Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 07:29 AM Apr 2013

South Korea Sets Out Plan Allowing Military 'Pre-emptive Strike' Against North; Park Guen-hye Pledge

Source: International Business Times

Responding to the series of near-daily threats of North Korea to launch a nuclear war against the South and the U.S., South Korea's president Park Guen-hye Monday instructed the military to react strongly to North Korean provocations, according to South Korea's Yonhap News Agency.

"The reason for the military's existence is to protect the country and the people from threats. If any provocations happen against our people and our country, we should respond strongly in the early stage without having any political considerations," Yonhap quoted the president as saying during a policy briefing by the defense ministry.

Meanwhile, the defense ministry unveiled Monday a new emergency plan of what has been referred to as "active deterrence" which allows South's military to launch a "preemptive strike" against their northern counterpart in the event of an imminent attack from the North.

Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, in the policy briefing to Park Geun-hye, announced that their military is planning "an active deterrence and will build an attack system to swiftly neutralize North Korea's nuclear and missile threats, while significantly improving our military's capability of surveillance and reconnaissance," Yonhap reported.

<snip>

Read more: http://ca.ibtimes.com/articles/452144/20130401/south-north-korea-park-guen-hye-premptive.htm

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
South Korea Sets Out Plan Allowing Military 'Pre-emptive Strike' Against North; Park Guen-hye Pledge (Original Post) bananas Apr 2013 OP
Similar LBN thread from midnight: Kolesar Apr 2013 #1
Similar, but it doesn't mention the pre-emptive attack policy, which is pretty significant. nt bananas Apr 2013 #3
That's true...eom Kolesar Apr 2013 #4
S. Korea sets out 'active deterrence' against N. Korea's nuke threats bananas Apr 2013 #2
This Sounds Like DallasNE Apr 2013 #13
In other words unusual military movements will trigger an air attack. gordianot Apr 2013 #5
Kim really stepped in it this time. He'd better be careful with his games. AAO Apr 2013 #6
Just goes to show you that real threats can be subtle. gordianot Apr 2013 #9
This is how wars start zipplewrath Apr 2013 #7
Pretty much how WWI started daleo Apr 2013 #24
Pretty much zipplewrath Apr 2013 #25
Yes, there is usually a contingent who really want war daleo Apr 2013 #28
Given that they are still at a state of war from the '50s - peace agreement was never signed dipsydoodle Apr 2013 #8
The North always threatens to nuke either us or South Korea. iandhr Apr 2013 #10
Because they actually have the ability to nuke South Korea. And no one knows who TwilightGardener Apr 2013 #12
makes sense iandhr Apr 2013 #21
Substitute North Korea For Iraq DallasNE Apr 2013 #11
Yeahno. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #14
N. Korea is nothing like Iraq. premium Apr 2013 #15
Thanks For Making My Case DallasNE Apr 2013 #17
Oh, ok. premium Apr 2013 #19
You are right, it wouldn't be pretty, but the two situations are nothing alike. Marrah_G Apr 2013 #16
Wonder who gave them the idea of this "pre-emptive" shit? ConcernedCanuk Apr 2013 #18
Our stealth bombers aren't over there. premium Apr 2013 #20
My guess would be the North Koreans gave them the idea Posteritatis Apr 2013 #22
Anyone have any thoughts on what the US role here should be? primavera Apr 2013 #23
Stay out of it zipplewrath Apr 2013 #26
Sounds reasonable primavera Apr 2013 #27
No, we really aren't the problem. And China has for the first time joined in TwilightGardener Apr 2013 #29
Depends upon what you consider "attention" zipplewrath Apr 2013 #30

bananas

(27,509 posts)
2. S. Korea sets out 'active deterrence' against N. Korea's nuke threats
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 07:35 AM
Apr 2013

This seems to be the Yonhap article mentioned in the OP:

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/04/01/81/0301000000AEN20130401003700315F.HTML

2013/04/01 11:00 KST

S. Korea sets out 'active deterrence' against N. Korea's nuke threats

SEOUL, April 1 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's defense ministry unveiled Monday a new contingency plan of "active deterrence" that allows its military to launch a preemptive strike against North Korea if the North shows signs of an imminent nuclear or missile attack on the South.

The new contingency plan was outlined in an annual policy briefing by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin to President Park Geun-hye amid heightened tensions over the escalation of North Korea's bellicose rhetoric against Seoul and Washington.

In a briefing to Park, Defense Minister Kim said the military is mapping out "an active deterrence and will build an attack system to swiftly neutralize North Korea's nuclear and missile threats, while significantly improving our military's capability of surveillance and reconnaissance."

