North Korea threatens to nuke Chicago, NYC & DC if we pre-emptively strike Yongbyon

Great Debates
1

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html

Basically, if USA pre-emptively strikes the nuclear facility in Yongbyon in an effort to sabotage their nuclear program, they will retaliate with nukes.

I post on another message board which is much more conservative, so i am pretty much alone in saying that i see nothing inherietly wrong with N. Korea threatening retaliation if we attack first (although i think nuking civilians is a very extreme form of retaliation). But what do you people think? Why are we still obsessed with Iraq? Because iraq might give weapons it might have away while N. Korea threatens to use its own?

2

Bush’s attitude to N Korea in this whole mess has struck me as the oddest thing about the whole situation. Here we are in Iraq, scrabbling around to try and find the barest traces of biological weapons to justify a war, and over on the other side of the world you’ve got a tinpot dictator actually coming out and saying - not being accused of, not having intelligence reports leaked about him, flat out confirming to the whole world - that he’s going to do his damndest to nuke the west coast of the USA.

The response of the president, so keen and ardent that he’s doing his work in Iraq to protect the citizens of the US is, er… to do absolutely nothing at all.

Is this confusing the bejezus out of anyone else?

3

I dont’ particularly want N. Korea to nuke us (especially since I live downwind from Chicago), but they do have a right to defend themselves. I do not, however, think nuking civilian populations is a valid form of retalition unless the US attacked civilians first (although I doubt it would have been intentional). I’m thinking it would be an acceptable form of defense to try and shoot down bombers, attack aircraft carriers, etc.; I dont’ think going nuclear in response to conventional bombing is acceptable. It’s akin to saying “if you hit me, I won’t hit you back; I’ll just shoot you and your family”.

I think the reason the US government is focusing more on Iraq than it is N. Korea is that Iraq will be much easier to defeat in a war. You know, less losses to our side. I see nothing but a sticky mire waiting for the US in N. Korea.

–greenphan

4

The Onion had it right: they had some one-off artcile a while back called something like “NK wondering what it has to do to attract U.S. attention” Probably one of their more hilarious send-ups… and disturbingly on point.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html

5

I was under the impression that N. Korea’s furthest range of theur missiles was Japan/S. Korea. How the hell are they going to reach Chicago?

6

Yes. It will bite him dead in the ass in 2004 because it is obvious he is either lying about his motives are ignorant. Its sad, becuase terrorism is a serious threat, and its just a tool thats being used to justify war in Iraq (along with anti SUV ads, anti drug ads, and about 20 other things in the next 10 years).

7

Taep’o Dong I

FAS

globalsecurity.org

Well, dammit, there’s a Taep’o Dong II - CNN.

WaPo - missile can hit US

Who knows if it can hit Chicago?

[Fixed quote tag. – MEB]

8

What Skip said…my understanding was tthat they have no long range ICBM’s etc.

They MAY be able to reach Seattle if they’ve got the wind…but past that. I don’t think so!

I know they have the ability to reach parts of Alaska and maybe Hawaii. The theoretical three stage rocket they have has never been succussfully tested. The rocket has thus far failed every attempt at firing it’s third stage and is not guaranteed to even launch. So I doubt the threat is very credible.

and besides…Corea/Korea would cease to exist if the fools ever did manage to detonate a nuclear device on US soil.

9

excuse my typos, it’s kinda late…g-nite

10

Maybe North Korea can fire their missiles up into the jetstream and to conserve fuel and extend the range, kind of like what the Japanese did with their balloon bombs during WWII - since I’m not a physicist I don’t know if it’s feasible.

11

Japan has stated that they’ll attack NK if NK even attempts to fuel their latest missile. Assuming that Japan’s serious about such a thing, that part of the world could get really ugly, really quick. Frankly, using nukes as a first strike option, by any country is pretty much reprehensible, IMHO.

12

You may want to consider that maybe, just maybe, the Intelligence operations know just a bit more about the threats against us than you do. I realize that this is a stretch, but they may feel from time to time that telling everything to you that they know is not the best way to handle the situation.

McDuff, we are not trying to find traces of biologicals. What we are trying to find are the weapons that are KNOWN to have existed. Iraq claims it destroyed them, but can offer no proof. We know they made them. This is not in dispute if you will check out the facts instead of listening to those who are looking for any stick, no matter how flimsy, to hit Bush with.

Korea is making a big noise, trying to get attention for several reasons. One is that they are probably working in some capacity with Iraq, and their efforts are succeeding based on how easily the anti-Bush crowd took up the “Look at Korea, why aren’t we doing anything about that?” smokescreen offered to them by our country’s enemies. I honestly am suprised that so many of you so easily are pursuaded to chase the decoy.

Another reason is that their regime in on the verge of collapse, and they are trying the same trick that worked on Clinton to try to get more money to keep themselves in power. Luckily we now have a President with the basic common sense to see that if they lied to us once to get money, they will do so again.

So McDuff, if Korea’s threats to use a weapon that most likely wont work scares you so bad, just how terrified were you when China threatened to Nuke the West Coast a few years back?

mecaenas, I’m not picking on you, but you have a lot to learn about how missles work. The jet stream is within the atmosphere, usually (IIRC) around 30-50,000 feet). ICBM’s leave the atmosphere on a ballistic trajectory and fly at incredibly high rates of speed (over 10K mph). A cruise missle could take advantage of the jet stream, but they fly slow enough to be fairly easy to shoot down and do not have near the range to reach the US from Korea.

All this is just propaganda that our enemies know that the “Useful idiots” in America will help them to spread among the ignorant.

13

As every other country in the region gangs on Japan.

14

What gets me is that our friends at the U.N., who are telling us we cannot deal with Iraq alone, are keeping hands-off of North Korea. How come!!??

15

In the future history book, one of the sentences would ask students - Who started WW III?

16

could be because Iraq is violating UN resolutions & North Korea isn’t. The justification for attacking Iraq is UN-dependent (refusal to disarm in accordance with UN resolutions) while North Korea hasn’t done anything to violate any Security council resolutions.

17

That’s exactly it. Iraq is hiding their WMD programs, the reason for this as I see it is to build them up so he can use them.

N.K. is the little kid on the block who is clammering for attention so the think getting a nuke or 2 will make them big players. They don’t want a war with the US as they will be destroyed in short order, they just want reconigition.

As for the threat, SDI anyone? I know I would love to be sitting under a ICBM shield and can tell NK to just fuck off, but for some reason we’ve found the nead not to build it. Maybe a large scale EMP pulse weapon attack could be used to knock out NK’s Nuke program and launch facilities before a large scale invasion.

18

If I’m reading this right, you consider Hussein’s Iraq, a pissant country with extremely limited capability and almost no standing army, a bigger “player” than North Korea, a country with an established army and a known, functioning nuclear program?

Are you serious? I hope I’ve been whooshed. Calling Iraq a bigger player than North Korea is just plain silly.

Yeah, such a thing is (a) feasible and (b) up and running today. Cite? :rolleyes:

The Bush Administration’s priorities are way out of whack on this one. They’re ignoring a country that’s more of a credible threat to the United States’ nationl security today while ignoring one that they can’t even prove is a threat to anyone more than a few hundred miles away. And they wonder why we don’t believe that his only motive is to protect the people of the United States. Perhaps it’s because he only seems to do so when it fits in with his pre-planned agenda.

19

The other thing is that in my VERY INEXPERTISE opinion, any large instability (read: war) in the Asian region could be massively more dangerous to the world than any instability in the mideast.

I realize all the oil deposits etc in the MidEast, but drawing Japan, the Koreas, potentially China and the U.S. into conflict is way more concerning for the short term than how the politics plays out in Iraq and that area.

20

Although Iraq’s army isn’t the force it was at the time of the Persian Gulf War, Iraq does still have a standing army.