ForumsWEPRNorth Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

164 106777
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

North Korea has vowed to nuke the U.S.A.

Feel free to discuss the subject. Do you think they'd follow through? What do you imagine the result would be? What results could come about from this vow? etc

  • 164 Replies
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,606 posts
Regent

China attacking SK first would pit the world against it. Given that NATO alone outnumbers China's carriers 15:1, and the proximity of the Japanese Defense forces, and both SK and Japan being under the US' Nuclear Umbrella, China would stand to lose too much in any attack. Furthermore, I trust that Beijing is smart enough to avoid getting drawn into a conflict by Pyongyang.


1) SK is not a NATO state. None of the NATO states are bound by the treaty to come to its aid in the event of war.

2) Japan has no reason to go to war. Furthermore, with the Diaoyu Island dispute threatening to boil over, the Japanese would be trying to ameliorate the situation, not pour kerosene on the fire. Lastly, Article 9 of Japan's constitution is interpreted to bar Japan from entering into security relations with any country other than the United States.

3) China has always maintained a nuclear policy of second strike.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
Shepherd

1) I never said they were; Why refute a point a I never made? I bought up NATO because, as was the case with Iraq, NATO supported US intervention. A non-nuclear NK is to the benefit of all: China, the US, everyone. It's an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement in a hypothetical war.

2) The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law allows Japan to support the US on foreign soil. Furthermore, Japanese courts have repeatedly maintained and upheld Japan's right to defend itself against an aggressing party. The islands were legally purchased by Japan. RE, US Nuclear Umbrella.

3) Perhaps party leaders in Beijing might ensure their Generals are on the same page. Xiong Guangkai threatened a nuclear strike on Los Angeles is the US ever defended Taiwan. Major General Zhu Chenghu also threatened the destruction of hundreds of American cities in a nuclear attack if the US ever "entered China's threatzone". I'll also call your attention to the fact that China has yet to actually make a formal NFU Aggreement, which is telling enough.

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,606 posts
Regent

1) I never said they were; Why refute a point a I never made? I bought up NATO because, as was the case with Iraq, NATO supported US intervention. A non-nuclear NK is to the benefit of all: China, the US, everyone. It's an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement in a hypothetical war.


1) Because by bringing in NATO in your statement, it highly insinuates that you feel NATO will join the party. Also, the big two in NATO (France and Germany) actually opposed US intervention in Iraq. It's not an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement; quite the contrary. NATO nations individually might support another Korean defensive war, but NATO as an organization will not.

A nuclear NK is of benefit to China. It acts as a thorn in the side of the US, and provides slightly more leverage in negotiations. China's main objective in NK policy is merely to keep the nation afloat; it's primary concern is a mass exodus of NK refugees should the nation disintegrate. If a nuclear program is going to keep that country together, China will not do anything against it.

2) The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law allows Japan to support the US on foreign soil. Furthermore, Japanese courts have repeatedly maintained and upheld Japan's right to defend itself against an aggressing party. The islands were legally purchased by Japan. RE, US Nuclear Umbrella.


You misinterpreted my point. My point is that it is highly unlikely that Japan will jump on the bandwagon and attack China in a hypothetical war over Korea, given that they already have another serious problem broiling on their hands, which needs no more inflammation.

3) Perhaps party leaders in Beijing might ensure their Generals are on the same page. Xiong Guangkai threatened a nuclear strike on Los Angeles is the US ever defended Taiwan. Major General Zhu Chenghu also threatened the destruction of hundreds of American cities in a nuclear attack if the US ever "entered China's threatzone". I'll also call your attention to the fact that China has yet to actually make a formal NFU Aggreement, which is telling enough.


Zhu Chenghu was a rogue hawk, he was transferred to a second line appointment pretty fast after he mentioned that. In 1995, General Xiong was widely, and incorrectly quoted as threatening to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles. The person to whom he was alleged to have said this, Chas Freeman, denies it.

In 2005, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a white paper stating that the government would not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. In addition, the paper went on to state that this "no first use" policy would remain unchanged in the future and that China would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.
bigjacob
offline
bigjacob
580 posts
Blacksmith

First time hearing of this.

IF they follow through, and even then, its still an IF on whether or not it hits the USA. Probably not, but if it manages too, welcome the end of humanity on Earth.

OperationNilo
offline
OperationNilo
3,988 posts
Farmer

I agree with you Jacob. If North Korea tries to nuke the US, there'll be retaliation and then more and more until the world is just a barren rock floating in space.

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

If North Korea tries to nuke the US, there'll be retaliation and then more and more until the world is just a barren rock floating in space.

I really doubt it. NK doesn't have MAD capabilities. I agree that there will be retaliation, but not with nukes. We won't want to stoop to their level and break international treaties. Such a strike would likely rally most of the industrialized world against NK. It wouldn't be difficult to blow 'em up conventionally with that much support. The US alone has a hundred times their available military members and a hundred times their annual military budget.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
Shepherd

1) Because by bringing in NATO in your statement, it highly insinuates that you feel NATO will join the party. Also, the big two in NATO (France and Germany) actually opposed US intervention in Iraq. It's not an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement; quite the contrary. NATO nations individually might support another Korean defensive war, but NATO as an organization will not.


