North Korea Threatens Nuclear Attack
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
The portion of the oath you bolded is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand which is that I volunteered to defend my Homeland and the Constitution only, not South Korea. Nowhere in my oath does it state that I shall be the defender of the World against tyranny. The portion you quoted just shows how much the Government is taking advantage of their power, it does not show that I was ignorant to the details of my enlistment. Asking for us to obey all those appointed above us is a fair thing to ask and something I completely agree with. But with that said those appointed above us have to use that power according to the Constitution or else fear the wrath of the populace (defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic). Unfortunately, everyone is too brainwashed and therefore the Powers that Be have nothing to worry about in regards to a coup. Why do you think the ground forces have such a hard time retaining the currently enlisted in addition to recruiting new members even in these difficult economic times? It's because the Military is not fighting to protect the Homeland, it's fighting to protect the interests of the few. If the the people were thoroughly educated there would have been a coup already guaranteed.
The portion of the oath you bolded is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand which is that I volunteered to defend my Homeland and the Constitution only, not South Korea. Nowhere in my oath does it state that I shall be the defender of the World against tyranny. The portion you quoted just shows how much the Government is taking advantage of their power, it does not show that I was ignorant to the details of my enlistment. Asking for us to obey all those appointed above us is a fair thing to ask and something I completely agree with. But with that said those appointed above us have to use that power according to the Constitution or else fear the wrath of the populace (defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic). Unfortunately, everyone is too brainwashed and therefore the Powers that Be have nothing to worry about in regards to a coup. Why do you think the ground forces have such a hard time retaining the currently enlisted in addition to recruiting new members even in these difficult economic times? It's because the Military is not fighting to protect the Homeland, it's fighting to protect the interests of the few. If the the people were thoroughly educated there would have been a coup already guaranteed.
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
I served in the Army for 8 years. Once you sign the paper, you're fucked. Period. No way around it other than to go AWOL. You can claim to be a pacifist and go through your chain but be prepared to be harrassed, ridiculed, and embarrassed the entire time with no guarantee of success. There is an all volunteer GI hotline to try to get out if you want but my experience with them has been that its more of "help" line than real help.
QueEx, the arguement of blaming soldiers for not reading the fine print is unfair because you simply are not ALLOWED to read the fine print. You are thrown tons of paperwork to sign like when you buy a house and the rules of what you can and can't do regarding leaving the military, especially now, are shrouded in lies and propoganda sent from the top. They routinely tell soldiers that they aren't allowed to ETS or go into the inactive reserve (IRR) and outright lie to them about how to get separated. Your commander has to approve your separation, even if its in your contract. It's "volunteer" only in the sense that you are convinced sign up under false pretenses and they intentionally go after kids too young to drink because they know they're naive.
I served in the Army for 8 years. Once you sign the paper, you're fucked. Period. No way around it other than to go AWOL. You can claim to be a pacifist and go through your chain but be prepared to be harrassed, ridiculed, and embarrassed the entire time with no guarantee of success. There is an all volunteer GI hotline to try to get out if you want but my experience with them has been that its more of "help" line than real help.
QueEx, the arguement of blaming soldiers for not reading the fine print is unfair because you simply are not ALLOWED to read the fine print. You are thrown tons of paperwork to sign like when you buy a house and the rules of what you can and can't do regarding leaving the military, especially now, are shrouded in lies and propoganda sent from the top. They routinely tell soldiers that they aren't allowed to ETS or go into the inactive reserve (IRR) and outright lie to them about how to get separated. Your commander has to approve your separation, even if its in your contract. It's "volunteer" only in the sense that you are convinced sign up under false pretenses and they intentionally go after kids too young to drink because they know they're naive.
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
I'm not going to back out, I'm going to honor my contract. I just don't like how the Government is using the Military for uses other than homeland defense.
I knew what I was getting into when I signed up but like you said many others have no idea and as a result they get played by the system. My boy did 4 Tours in Iraq in the Marines due to a Stop Loss and he hasn't been the same since.
I'm not going to back out, I'm going to honor my contract. I just don't like how the Government is using the Military for uses other than homeland defense.
I knew what I was getting into when I signed up but like you said many others have no idea and as a result they get played by the system. My boy did 4 Tours in Iraq in the Marines due to a Stop Loss and he hasn't been the same since.
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
Powerful words! Like I said, I'm not in the military but civilians need to see this for what it really is. This whole venture in Iraq is about controlling the resources of the world. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are more contractors over there than troops. BIG $$$ is being made. Our troops are making the ultimate sacrifice while KBR, Raytheon, Northrup Grundman etc. are profiting, in a major way. The Banksters & the military-industrial complex have hijacked our foreign policy.
