North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Moses said:
Citation?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea–United_States_relations

At the U.N. General Assembly in November 1957 the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia condemned the decision of the United Nations Command to introduce nuclear weapons into Korea.[7]

North Korea responded militarily by digging massive underground fortifications, and forwarded deployment of its conventional forces for a possible attack against the United States stationed in South Korea. In 1963 North Korea asked the Soviet Union for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused. However, instead the Soviet Union agreed to help North Korea develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, including the training of nuclear scientists. China later, after its nuclear tests, similarly rejected North Korean requests for help with developing nuclear weapons.[6]
Click to expand...

5 years after the US stationed nuclear weapons in South Korea did North Korea seek to aquire nukes of thier own.

'Clearly wasn't shy about using them again'? You're going to have to explain that one
Click to expand...

From January 1958 through 1991, the United States held nuclear weapons in South Korea for possible use against North Korea, peaking in number at some 950 warheads in 1967
Click to expand...

It's quite self-explanatory really, what do you need explaining to you?
 
xibinim said:
I smell a rat..........................................

e155rb.jpg


?????

Don't the US have around 2-3000 warheads in total and you are saying 900 (between 1/3-1/2) are in SK!?
Click to expand...

From January 1958 through 1991, the United States held nuclear weapons in South Korea for possible use against North Korea, peaking in number at some 950 warheads in 1967
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea–United_States_relations
 
Did not know that though they have since been removed.

As a result, the FY 1977 nuclear weapons deployment plan trimmed the posture, which included removing 140 nuclear weapons from the Philippines, and initiated the withdrawal of the Honest John, Nike Hercules, and Sergeant missile systems from South Korea. In mid-1977, according to CINCPAC, nuclear weapons in South Korea were stored at Camp Ames, Kunsan Air Base, and Osan Air Base. The nuclear weapons storage site at Osan Air base was deactivated in late 1977. This reduction continued over the following years and resulted in the number of nuclear weapons in South Korea dropping from some 540 in 1976 to approximately 150 artillery shells and bombs in 1985. By the time of the Presidential Nuclear Initiative in 1991, roughly 100 warheads remained, all of which had been withdrawn by December 1991.
Click to expand...
 
Moses said:
They were there for the Cold War (that page says how they were removed in 1991). It's reasonable to conclude that they were there as part of the Cold War MAD doctrine, not for use against North Korea... if they were meant to be there so they could attack North Korea, they'd still be there... and they wouldn't've needed 950 warheads. .
Click to expand...

Clearly it was enough reason, and a genuine reason at that for NK to try to procure there own. "possible use against North Korea" are not my words.

It says 'possible use against North Korea' as that was obviously a possibility... in the same way you could say the US had nukes in Germany, for possible use against the UK (something that wasn't a realistic possibility).
Click to expand...

Sorry but your comparison is horrible. Given the backdrop of the situation between NK and SK/US, having stationed nukes was highly provocative. Germany doesnt border the UK, the US were not in conflict with the UK, in fact were close allies as opposed to the situation between the US and NK. It would be better illustrated comparing it to the USSR and the Cuban missile crisis, we all know how the US reacted to that...

And what you've said doesn't explain your comments re: "clearly wasn't shy about using them again". Nothing has shown they weren't shy about using them. If they weren't shy about using them, they'd've used them in Vietnam, for example.
Click to expand...

Well they used them twice in Japan... and had placed 950 in South Korea for "possible use against North Korea". From a NK point of view....
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
They're the words of a Wiki article - so what? It was a factual possibility, of course... but it's meaningless and doesn't strengthen your argument.
Click to expand...

No it isn’t meaningless, stop trying to brush it off to strengthen your argument. Given the back drop, tensions, skirmishes it was faaar from meaningless. All this nuclear mess originated from the US, Fact.


Turkey and

They didn't need to base them in SK to hit NK. They could easily have hit them from Japan, or wherever. They were based on SK with China and Russia in mind, not NK. In the same way nukes weren't put in Turkey to threaten Bulgaria, ffs!
Click to expand...

So you admit your comparison was horrible?

Please tell me how the US reacted to the Cuban missile crisis "brink of nuclear war" is a phrase commonly used. The Russians didn’t need missiles in Cuba to hit the US either. And to prevent war the US

"also agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter IRBMs, armed with nuclear warheads, which were deployed in Turkey and Italy against the Soviet Union."
Click to expand...

