Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

China: NK has signed it's death warrant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • China: NK has signed it's death warrant



    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has ordered nuclear weapons to be readied for use, the state-controlled Korean Central News Agency reported Thursday.

    The shift in military posture would allow North Korea to carry out pre-emptive attacks, and deprive "the enemies to sleep in peace till the moment they meet their final end in their land," KCNA reported, citing a speech by the country's leader, Kim Jong-un.

    KCNA continued: "The only way for defending the sovereignty of our nation and its right to existence under the present extreme situation is to bolster up nuclear force both in quality and quantity and keep balance of forces," he said, stressing the need to "get the nuclear warheads deployed for national defense always on standby so as to be fired any moment."

    The move follows the U.N. Security Council's unanimous approval Wednesday of tough new sanctions against North Korea in response to its recent nuclear and long-range missile tests. The resolution contains the toughest set of sanctions imposed by the Security Council in more than two decades, Secretary of State John Kerry said.

    USA TODAY

    S. Korea: North fires projectiles into sea hours after U.N. Security Council approves sanctions

    The sanctions require North Korean cargo ships and aircraft to be inspected before entering and after leaving the reclusive country. They would also prohibit small arms and other conventional weapons sales to North Korea.

    The Pentagon said it is aware of the reports and closely monitoring the situation in coordination with regional allies.

    Gabrielle Price, the spokeswoman for the State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said: "We urge North Korea to refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric that aggravate tensions and instead focus on fulfilling its international obligations and commitments."
    Kim Jong Un

    Kim Jong Un (Photo: KNS, AFP/Getty Images)

    KCNA, in its typically dramatic language, called the sanctions a flagrant effort by the "U.S. imperialists and their followers" to impose "gangster-like" economic and political pressure and military aggression on North Korea for its defensive actions and sovereign right to launch an earth-observation satellite.

    "All the people in the DPRK are now waiting for an order of combat to annihilate the enemy with their surging wrath at the U.S. imperialists and south Korea's Park Geun Hye group of traitors," the agency said, referring to the South's president.

    Just hours after the Security Council resolution passed, North Korea fired several short-range projectiles into the sea, according to the South Korean defense ministry.

    The extent of North Korea's nuclear arsenal is uncertain. The nation claimed in January that it had successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb at a test site, but third-party experts and U.S. leaders expressed doubts. Chinese officials told U.S. nuclear specialists in April that North Korea may possess 20 nuclear weapons and produce 10 new bombs a year, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

    Bruce Klingner, a former head of the CIA's Korea branch now at the Heritage Foundation, said the best estimates are that the North has 10-16 nukes, though it is uncertain whether they are small enough to put on missiles.

    Klingner believes North Korea's Nodong missile is nuclear capable, meaning Japan and South Korea are in range, together with the 28,500 American military personnel stationed in the South and the 45,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan.

    Three U.S. generals in charge of U.S. forces in Korea and the Pacific and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) testified last year that North Korea has the capability to hit the continental United States with a nuclear warhead. The missile that launched a North Korean satellite into orbit Feb. 7 had a range of 8,000 miles, putting all of the West Coast in Kim Jong-un's sights, Klingner said.

    While North Korea has not demonstrated the ability to bring a payload back into earth's atmosphere without burning up, the nation's capabilities are dangerous and the risk of miscalculation is increasing, he said.

    USA TODAY

    North Korea claims to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb

    The United States is preparing for yearly military exercises on the Korean peninsula in March and April, and it recently announced new war plans with South Korea that include possible preemptive attacks and decapitation of the North Korean regime.

    The United States is also building a network of ground-based missile interceptors designed to counter a threat from countries such as North Korea. The Pentagon said it is on track to have 44 such interceptors ready by the end of next year. Some are already on line.

    It's unclear if North Korea's leadership will miscalculate these changes and the coming exercises as preparations for an attack, Klingner said.

    North Korea's announcement "raises tensions," Klingner said. "When you have someone threaten use of nuclear weapons you can't help but have concerns."

    Contributing: Jim Michaels
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    May it is time for the ceasefire on the peninsula to end.
    Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.

    Comment


    • #3
      I was just thinking.. This North Korea stuff isn't much different that the gun control debate in the US.. The 'world' does not want them to have weapons that would allow them to compete militarily, on a global scale. And if they choose to go down that road they get sanctions, reduced / no aid, etc.

      So basically what the world is telling them is, if you promise not to have nukes, we will give you hand-outs (aid).. As many people have said on this very board, by making someone (or in this case another nation) dependent on a government (UN nations) for life's necessities, you have complete control over them.

      So is the world not wanting NK to have nukes really dissimilar than the Liberal government not wanting American citizens to have guns? Does a nation not have the right to develop weapons to defend itself in the same way we US citizens have that right? Why is it ok for some nations (including the US) have nukes, but others 'should not'?

      Similarly, portions of this issue this can be compared to many of us getting up in arms when our government makes commitments to the UN, or being obligated to follow their 'rules' that we may not like. Our response is 'fuck them, we are a sovereign nation and will make and abide by our own rules'. So we, as a nation, don't want any other organizations or nations to tell us what to do, but we are more than okay telling other nations what they can or can't do.

      Thinking about it that way makes us sound a little hypocritical, doesn't it?

      Not to say that I think it's a good for NK to have nukes, because they are run by a bunch of lunatics, but I just couldn't help to draw the parallels when reading this story.
      Last edited by Chili; 03-04-2016, 10:05 AM. Reason: spelling

      Comment


      • #4
        Spot-on post Chili.

        Comment


        • #5
          It is all about the wielding of power. We use our power to influence others to do things that are in our best interest and it is in our best interests that as few countries as possible have nukes.
          Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chili View Post
            I was just thinking.. This North Korea stuff isn't much different that the gun control debate in the US.. The 'world' does not want them to have weapons that would allow them to compete militarily, on a global scale. And if they choose to go down that road they get sanctions, reduced / no aid, etc.

            So basically what the world is telling them is, if you promise not to have nukes, we will give you hand-outs (aid).. As many people have said on this very board, by making someone (or in this case another nation) defendant on a government (UN nations) for life's necessities, you have complete control over them.

            So is the world not wanting NK to have nukes really dissimilar than the Liberal government not wanting American citizens to have guns? Does a nation not have the right to develop weapons to defend itself in the same way we US citizens have that right? Why is it ok for some nations (including the US) have nukes, but others 'should not'?

            Similarly, portions of this issue this can be compared to many of us getting up in arms when our government makes commitments to the UN, or being obligated to follow their 'rules' that we may not like. Our response is 'fuck them, we are a sovereign nation and will make and abide by our own rules'. So we, as a nation, don't want any other organizations or nations to tell us what to do, but we are more than okay telling other nations what they can or can't do.

            Thinking about it that way makes us sound a little hypocritical, doesn't it?

            Not to say that I think it's a good for NK to have nukes, because they are run by a bunch of lunatics, but I just couldn't help to draw the parallels when reading this story.
            I think you answered your own question there. If they were a peaceful nation that participated with the rest of the world, I dont see nuclear "defense" being too much of an issue. They are constantly threatening to use military force against the rest of the world, aside from the basic rights that they dont allow people in the country to possess, that makes them a threat to the rest of the world.
            "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Chili View Post
              I was just thinking.. This North Korea stuff isn't much different that the gun control debate in the US.. The 'world' does not want them to have weapons that would allow them to compete militarily, on a global scale. And if they choose to go down that road they get sanctions, reduced / no aid, etc.

              So basically what the world is telling them is, if you promise not to have nukes, we will give you hand-outs (aid).. As many people have said on this very board, by making someone (or in this case another nation) defendant on a government (UN nations) for life's necessities, you have complete control over them.