Point 2, as far as obeying the Pres, If a Pres gives "unconstitutional" orders, there will be big problems. In my eyes, the war in Iraq is unconstitutional because there was no formal declaration of War from Congress. Bush got us on that one but this Policy of Pre-emptive strikes is Un-American and needs to be rejected!
Powerful words! Like I said, I'm not in the military but civilians need to see this for what it really is. This whole venture in Iraq is about controlling the resources of the world. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are more contractors over there than troops. BIG $$$ is being made. Our troops are making the ultimate sacrifice while KBR, Raytheon, Northrup Grundman etc. are profiting, in a major way. The Banksters & the military-industrial complex have hijacked our foreign policy.
Point 2, as far as obeying the Pres, If a Pres gives "unconstitutional" orders, there will be big problems. In my eyes, the war in Iraq is unconstitutional because there was no formal declaration of War from Congress. Bush got us on that one but this Policy of Pre-emptive strikes is Un-American and needs to be rejected!
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
Through the oath you affirm that you will obey those laws and the dictates of those charged by law with directing your efforts. For example, the oath is an affirmation that you will remain loyal to the First General Order, that is:
"To walk your beat; beat your meat; and fuck everything within 15 feet"
OOpps . . . I meant:
"Walk your post in a military manner and observe everything within sight or hearing, Sir."
If you don't understand, theres just no other conclusion that one can draw.
One of the reasons a democrat is in the White House today is because the people overthrew the policies of the sitting party -- through a controlled coup, also known as an election.
BTW, ground forces ALWAYS become hard to come by during war times (low recruiting numbers has nothing to do with the perception of fighting for the homeland; recruits get hard to come by because, ordinarily, people just don't up and volunteer to die, in the same large numbers they do for a paycheck). The present war has demonstrated, however, that to a large degree, the country can rely upon a voluntary force. In the past, there was a draft.
QueEx
No Bruh. If you really believe that; then I really believe that you don't understand your obligation.
The oath does not define your obligation. Its an affirmation of your loyalty. Your obligation is defined, in part, by your contract, and in part by the laws of the United States of America which through the Constitution gives the right to Congress to declare war and to the President to determine, in a limited way, when and where the armed forces will put down in harms way.
Through the oath you affirm that you will obey those laws and the dictates of those charged by law with directing your efforts. For example, the oath is an affirmation that you will remain loyal to the First General Order, that is:
"To walk your beat; beat your meat; and fuck everything within 15 feet"
OOpps . . . I meant:
"Walk your post in a military manner and observe everything within sight or hearing, Sir."
If you don't understand, theres just no other conclusion that one can draw.
Then what are you arguing about ???
Bruh. We have coup's -- they're called elections.
One of the reasons a democrat is in the White House today is because the people overthrew the policies of the sitting party -- through a controlled coup, also known as an election.
BTW, ground forces ALWAYS become hard to come by during war times (low recruiting numbers has nothing to do with the perception of fighting for the homeland; recruits get hard to come by because, ordinarily, people just don't up and volunteer to die, in the same large numbers they do for a paycheck). The present war has demonstrated, however, that to a large degree, the country can rely upon a voluntary force. In the past, there was a draft.
QueEx
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
Now, I've summized from reading your comments that you're a dove; so be it. But, didn't the Congress pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which authorized the Iraq War ???
Now you may disagree with whether the resolution was the right thing to do; and/or whether Congress was misled into the authorization. I have problems with it myself, but Congress authorized the war.
QueEx
Now, I've summized from reading your comments that you're a dove; so be it. But, didn't the Congress pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which authorized the Iraq War ???
Now you may disagree with whether the resolution was the right thing to do; and/or whether Congress was misled into the authorization. I have problems with it myself, but Congress authorized the war.
QueEx
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
I stand by my words, An Authorization for Military Use is not the same as a Declaration of War. I understand the argument but we must agree to disagree.
I stand by my words, An Authorization for Military Use is not the same as a Declaration of War. I understand the argument but we must agree to disagree.
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
LOL; if you insist upon wearing thermal underwear and an overcoat in 105 degree weather.
QueEx
LOL; if you insist upon wearing thermal underwear and an overcoat in 105 degree weather.
QueEx
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
Not funny at all, We rely on our officials in DC to act on principle. What you saw in 2002 was a spineless "Authorization" by Congress, transferring war powers to Bush, which ultimately undermined our system of checks and balances. First and foremost, its a war of aggression, those people have done nothing to us. Its immoral, look at all the people who are affected by the actions of a few. Third, the US is going further into debt, we can't maintain an empire around the world - not Constitutional, at all!
The new administration has an oppurtunity to reverse these actions but I'm not very hopeful.
Not funny at all, We rely on our officials in DC to act on principle. What you saw in 2002 was a spineless "Authorization" by Congress, transferring war powers to Bush, which ultimately undermined our system of checks and balances. First and foremost, its a war of aggression, those people have done nothing to us. Its immoral, look at all the people who are affected by the actions of a few. Third, the US is going further into debt, we can't maintain an empire around the world - not Constitutional, at all!
The new administration has an oppurtunity to reverse these actions but I'm not very hopeful.
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
The rest, of what you're saying, is superflous and irrelevant.
QueEx
Blah, Blah, FuckingBlah. I don't agree with it (particularly because of the evidence used to justify it); but its just fucking stupid and otherwise ignorant to argue that Congress didn't approve it.
The rest, of what you're saying, is superflous and irrelevant.
QueEx
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
Its laughable to think N. Korea is a threat to the US, all their missiles just flop into the sea but here we go!
Unilaterally imposing UN Sanctions
U.S. to enforce U.N. sanctions on DPRK: Biden
www.chinaview.cn 2009-06-14 22:21:29
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said the United States would enforce sanctions set in the 1874 UN Security Council Resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), NBC networks reported on Sunday.
The United States will enforce the resolution, said Biden in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," adding "It is important that we make sure those sanctions stick and those sanctions prohibit them from exporting or importing weapons."
The resolution, which was unanimously approved by the 15-memberbody, condemns Pyongyang's recent nuclear and missile tests and includes provisions for inspecting cargo coming out of the DPRK, a total ban on weapons exports from the country and stronger financial sanctions.
The vice president dismissed the latest threat by the DPRK, adding that keeping the pressure on Pyongyang is necessary for the Northeast Asia' security and stability.
"We can't guess (the DPRK leader Kim Jong Il's) motivations; we just have to deal with the reality that a North Korea that is either proliferating weapons and or missiles, or a North Korea that is using those weapons," said Biden.
Responding to the UN resolution, Pyongyang vowed to start enriching uranium to make more nuclear weapons, and to "weaponize" all the plutonium it could extract from used fuel rods at the Yongbyon nuclear plant.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice on Friday, just after the UN Security Council approved the resolution, warned that it would not be a surprise if Pyongyang reacted to the resolution with further provocative actions "based on past experience and a pattern that North Korea has of reckless and dangerous actions."
As to the threat, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that the United States would "do all we can to prevent continued proliferation by the North Koreans."
"The North Koreans' continuing provocative actions are deeply regrettable," said the top U.S. diplomat, adding "They have now been denounced by everyone. They have become further isolated."
On May 25, the DPRK announced it has "successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test," which Pyongyang said has demonstrated "self-defensive nuclear deterrent." Following the test, it also fired some short-range missiles.
Reports here quoted intelligence officials as saying that the DPRK has moved a long-range ballistic missile, which could be a version of the Taepodong-2, to a west coast launch site in preparation for a possible test launch within days.
Its laughable to think N. Korea is a threat to the US, all their missiles just flop into the sea but here we go!
Unilaterally imposing UN Sanctions
U.S. to enforce U.N. sanctions on DPRK: Biden
www.chinaview.cn 2009-06-14 22:21:29
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said the United States would enforce sanctions set in the 1874 UN Security Council Resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), NBC networks reported on Sunday.
The United States will enforce the resolution, said Biden in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," adding "It is important that we make sure those sanctions stick and those sanctions prohibit them from exporting or importing weapons."
The resolution, which was unanimously approved by the 15-memberbody, condemns Pyongyang's recent nuclear and missile tests and includes provisions for inspecting cargo coming out of the DPRK, a total ban on weapons exports from the country and stronger financial sanctions.
The vice president dismissed the latest threat by the DPRK, adding that keeping the pressure on Pyongyang is necessary for the Northeast Asia' security and stability.
"We can't guess (the DPRK leader Kim Jong Il's) motivations; we just have to deal with the reality that a North Korea that is either proliferating weapons and or missiles, or a North Korea that is using those weapons," said Biden.
Responding to the UN resolution, Pyongyang vowed to start enriching uranium to make more nuclear weapons, and to "weaponize" all the plutonium it could extract from used fuel rods at the Yongbyon nuclear plant.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice on Friday, just after the UN Security Council approved the resolution, warned that it would not be a surprise if Pyongyang reacted to the resolution with further provocative actions "based on past experience and a pattern that North Korea has of reckless and dangerous actions."