Whilst in NK kept the warheads till was it 91 or 97. If they were there primarily for Russia, surely Russia would have demanded they be removed in the deal that was reached?

Was Bulgaria at odds with the US at the time?

From an irrational NK point of view. Also yes, they'd used them in Japan... but in the context of a World War... when no other party had a nuclear weapon... and not against someone with a MASSIVE ally next door (China, in NK's case)
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite in fact. Any rational country would try to acquire a deterrent.

China were nothing back then to the US and have only emerged as a super power in the last couple of decades
 
Cutting edge? Can imagine them readying a horse drawn cart with a lots of TNT on the back. I wish the Trey and Matt would do a 'Book of Mormon' play about NK.
 
Moses said:
It's stupid to put forth hypothetical scenarios/vague possibilities as though they're a realistic possibility (unless for effect... see below).
Click to expand...

No your hypotheticals are stupid, the US stationed nukes in South Korea for possible use on North Korea, they actually did this and specifically for North Korea.

In September 1956 the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford told the U.S. Department of State that the U.S. military intention was to introduce atomic weapons into South Korea. From January 1957 the U.S. National Security Council considered, on President Eisenhower's instruction, and then agreed this. However, paragraph 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement mandated that both sides should not introduce new types of weapons into South Korea, so preventing the introduction of nuclear weapons and missiles. The U.S. decided to unilaterally abrogate paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement, despite concerns by United Nations allies
Click to expand...

In fact the US broke the Armistice Agreement.

No. It was just another hypothetical possibility that wasn't a realistic possibility (a ridiculous example, for effect).
Click to expand...

And how was that even remotely comparable to above. Comparing the US stationing nukes in Germany as a threat to the United Kingdom to that of the US stationing nukes in South Korea for use against North Korea? Do you even know what realistic possibility means? One is ridiculous, the other is not. OK


The US kicked off about it. The other countries nearby didn't think they were a target, because they weren't idiots.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the US kicked off about it. And so did North Korea, in effect starting their nuclear desire and deterrent. And one that was justified.

The US/USSR dynamic was completely different to the US/NK one. The USSR was a genuine, realistically possible threat to the existence of the US... NK never was, isn't, and never will be.
Click to expand...

Yes obviously, the US was realistically a possible threat to the existence of the North Korea, the same way the USSR was to the US. Hence the US reaction to the USSR Cuban missile crisis, and North Koreas reaction to the stationing of Nukes in South Korea.

What?! I think you need to rewrite that, to make it comprehensible.
Click to expand...

Was quite clear but here again for you. If the nukes in South Korea were intended for the USSR (as you claim, against the stated facts) why were they not removed by the US in the deal struck with the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis. For example they agreed to remove the Missiles from Turkey as part of the deal (and the Russians removed theirs), yet kept them nukes stationed in South Korea till 1991?

It was just another hypothetical possibility that wasn't a realistic possibility (a ridiculous example, for effect).
Click to expand...

Yea it seems your making and awful lot of these, unhelpful, incomparable hypotheticals, wonder why....

Not when it makes them a pariah state.
Click to expand...

Maybe this wouldn’t be the case today hadn’t it been for the US's actions.

China weren't 'nothing' :o. Remind me how the Korean war went, again?
Click to expand...

Well given the failing British Empire still controlled Hong Kong till the 90s, tells you when China grew to the super power it is today. In comparison to the west it was nothing back then.
 
Davy644 said:
Part 1 of 10 if you have an hour to spare watch them all` they get better!
North Korean propaganda machine hard at work ... having just watched all ten parts to this film its interesting to see things from there side aswell there views of the western world.
Click to expand...

I've been watching this, although it absolutely drips of hypocrisy. You can't help feel it makes a few valid points in a tin foil hat kind of way. I've seen similar conspiracy videos made within the US too.
 
SEOUL, April 4 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's military announced Thursday that it would take a series of military actions against the United States.

In a statement, the North's supreme military command said it is formally notifying the White House and the Pentagon that "reckless operations" involving cutting-edge nuclear weapons have been finally approved.
 
In all the wars I've started over the years, I've found that formally informing the perceived enemy of your immediate reckless intentions is the way to do war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom