Iceman1977
15 Jun 2009, 3:24 PM EDT
According to history.

who attacked pearl harbor again? refresh my memory?


why didn't we drop the bomb in vietnam or the first Korean war?...

MetalRocker
15 Jun 2009, 8:13 PM EDT
who attacked pearl harbor again? refresh my memory?


why didn't we drop the bomb in vietnam or the first Korean war?...who attacked pearl harbor again? refresh my memory?
this was the question who do you think is more likely to launch a nuke? Since the US is the only country to use a nuke , its really rhetorical.
why didn't we drop the bomb in vietnam or the first Korean war Maybe because they were police actions not declared wars.

Psychokilla8888
15 Jun 2009, 8:29 PM EDT
who attacked pearl harbor again? refresh my memory?


why didn't we drop the bomb in vietnam or the first Korean war?...

Because Truman wouldn't allow it.
MacArthur wanted to. He pushed the NK army all the way into china and then china came storming across the border so he wanted to nuke them to wipe out the Chinese army. I dont think China had any bombs and the Soviet union may have had 3- 10 bombs. And we had like 60ish.

Iceman1977
16 Jun 2009, 10:07 AM EDT
I agree. North Korea isn't going to attack anyone, that would be suicide.

Neville Chamberlain said the same thing about hitler and the Empire of Japan.

Iceman1977
16 Jun 2009, 10:10 AM EDT
this was the question Since the US is the only country to use a nuke , its really rhetorical.
Maybe because they were police actions not declared wars.

in other words you don't have much of a counter argument. well played once again lmao.

vietnam was a police action that cost the lives of 20,000+ americans and we drop napalm but NOT nukes...

you so small minded.

daffy87
16 Jun 2009, 11:47 AM EDT
Vietnam cost the lives of 50,000 + Americans such a rediculously high number

Fantasmo56
16 Jun 2009, 12:09 PM EDT
Neville Chamberlain said the same thing about hitler and the Empire of Japan.

Neville Chamberlain didn't have atomic weapons, nor did any other leader of the free world.

MetalRocker
16 Jun 2009, 3:30 PM EDT
in other words you don't have much of a counter argument. well played once again lmao.

vietnam was a police action that cost the lives of 20,000+ americans and we drop napalm but NOT nukes...

you so small minded.in other words you don't have much of a counter argument. well played once again lmao.
Yea my counter was We are the only nation use one and you debunked it with this
in other words you don't have much of a counter argument. well played once again lmao. To add to it Iceman in the 21 century we are also the only nation to preemptively strike another nation and impose our will on them.
vietnam was a police action that cost the lives of 20,000+ americans and we drop napalm but NOT nukes... Of cource you would always use a nuke in an undeclared war, thats what the objective is to obliterate another country in high tension with its neighbor.

Iceman1977
16 Jun 2009, 5:45 PM EDT
Yea my counter was We are the only nation use one and you debunked it with this
To add to it Iceman in the 21 century we are also the only nation to preemptively strike another nation and impose our will on them.
Of cource you would always use a nuke in an undeclared war, thats what the objective is to obliterate another country in high tension with its neighbor.

today - who is more likely to use a nuke? Obama or Kim Jong Il?


your thought that we didn't use a nuke in vietnam was because we never declared war is just so stupid it isn't even worth arguing.

MetalRocker
16 Jun 2009, 8:30 PM EDT
today - who is more likely to use a nuke? Obama or Kim Jong Il?


your thought that we didn't use a nuke in vietnam was because we never declared war is just so stupid it isn't even worth arguing.today - who is more likely to use a nuke? Obama or Kim Jong Il?


Neither

your thought that we didn't use a nuke in vietnam was because we never declared war is just so stupid it isn't even worth arguingRead further professor, the objective wasnt to put a crater in the earth was it. Wouldnt it be counterproductive to the souths quality of life? Your thinking is skin deep.

Iceman1977
17 Jun 2009, 10:37 AM EDT
Neither

Read further professor, the objective wasnt to put a crater in the earth was it. Wouldnt it be counterproductive to the souths quality of life? Your thinking is skin deep.

I hope you are right that kim is not a crazed ideological psycho because with obama in office Kim has free reign right now.

The only thing that will make anyone do anything is if NK launches a nuke. I agree with you that we need to just sit and wait to see if Kim actually kills a few hunderd thousand people first.

Tough sacrifice but since you are confident it won't happen I will side with you.

Lets just hope Kim doesn't pull the same move hitler did on Neville.

Arsenalz
2 Jul 2009, 11:42 PM EDT
Trying to start a diplomacy with the middle east is a bad idea. There all animals. There all un civilized. Were going to repeat history because back then we did something similar. When we tried to civilize the Native Americans [Indians] Before the civil war then the Sand Creek Massacre happend. Not worth it.

iiLosTx
12 Jul 2009, 4:23 PM EDT
I agree. North Korea isn't going to attack anyone, that would be suicide.


Theres your answer the end we will blow the ****tt out of them no question about it

dabest77
12 Jul 2009, 6:34 PM EDT
quite frankly if they wanna kill each other over a place no bigger than newjersey by all means go ahead keep ur radiation to urself

dabest77
12 Jul 2009, 6:37 PM EDT
if america went really hard they would get some super agenty people and assasinate kim in korea