To achieve the goal, the ministry will speed up the deployment of a "kill chain" system capable of detecting, targeting and destroying North Korean nuclear and missile targets, ministry officials said.

<snip>

DallasNE

(7,392 posts)
13. This Sounds Like
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 01:00 PM
Apr 2013

The "limited duration, protective reaction" air strikes against North Vietnam during the 1960's. They were, of course, neither limited nor protective. Such short memories.

gordianot

(15,226 posts)
5. In other words unusual military movements will trigger an air attack.
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 08:59 AM
Apr 2013

If North Korea uses nuclear weapons it would be as either large land mines or placing them in a tunnel on the DMZ.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
7. This is how wars start
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 09:15 AM
Apr 2013

Not all wars of course, but this is how some wars start. One country decides that they are threatened and can achieve a goal through intimidation. The target country decides the best reaction to intimidation is to demonstrate strength. The original country decides that the demonstration of strength by the target proves that their original concern was well founded and decides that they must be prepared to act first to be decisive. The target country decides that the original countries movements and actions demonstrate they are preparing to act. Ultimately someone on one side or another becomes convinced that an attack is about to begin and decides that their best defense is to beat the opponent to the attack.

The US and the USSR came very close to war several times over this kind of misunderstanding. And it was all grounded in the presumption on both sides that the other side was prepared, and looking for, an opportunity to attack.

We now know that neither side every seriously considered an original attack, other than as a pre-emptive response to the percieved intent of the other side to begin an offensive war (a redundant expression if there ever was one).

When you prepare for war, and pray for peace, you'll get war.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
25. Pretty much
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 02:44 PM
Apr 2013

You'll find elements of it in alot of wars, especially in ones in which there are actors who actually want the war to start, whether they are "in charge" or not.

daleo

(21,317 posts)
28. Yes, there is usually a contingent who really want war
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 05:26 PM
Apr 2013

Usually they see a chance to make money (e.g. Arms makers). Sometimes it is a desire for career advancement (e.g. some military officers). If the war is remote and there is no real prospect of losing disastrously, some just like the thrill and spectacle. WWI featured all of those, as have the more recent conflicts.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
8. Given that they are still at a state of war from the '50s - peace agreement was never signed
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 09:16 AM
Apr 2013

what's to pre-empt ?

South Korea vows fast response to North; U.S. deploys stealth jets.

(Reuters) - South Korea will strike back quickly if the North stages any attack, the new president in Seoul warned on Monday, as tensions ratcheted higher on the Korean peninsula amid shrill rhetoric from Pyongyang and the U.S. deployment of radar-evading fighter planes.

North Korea says the region is on the brink of a nuclear war in the wake of United Nations sanctions imposed for its February nuclear test and a series of joint U.S. and South Korean military drills that have included a rare U.S. show of aerial power.

The North, whose economy is smaller than it was 20 years ago, appeared to move on Monday to addressing its pressing need for investment by appointing a reformer to the country's ceremonial prime minister's job, although the move mostly cemented a power grab by the ruling Kim clan.

North Korea had said on Saturday it was entering a "state of war" with South Korea in response to what it termed the "hostile" military drills being staged in the South. But there have been no signs of unusual activity in the North's military to suggest an imminent aggression, a South Korean defence ministry official said last week.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/01/uk-korea-north-war-idUKBRE92T00320130401

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
10. The North always threatens to nuke either us or South Korea.
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 11:49 AM
Apr 2013

Why does the ROK leadership (South Korea) think the North's threats are more then the usual bluster?

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
12. Because they actually have the ability to nuke South Korea. And no one knows who
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 12:55 PM
Apr 2013

is really in power over there, or what their ultimate goal is for their weapon program.

DallasNE

(7,392 posts)
11. Substitute North Korea For Iraq
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 12:50 PM
Apr 2013

And we have heard this story line play out before. And the outcome was not pretty. Just sayin....

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
15. N. Korea is nothing like Iraq.
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 01:02 PM
Apr 2013

For one, N. Korea actually has nukes.
N. Korea is the one threatening to nuke the US and S. Korea.
N. Korea is the one that's already committed acts of war against S. Korea, ie: the shelling of a S.K. island with the resulting deaths of 2 civilians and 2 ROK Marines, and the sinking of the S.K. Frigate in 2010.

S. Korea is well within it's rights to take this stance towards N. Korea.

But you are right about one thing, it certainly wouldn't be pretty.