NATO involvement in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, abd Libya, among others, indicates a past record in the last two decades of intervention. Why would an East Asia conflict be any different? An easy clextrapolation because there is grounds for it, unlike yours which would fly in the face of NATO's post-USSR policy.

A nuclear NK is of benefit to China. It acts as a thorn in the side of the US, and provides slightly more leverage in negotiations. China's main objective in NK policy is merely to keep the nation afloat; it's primary concern is a mass exodus of NK refugees should the nation disintegrate. If a nuclear program is going to keep that country together, China will not do anything against it.


I aggree that China wants to meep the country afloat and avoid refugees, but a nuclear NK would almost inevitably lead to this! As NK proceeds with its nuclear development, it will face more more and sanctions for doing so. This is evident in the UN sanctions recently placed upon it. Sanctions which China voted for. A nuclear NK is NOT beneficial to China, and China clearly does not want a nuclear China!

My point is that it is highly unlikely that Japan will jump on the bandwagon and attack China in a hypothetical war over Korea, given that they already have another serious problem broiling on their hands, which needs no more inflammation.


May be not. But Japanese involvement in a Korean conflict, whether indirectly or not, is inevitible given the close proximity of Japan to the peninsula. In the Korean War, Japan served as a launching platform for US forces, and such support at the very least will be expected.

As for the islands, Japan considers it soverign Japanese soil. Any action on the islands by China will be seen as an invasion, and would justify their use of force in compliance with Article 9. This is also why I brought up the US' nuclear umbrella, because an attack on Japan is equivalent to an attack on the US.

Zhu Chenghu was a rogue hawk, he was transferred to a second line appointment pretty fast after he mentioned that. In 1995, General Xiong was widely, and incorrectly quoted as threatening to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles. The person to whom he was alleged to have said this, Chas Freeman, denies it.

In 2005, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a white paper stating that the government would not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. In addition, the paper went on to state that this "no first use" policy would remain unchanged in the future and that China would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.

I revise my earlier statement to say that Chenghu allegedly threatened to blow up LA.

The "White Paper" I found was 2011, but thats immaterial really. Sure, but it never denies first use against a nuclear weapons capable state. Spoken policy isn't operational policy, and shouldn't be given equal weights. If China truly maintains an NFU policy, why then are they in the process of modernizing their nuclear arsenal? If actions speak louder than words, this speaks volumns.
redfan45
offline
redfan45
197 posts
Peasant

The thing is, the US will never do anything but have the UN give them sanctions. And obviously NK does not care about their peoples starving so what good does it do.
And I feel like one day this nation will need to be dealt with, if not now. Then later when it's worse.
But with these war-games the US and SK are doing as of today, who knows what might happen if it bothers the fat prince too much.
Guess we will see soon enough, most likely nothing though.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

The thing is, the US will never do anything but have the UN give them sanctions.

NK sees the usa and sk as their main enemies.
why would we in europe bother whit it? they are not aiming for us (yet).
and how much will NK care about a UN sanction? my guess is absolutely nothing. xD

who knows what might happen if it bothers the fat prince too much.

like he is the only 1 whit power....
he has most likely less power then his advisers.
read a little about the man befor jumping to conclusions plz.

Guess we will see soon enough, most likely nothing though.

you got that right.
redfan45
offline
redfan45
197 posts
Peasant

So far the USA's response is giving "even more stronger sanctions" as they are "worried".

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

i just wonder how they want to sanction nk effectively.
if there is a way, why hasn't it done already?

redfan45
offline
redfan45
197 posts
Peasant

There doesn't seem to be a way, when the UN sanctions NK it normally just means more North Koreans starving and losing their job, and not the leaders but the civilians. And their government doesn't care about them much anyway, so it's apparent that if NK gladly starves them, then the UN starving them wont really do anything.
Sooner or later they will need to be dealt with, and South Korea knows that and is getting ready for that, as for the US I don't know. I think a lot of US military generals know this, but Washington is full of cowardly politicians.
Not that engaging in war is always the "brave" thing to do, but sometimes you need more than sanctions. As this is evidently showing the world that.
South Korea says the moment North Korea does something, for once they will do something back and it will be 10x worse and I believe that. A lot has changed since 1952. South Korea is a modern well supported nation with a modern military.
Well they at least have modern camo unlike north Korea lol.

P0rchm0nkey
offline
P0rchm0nkey
5 posts
Peasant

Good, bring it on I say

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

Not that engaging in war is always the "brave" thing to do, but sometimes you need more than sanctions.

does it? can't the usa just back of for once? (not talking about specific one (yet))
StormWalker
offline
StormWalker
8,286 posts
Scribe

I don't have anything great and enlightening to say about this, seeing as I have almost no knowledge of the world outside America, but 1) I hope they don't, and 2) If they do I swear I'm moving to Taiwan, somehow.
I know there's hostility between the US and NK, and I read a book called 'Edge of Apocalypse' which is, basically, NK sending a nuke to the US, the US deflecting it with some sort of new technology, and then a bunch of political stuff, as well as war, and basically all of the US's enemies commence attack. [There's also a bunch of religious stuff mixed in but I refuse to start a religion argument in here.] But that was in the maybe-soon-to-be-now future, and if they nuke us now, then we wil not be able to send it back and we probaqbly will have some sort of war, maybe WWIII if China or Russia or whoever else out there joins in and US pulls its allies and crap hits the fan, to use some weird cliche thing I heard once.

Showing 16-30 of 164