As to the threat, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that the United States would "do all we can to prevent continued proliferation by the North Koreans."
"The North Koreans' continuing provocative actions are deeply regrettable," said the top U.S. diplomat, adding "They have now been denounced by everyone. They have become further isolated."
On May 25, the DPRK announced it has "successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test," which Pyongyang said has demonstrated "self-defensive nuclear deterrent." Following the test, it also fired some short-range missiles.
Reports here quoted intelligence officials as saying that the DPRK has moved a long-range ballistic missile, which could be a version of the Taepodong-2, to a west coast launch site in preparation for a possible test launch within days.
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
Here we go is right.
Just read the resolution and it's pretty much boiler plate stuff. Can't see how it's going to stop N. Korea from continuing it's weapons program.It appear's to me that their program is self sufficient and not in need of outside assistance at this point. the resoluution doesn't have any teeth concerning vessels on the high seas that are flying flags other than N. korean but is "suspected" of carrying contraband.
Link to press release and Resolution. It's alot so I skipped the press release and only posting the resolution.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/sc9679.doc.htm
......The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m. and adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met today to take action on a draft resolution (document S/2009/301), sponsored by France, Japan, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom and the United States, which reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 825 (1993), resolution 1540 (2004), resolution 1695 (2006), and, in particular, resolution 1718 (2006), as well as the statements of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41) and 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7),
“Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
“Expressing the gravest concern at the nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“the DPRK”) on 25 May 2009 (local time) in violation of resolution 1718 (2006), and at the challenge such a test constitutes to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (“the NPT”) and to international efforts aimed at strengthening the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons towards the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and the danger it poses to peace and stability in the region and beyond,
“Stressing its collective support for the NPT and commitment to strengthen the Treaty in all its aspects, and global efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, and recalling that the DPRK cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon State in accordance with the NPT in any case,
“Deploring the DPRK’s announcement of withdrawal from the NPT and its pursuit of nuclear weapons,
“Underlining once again the importance that the DPRK respond to other security and humanitarian concerns of the international community,
“Underlining also that measures imposed by this resolution are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of the DPRK,
“Expressing its gravest concern that the nuclear test and missile activities carried out by the DPRK have further generated increased tension in the region and beyond, and determining that there continues to exist a clear threat to international peace and security,
“Reaffirming the importance that all Member States uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking measures under its Article 41,
“1. Condemns in the strongest terms the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK on 25 May 2009 (local time) in violation and flagrant disregard of its relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 1695 (2006) and 1718 (2006), and the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7);
“2. Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology;
“3. Decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launches;
“4. Demands that the DPRK immediately comply fully with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1718 (2006);
“5. Demands that the DPRK immediately retract its announcement of withdrawal from the NPT;
“6. Demands further that the DPRK return at an early date to the NPT and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, bearing in mind the rights and obligations of States Parties to the NPT, and underlines the need for all States Parties to the NPT to continue to comply with their Treaty obligations;
“7. Calls upon all Member States to implement their obligations pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), including with respect to designations made by the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) (“the Committee”) pursuant to the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7);
“8. Decides that the DPRK shall abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and immediately cease all related activities, shall act strictly in accordance with the obligations applicable to parties under the NPT and the terms and conditions of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement (IAEA INFCIRC/403) and shall provide the IAEA transparency measures extending beyond these requirements, including such access to individuals, documentation, equipment and facilities as may be required and deemed necessary by the IAEA;
“9. Decides that the measures in paragraph 8(b) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to all arms and related materiel, as well as to financial transactions, technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms or materiel;
“10. Decides that the measures in paragraph 8(a) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to all arms and related materiel, as well as to financial transactions, technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms, except for small arms and light weapons and their related materiel, and calls upon States to exercise vigilance over the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of small arms or light weapons, and further decides that States shall notify the Committee at least five days prior to selling, supplying or transferring small arms or light weapons to the DPRK;
“11. Calls upon all States to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, all cargo to and from the DPRK, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;
“12. Calls upon all Member States to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State, on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;
“13. Calls upon all States to cooperate with inspections pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12, and, if the flag State does not consent to inspection on the high seas, decides that the flag State shall direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities pursuant to paragraph 11;
“14. Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, seize and dispose of items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution that are identified in inspections pursuant to paragraph 11, 12, or 13 in a manner that is not inconsistent with their obligations under applicable Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1540 (2004), as well as any obligations of parties to the NPT, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of 29 April 1997, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction of 10 April 1972, and decides further that all States shall cooperate in such efforts;