DallasNE

(7,392 posts)
17. Thanks For Making My Case
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 01:09 PM
Apr 2013

I was talking about the messaging, not the actual countries, and where that lead.

 

ConcernedCanuk

(13,509 posts)
18. Wonder who gave them the idea of this "pre-emptive" shit?
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 01:09 PM
Apr 2013

.
.
.

I suspect the USA's stealth-bombers over there got a hard-on for more slaughter.

another shock and disgust in the makin methinks . .

(sigh)

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
20. Our stealth bombers aren't over there.
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 01:16 PM
Apr 2013

They returned to their base in MO after the flyby.

And why wouldn't SK warn the NK leadership?
It's not like the NK's haven't committed acts of war against the SK.
Oh, wait.....................

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/north-korea-sub-suspected_n_569584.html

Or this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/23/us-korea-north-artillery-idUSTRE6AM0YS20101123

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
22. My guess would be the North Koreans gave them the idea
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 01:48 PM
Apr 2013

Y'know, dozens of attacks across the border over decades, which have been getting more severe in the last decade or so.

primavera

(5,191 posts)
23. Anyone have any thoughts on what the US role here should be?
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 02:21 PM
Apr 2013

If we engage in military posturing and saber rattling, is it likely to cow the parties back into their long-standing uneasy truce? Or is it more apt to be equivalent to pouring gasoline on the embers? Would the interests of peace be better served if we were to back off in an effort to assume a more neutral, conciliatory, good offices sort of role, or would that be a pointless waste of time given our history and the North's animosity towards the US? Should we be focussing our efforts on bringing the international community into the conflict to deescalate tensions between the parties, or would too many cooks spoil the vichyssoise? If armed conflict between the North and South does break out, should we be in there with military support or leave them to sort it out amongst themselves? I honestly have no idea what "the right thing to do" would be in this instance. This enmity between the North and South has been going on for so long, it's difficult to envision anything resolving their differences anymore; hostility has become the norm for them. How long can a time bomb go on ticking before it eventually detonates? Yet if there's no way to defuse the bomb... hell, I don't know.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
26. Stay out of it
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 02:53 PM
Apr 2013

To some extent we are the "problem", in that NK is trying to "get our attention". We have been instrumental in advancing sanctions against them and they are trying to get someone to reverse it. We have always tried to include China in these actions and we shouldn't suddenly abandon that strategy. We need to quietly assure SK that we "have their backs" and suggest to China that it is in China's interest that NK not start setting off nuclear bombs in the vacinity. China has little interest in being "down wind" from that.

primavera

(5,191 posts)
27. Sounds reasonable
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 03:00 PM
Apr 2013

It's crossed my mind as well that successfully ruffling the feathers of the great satan and sparking an international outcry probably buys Kim Jong Un invaluable political capital at home. If that's the case, we play right into his hands by getting all worked up in response to every belligerent statement he makes.

Thanks for your thoughts!

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
29. No, we really aren't the problem. And China has for the first time joined in
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 07:19 PM
Apr 2013

on the latest UN sanctions. There is no "staying out of it" for us--we have troops there, we are obligated to help defend South Korea and deter NK's aggression. Everything you're talking about RE China has been done for years with no change in behavior--in fact NK's behavior is getting worse and more aggressive. We've been quietly reassuring SK for decades, gave NK food and aid, and it's only resulted in aggression and relentless pursuit of nukes by NK. A little attention now is called for, since they really could blow something up.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
30. Depends upon what you consider "attention"
Tue Apr 2, 2013, 09:25 AM
Apr 2013

I'm not sure that you can confidently say that China has not modified NK behavior. It may not have stopped it completely, but as you say, we've been doing this for the better part of THREE administrations of BOTH parties. That would tend to lead me to believe that we thought we got SOMETHING from our strategy, albeit not a conclusion. And this current dust up is connected as much to the fact that the new leader is "starting fresh" to some extent, as well as the fact that sanctions are getting worse.

To some degree, as you allude, the attention really needs to be paid to SK. For one thing they are the ones most directly threatened. But also, nothing will get NK more pissed than if their provocations result in more attention and sympathy for SK. Making them believe we have their backs, and that we are paying attention, will do alot to help keep them from over reacting, and will be a counter strategy to NK attention baiting efforts.

The problem with directly confronting NK in any substantive way is it puts them in the drivers seat. They act, so we are forced to act. We don't want to get into that cycle, and we definitely don't want to reward NK in anyway for acting unilaterally. Again, at the end of the day, the actor with the most control here is China, not the US.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»South Korea Sets Out Plan...