              So is the world not wanting NK to have nukes really dissimilar than the Liberal government not wanting American citizens to have guns? Does a nation not have the right to develop weapons to defend itself in the same way we US citizens have that right? Why is it ok for some nations (including the US) have nukes, but others 'should not'?

              Similarly, portions of this issue this can be compared to many of us getting up in arms when our government makes commitments to the UN, or being obligated to follow their 'rules' that we may not like. Our response is 'fuck them, we are a sovereign nation and will make and abide by our own rules'. So we, as a nation, don't want any other organizations or nations to tell us what to do, but we are more than okay telling other nations what they can or can't do.

              Thinking about it that way makes us sound a little hypocritical, doesn't it?

              Not to say that I think it's a good for NK to have nukes, because they are run by a bunch of lunatics, but I just couldn't help to draw the parallels when reading this story.
              NK doesn't have the 2nd amendment... and if they did they wouldn't pass the background check

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CWO View Post
                NK doesn't have the 2nd amendment... and if they did they wouldn't pass the background check
                Lol!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Baron Von Crowder View Post
                  I think you answered your own question there. If they were a peaceful nation that participated with the rest of the world, I dont see nuclear "defense" being too much of an issue. They are constantly threatening to use military force against the rest of the world, aside from the basic rights that they dont allow people in the country to possess, that makes them a threat to the rest of the world.
                  There are plenty of democrats that would say you owning a gun makes you a threat to the rest of America.. Does that mean they should come get your guns? Or place sanctions on you so that you cannot use any federal services? That's the point I was trying to make.

                  As to them not being a peaceful nation.. Other than a few minor incidents, they have been relatively 'peaceful' since the armistice was signed. If you look at it from their side, haven't most of their 'threats' been directly related to the rest of the world placing sanctions on them? So in their mind, they are reacting to our provocation.

                  I understand that the way they treat their citizens is terrible from our perspective, but so are laws and customs in many other nations out there, that do not have sanctions placed on them.

                  Anyhow, it was just an observation from my end, nothing more.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by svo855 View Post
                    It is all about the wielding of power. We use our power to influence others to do things that are in our best interest and it is in our best interests that as few countries as possible have nukes.
                    Of course it is! Just like it is in our federal government's best interest to maintain power over us citizens, and one of the best ways is to disarm us and make us dependent on them to survive. So similar it's kind of scary.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      * its
                      Originally posted by davbrucas
                      I want to like Slow99 since people I know say he's a good guy, but just about everything he posts is condescending and passive aggressive.

                      Most people I talk to have nothing but good things to say about you, but you sure come across as a condescending prick. Do you have an inferiority complex you've attempted to overcome through overachievement? Or were you fondled as a child?

                      You and slow99 should date. You both have passive aggressiveness down pat.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by slow99 View Post
                        * its
                        Meh..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Guns can do a lot of things. Guns cant trigger a mass extinction of the human race. Trust me, we have been pretty good at trying for the last 600 years.

                          Most countries dont have nuclear weapons (japan, most of europe) because the United States has vowed to protect them with its own arsonal instead. This helps limit the access points of nuclear arms to countries that have very strict controls on the use of such weapons, usually in a dialogue with other nuclear powers.

                          North Korea is among the worlds poorest countries. They could easily sell their nuclear weapons to jihadists who have no problems with using it. The scale between gun rights and weapons of mass destruction are enormous in how policy can be defined.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Chili View Post
                            So similar it's kind of scary.
                            Originally posted by slow99 View Post
                            * its
                            really
                            When the government pays, the government controls.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 46Tbird View Post
                              really
                              thread title

                              doesn't matter

                              just jumped out at me

                              im an ahole
                              Originally posted by davbrucas
                              I want to like Slow99 since people I know say he's a good guy, but just about everything he posts is condescending and passive aggressive.

                              Most people I talk to have nothing but good things to say about you, but you sure come across as a condescending prick. Do you have an inferiority complex you've attempted to overcome through overachievement? Or were you fondled as a child?

                              You and slow99 should date. You both have passive aggressiveness down pat.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X