Korean Job Discussion Forums

[On the other hand]

[iotaphi821]

On a fun little note, I found this:

In a little noted change in U.S. nuclear policy, President Obama last week threatened to employ nuclear weapons against North Korea in retaliation for any nuclear attack on South Korea.



Rarely, if ever, has the U.S. disclosed when or under what circumstances or in which country it would use nuclear weapons. Instead, U.S. nuclear doctrine has been wrapped in generalities and ambiguity intended to deter a potential adversary from a nuclear attack by keeping it guessing. Day-to-day, that doctrine calls for never confirming or denying the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons anywhere.

Last week, however, Obama and President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea issued a joint statement saying that "the continuing commitment of extended deterrence, including the U.S. nuclear umbrella," provides assurance that the U.S. would respond if Pyongyang ever puts into action the threats it has repeatedly hurled at South Korea.

After meeting in the White House, Presidents Obama and Lee appeared in the Rose Garden, where the South Korean president said that "President Obama reaffirmed this firm commitment to ensuring the security of South Korea through extended deterrence, which includes the nuclear umbrella." Obama did not mention this commitment during his remarks.

Neither the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, nor the White House press corps raised the issue of the apparent shift in existing policy.

Before arriving in Washington, South Korean officials told the South Korean press that Lee would ask Obama for a written guarantee that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons against North Korea in the event of a North Korean nuclear attack. Evidently, he got what he asked for in the joint statement.

The North Koreans responded obliquely, the official Korean Central News Agency saying: "It is clear to anyone that the situation of the Korean Peninsula will grow more acute and the danger of outbreak of a nuclear war further increase in case the U.S. commitment to 'providing combat force for extended nuclear deterrence' to South Korea is documented."

KCNA called Lee the leader of "a gang of worst traitors as it seeks only to realize its scenario for invasion of the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) with the help of foreign forces and maintain its power without caring about nuclear disaster to be imposed on the nation."

The U.S. nuclear commitment to South Korea may set a precedent for other allies concerned that Obama, having announced that he would seek a world free of nuclear weapons, may remove the U.S. nuclear umbrella over them. In particular, some Japanese political leaders and commentators have asserted that the U.S. can no longer be trusted to defend Japan against nuclear attack. Tokyo may thus ask for written commitment similar to that given to South Korea.

In a related development, the U.S. Air Force, which fields most of America's nuclear arms, has just revised its doctrine on nuclear operations in a document that will feed into the Pentagon's nuclear posture review now under way. During the Cold War, the Air Force said U.S. policy was "based on the threat of retaliation (and) served as the foundation for what is now called extended deterrence."

Today, the revised doctrine said, "extended deterrence is less about retaliation and more about posturing to convince an enemy that they are unlikely to achieve the political and military objectives behind any attack on the U.S. or one of our allies."

"Through alliances and treaties," the doctrine continued, without naming specific allies, "our extended deterrence strategy provides a nuclear umbrella to friendly and allied nations. Our nuclear umbrella assures allies of our commitment to their security and serves as a nonproliferation tool by obviating their need to develop and field their own nuclear arsenals."

Richard Halloran, formerly with the New York Times as a correspondent in Asia and in Washington, is a writer in Honolulu.

[rollo]

Interesting statement by Obama! I am in favor of upping the ante and even a conventional strike on the nuclear facilities. Because I think the people of Korea and japan have been held hostage by the power plays of a mntally ill man. I dont forsee any use of nukes by the U.S. I think we are headed in the direction, of a conventional strike not soon but eventually. China as many have observed is increasingly angry at kim's antics. Mao got suckered in the fifties into the war, thinking STalin would back him. The current Chinese regime understands that it's future is tied to economic cooperation with the U.s. What does North Korea have to offer China? A missle launch targeting our territory should be met with force. Hopefully Kim will back down. Obama's comment a departure from the usual ambiguity also sends a clear message and also 'feels out' the Chinese.

[lithium]

[samcheokguy]

It really is going to be a world of crazy states like Burma and NK and North Somalia telling the rel world what to do...

[NAVFC]

[iotaphi821]

North Korea's taepodong doesn't have the range to hit Hawaii, Alaska maybe, but not Hawaii. I think I read somewhere (and this could be off) that it has a range of 4-4,500 km and Hawaii is a good 7000km away from the Korean Peninsula. Not to mention, as far as anyone knows NoKo doesn't have the technology to put a nuke in a warhead yet. Could this be wrong? I suppose so but I strongly doubt it.

For what it's worth I talked to one of my old Political Science teachers to get his take on it. He says that if NoKo were to go after anyone it'd be Japan, but the whole thing is just a big scare tactic. His words "If you suppress your people, have no oil to speak of, and don't have nuclear weapons...someone's going to come along and F you in the A., unless you get nukes". With a regime change coming, this makes sense. The central ruling party has nukes, makes it a lot less likely for a coup from the inside because, I'd wager, Kim Jong Il has no quarrel with nuking his own people and they know this as well as use this as a counter for too much undue influence from an outside party (China perhaps) during said regime change. Mind you, those are just two random hypotheticals.

As far as whether I think Kim Jong Il will balk or retaliate, I think its he'll do what he has to to save face. A retaliation, if he did would be minor. Enough that he could get away with it, without causing a total all out war. Then he can turn the propaganda machines on and say look what we did to the Western cowards, the south korean cowards, etc. If he risked a full on war, he'd have all kinds of problems, especially going into a transition of power, coup attempts, desertion, etc. So I think he'll make a small cry in the dark, and that's about it.

Honestly, I'm a little curious to see how this ship that's being trailed by the navy turns out. I wouldn't be surprised if it was searched and found to have nothing. Just so KJI could test the waters and see, as well as turn on the propaganda again and say "See, nothing there".

And if a missile were launched that was going to come close enough to hit US soil. We'd shoot it down, then bomb the holy jesus out of every target in NoKo worth a damn. Game over.

Yeah. That's just my rambling thoughts on the matter.

[ManintheMiddle]

I came across this article today which concisely states the dilemma confronting the US in challenging the North Korean ship bound for Singapore and then Burma.

[RJjr]

If North Korea fires a missile that hits American soil, I'm all for turning their presidential home into a crater.

But shipping weapons to another country? We've been the world leader on doing that type of evil for years. Sure, the North Koreans shouldn't be shipping weapons to other people, but for us to be the ones trying to police them on a supposed arms shipment is stupid. In addition to billions of wasted taxpayer dollars from giving "weapons aid" to other countries, look at how many of our citizens have taken premature dirt naps in places like Vietnam and the World Trade Center towers from America's foreign arms shipments and military aid.