Amid Pyongyang bluster, a hint of a missile launch

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

North Korea, which unleashed another round of scathing rhetoric accusing the United States of pushing the region to the "brink of war," could be planning a missile launch soon, a U.S. official said Thursday.

Communications intercepts in recent days indicated that Pyongyang could be planning to launch a mobile ballistic missile in the coming days or weeks, the official first told CNN. It's unknown whether it would be a test or a strike.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

---

Guessing this is another test launch and saber-rattling, but it doesn't held the current situation.

[ladjf]

1. Is N. Korea trying to commit suicide by "missile attack"? nt

[shawn703]

2. They could be committing suicide by "threat of missile attack"

They said they would strike first. I'm not sure we're going to wait around to see whether they're using the missile for a test or a strike.

[Berlin Expat]

3. Over the

decades since the end of the Korean War, we in the West have gotten rather used to North Korea crying "wolf" and engaging in blackmail as a foreign-policy strategy.

Kim Il Sung knew how to push it to the hilt; Kim Jong-il was good at the game as well. He knew when to ramp up the pressure, and when to ease off.

Kim Jong Un is an unknown quantity. We know very little about him. We have no intel inside North Korea.

There is a possibility - a remote one, to be sure, but present - that we may be dealing with a genuinely irrational and disturbed individual who sincerely believes his own propaganda about his nation's 'invincibility'. If that's the case, he could very well have convinced himself that not only can he successfully reunite North and South Korea by military force, but that he could prevail in a military conflict with the United States as well.

Kim Jong Un could be that (mercifully) rare "outlier"; a genuine madman in possession of nuclear weapons, with no fear of retaliation because he genuinely believes his foes won't dare to retaliate to spare themselves a "crushing military defeat". If he actually believes that, then things are about to get very hot indeed on the Korean Peninsula.

[ladjf]

14. Thanks for the good analysis. nt

[olddad56]

19. they might be crying wolf, but lets not forget the attack and capture of the USS Pueblo..

in 1968 and the shooting down of an unarmed Navy surveillance aircraft in 1969, (killing the crew of 31).

Perhaps the difference between most of the time and those incidents when they actually did something, is that they didn't announce it ahead of time. They just did it.

[Berlin Expat]

22. That's very true....

if the North Koreans were really going to go whole hog, I doubt they'd announce it beforehand.

[killbotfactory]

4. Thank Jebus diplomatic talks are out of the question.

Diplomacy is a reward for good behavior. If we ever granted them that honor, their threats would have proven effective!

It's much better to risk nuclear war than to lose face with the world by talking to an enemy.

[Myrina]

5. Sadly accurate interpretation of how US foreign policy works ...

Sigh.

[iandhr]

8. We have tried diplomacy.

In 1994 and 2005 we signed agreements with the North. In exchange for giving up their nuke program they would be given aid. We and the ROK gave them aid but they didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

I am all for diplomatic alternatives but at this point they are trying to blackmail us back to the negotiating table.

At what point to you say enough?

[killbotfactory]

13. That diplomacy significantly delayed their nuclear program

We've decided to punish their provocations instead of formally engaging them, and now they are going to throttle up their nuclear program because they really have nothing to lose by doing so, it will give them a bigger bargaining chip in the future if we ever diplomatic talks ever resume.

[iandhr]

16. So why is that a good thing?

It sends the message they can get more and more concessions for threatening nuclear war.

[killbotfactory]

20. Them having nuclear program is not a good thing.

Us delaying that program with diplomatic talks was, so I don't understand why we wouldn't continue diplomacy.

[iandhr]

27. If we returned to the table.

They would see that there is something to be gained by increasing tension and threatening to kill everyone. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[killbotfactory]

30. Which is why I don't understand refusing to return to the table before all the threats. nt

[iandhr]

31. Well the threats are nothing new.

They have threats to nuke the ROK or us many times. The only difference know is there missile technology has improved.

ROK leadership officially responded to the North's threats a few weeks ago they usually just ignore it.


They are taking these threats more seriously.

[TwilightGardener]

21. Their "provocations" sometimes actually kill people, and South Korea

doesn't want any more of it. NK continuing to ignore UN and world agreements with respect to their nuclear development isn't a provocation by them, it's a clear intention to keep doing what they're doing. They've gotten lots of $$ and goodies, but keep developing nuclear arms anyway, after they've received their prizes. What sort of diplomacy will work, at this point?

[killbotfactory]

24. These tensions will end with either diplomacy or a bloodbath.

We haven't engaged them diplomatically in years, why? Hoping the leadership will see the error of their ways? How has that been working out?

We've successfully isolated and sanctioned them into economic ruin in hopes that their government would collapse. Didn't happen, probably won't happen. To think they would put up with his indefinitely, being happy with whatever aid we give them when their people start starving, was foolish. They have accepted the fact of their isolation as something that will never be allowed to end and are doubling down on nuclear technology.

[TwilightGardener]

25. Well, why don't they just stop trying to have nuclear weapons?

Seems a very simple way for them to avoid sanctions and be able to start wheeling and dealing in terms of diplomacy. I don't know, BTW, when the last diplomatic efforts with them were.

[iandhr]

28. 2005

They agreed through the six-party talks to give up their nuclear program. The ROK and the US gave them aid. They then started plutonium processing.

Every time there is an agreement they go back on their word.

[killbotfactory]

29. They want nukes because it's the only insurance against US invasion

And it gives them further leverage with China, who don't want the regime to collapse. They also want nuclear technology for their power grid. In the 1994 agreement we promised them light water reactors which couldn't be used for making uranium or plutonium for bombs, but of course that was delayed repeatedly, until finally Bush got into office and started accusing them of uranium enrichment and the agreement fell apart. Then they wound up on the axis of evil, one of whom Bush invaded under shady pretexts. They might have learned something from that.

[TwilightGardener]

32. They know the US would never just invade. China wouldn't allow it

even if we wanted to. It's totally illogical--why would we want their shitball country and its starving zombies? We have no desire to force reunification. If they have a defense pact with China, they don't need to worry about the US at all, in fact. But, we're still in SK, because there is no peace treaty, NK wants to reunify, and they keep acting aggressively and pursuing nuclear weapons in order to be able to hold a very big gun against their "enemies'" heads. Or to sell the technology and components.

[John2]

35. You really want

to know the answer to your question? How many nuclear warheads does Israel have, 100, or 200? I don't see any sanctions. I also guarantee you they will use them as a last resort. Sanctions use to be an act of War. You have to be willing to use all your military capabilities and let your enemies know you will if they don't back off. You may call it suicidal but I call it fighting to the last man. What is the point anyway when your enemy is seeking your annihilation anyway? At least you want be dying in some hole somewhere or strung up by your enemies. If you can't live in peace, at least you will die with honor.

[bemildred]

6. A theory:

Suppose the defense business in N. Korea is as dishonest as the defense business here, which I consider likely, then perhaps they are in a difficult position with Lil Kim, who may well believe they have capabilities they do not.

[TwilightGardener]

7. So...how long do we wait to find out? Some kind of weird Russian roulette if they launch it.

[bemildred]

9. I'd wait at least until it's clear it's not going to blow up and fall in the ocean. nt

[TwilightGardener]

10. What if it's a warhead and we wait too long? If it has a warhead and we can see that before it

launches, we'll be a-bombing, I would hope. Otherwise, missile defense and pray it works.

[bemildred]

11. That's what our great missile defense systems are for.

I have no doubt they will work just great.

But in any case, we don't want to be the first to attack, esp. with WMD.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I doubt, if we knew a nuke launch was imminent, that we would just allow it.

I have no idea what happens when you drop a bomb on a launch site with a nuclear-warhead missile, but maybe we'll find out. But then the question is, do we nuke them afterward, if it's either bombed or we intercept?

[bemildred]

15. Ah, you still believe in reality-based government.

We dumped that over the side 35 years ago.

What happens when you nuke a nuke is a big mess made bigger by the extra radiation, like a dirty bomb that really explodes well too.

[maryellen99]

17. what about this?

Do you think NK is capable of detonating a dirty bomb in Seoul? Wouldn't that be more likely than a missle launch?

[TwilightGardener]

18. I don't know. I think the nukes, if they intend to use them, will be meant for us

and our islands. Because why would they want to befoul their own backyard with radiation and devastation--especially if they want to reunify?

[Renew Deal]

33. I wonder what happens if it's intercepted over NK territory

[TwilightGardener]

34. I guess it's ON, then.

[John2]

23. I'm trying to figure out

how North Korea is committing suicide by firing missiles at their enemies? There is a difference between turning a gun at yourself and going down fighting in a War to defend yourself. There has never been a nuclear war or war with chemicals of mass destruction on both sides. Usually it is only one side with that advantage and the side that has that technology. The most dangerous rhetoric from any Government came when the Reagan Administration made the claims, that a nuclear war can be won by one side. I would not give up the use of nuclear weapons as long as the other side does not abide by the same rules. Rightwing extremists are the same everywhere, even in this country. None should have access to any nuclear weapons period or any weapons of mass destruction. Once any side gets the advantage, they will always use it to bully the other into submission. For any race of man to claim they have the moral high ground on any other is just plain hypocrisy. There are human rights abuses in every country committed by a few powerful people controlling this world's resources. There needs to be communication between nations instead of using resources and food as weapons to strangle another country's economy. Technology should be shared by all countries and not dictated by any country. It should be used for peaceful purposes. The bottomline with me, if one country threatens to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, then that other country should have the same technology. That is the real debate here. The U.N. has not been used as an honest broker in anything but used as a tool by some nations to gain advantage in Foreign Affairs.

If the U.N. was really honest about its Policies, then they would enforce them consistently across the board. They have not done that with the nuclear issue. They have allowed some countries to proliferate while restricting others access to the same technology. They also allow these same countries to build enormous arsenals in the name of defense but the same countries condone covert activities of regime change. Their foreign Policies about sympathy for the poor and less unfortunate is just as much of a farce as their domestic policies concerning the Poor. And the very same people they claim to be fighting for human rights, they are willing to comitt mass genocide against within a nano second. It is a joke when I hear religious extremists and rightwing extremists claim to be for human rights in other countries.

[neverforget]

26. In order to prevent war, we must start one.

[Bosonic]

36. N.Korea 'moves second missile to coast'

SEOUL (AFP) — North Korea has moved a second mid-range missile to its east coast and loaded both on mobile launchers, a report said Friday, fuelling fears of an imminent firing that will further ramp up tensions.

Yonhap news agency, citing a top South Korean official, said two intermediate Musudan missiles had been transported by train earlier in the week and "loaded on vehicles equipped with launch pads".

The Defence Ministry, which on Thursday had confirmed the movement of one missile with "considerable range", declined to comment on the new report.

It was the latest incremental move by North Korea which, incensed at fresh UN sanctions and South Korea-US military drills, has issued a series of apocalyptic threats of nuclear war in recent weeks.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h07BQYqBMlOO1RU5GgqLMk0N-TcA?docId=CNG.0643c578f0ae72157c979bd633895199.01