“15. Requires any Member State, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 11, 12, or 13, or seizes and disposes of cargo pursuant to paragraph 14, to submit promptly reports containing relevant details to the Committee on the inspection, seizure and disposal;
“16. Requires any Member State, when it does not receive the cooperation of a flag State pursuant to paragraph 12 or 13 to submit promptly to the Committee a report containing relevant details;
“17. Decides that Member States shall prohibit the provision by their nationals or from their territory of bunkering services, such as provision of fuel or supplies, or other servicing of vessels, to DPRK vessels if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe they are carrying items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, unless provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian purposes or until such time as the cargo has been inspected, and seized and disposed of if necessary, and underlines that this paragraph is not intended to affect legal economic activities;
“18. Calls upon Member States, in addition to implementing their obligations pursuant to paragraphs 8 (d) and (e) of resolution 1718 (2006), to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer to, through, or from their territory, or to or by their nationals or entities organized under their laws (including branches abroad), or persons or financial institutions in their territory, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities, including by freezing any financial or other assets or resources on their territories or that hereafter come within their territories, or that are subject to their jurisdiction or that hereafter become subject to their jurisdiction, that are associated with such programmes or activities and applying enhanced monitoring to prevent all such transactions in accordance with their national authorities and legislation;
“19. Calls upon all Member States and international financial and credit institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans to the DPRK, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes directly addressing the needs of the civilian population, or the promotion of denuclearization, and also calls upon States to exercise enhanced vigilance with a view to reducing current commitments;
“20. Calls upon all Member States not to provide public financial support for trade with the DPRK (including the granting of export credits, guarantees or insurance to their nationals or entities involved in such trade) where such financial support could contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear-related or ballistic missile-related or other WMD-related programmes or activities;
“21. Emphasizes that all Member States should comply with the provisions of paragraphs 8(a)(iii) and 8(d) of resolution 1718 (2006) without prejudice to the activities of the diplomatic missions in the DPRK pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations;
“22. Calls upon all Member States to report to the Security Council within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution and thereafter upon request by the Committee on concrete measures they have taken in order to implement effectively the provisions of paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006), as well as paragraphs 9 and 10 of this resolution, as well as financial measures set out in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of this resolution;
“23. Decides that the measures set out at paragraphs 8 (a), 8 (b) and 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to the items listed in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1a and INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2a;
“24. Decides to adjust the measures imposed by paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution, including through the designation of entities, goods, and individuals, and directs the Committee to undertake its tasks to this effect and to report to the Security Council within 30 days of adoption of this resolution, and further decides that, if the Committee has not acted, then the Security Council will complete action to adjust the measures within seven days of receiving that report;
“25. Decides that the Committee shall intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation of resolution 1718 (2006), the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7) and this resolution, through a work programme covering compliance, investigations, outreach, dialogue, assistance and cooperation, to be submitted to the Council by 15 July 2009, and that it shall also receive and consider reports from Member States pursuant to paragraphs 10, 15, 16 and 22 of this resolution;
“26. Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to seven experts (“Panel of Experts”), acting under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks: (a) assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in resolution 1718 (2006) and the functions specified in paragraph 25 of this resolution; (b) gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures imposed in resolution 1718 (2006) and in this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance; (c) make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or Member States, may consider to improve implementation of the measures imposed in resolution 1718 (2006) and in this resolution; and (d) provide an interim report on its work to the Council no later than 90 days after adoption of this resolution, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;
“27. Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures imposed by resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution;
“28. Calls upon all Member States to exercise vigilance and prevent specialized teaching or training of DPRK nationals within their territories or by their nationals, of disciplines which could contribute to the DPRK’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“29. Calls upon the DPRK to join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty at the earliest date;
“30. Supports peaceful dialogue, calls upon the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks without precondition, and urges all the participants to intensify their efforts on the full and expeditious implementation of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 and the joint documents of 13 February 2007 and 3 October 2007, by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States, with a view to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in North-East Asia;
“31. Expresses its commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to the situation and welcomes efforts by Council members as well as other Member States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue and to refrain from any actions that might aggravate tensions;
“32. Affirms that it shall keep the DPRK’s actions under continuous review and that it shall be prepared to review the appropriateness of the measures contained in paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006) and relevant paragraphs of this resolution, including the strengthening, modification, suspension or lifting of the measures, as may be needed at that time in light of the DPRK’s compliance with relevant provisions of resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution;
“33. Underlines that further decisions will be required, should additional measures be necessary;
“34. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”
Action on Draft
The draft resolution (document SC/2009/301) was adopted unanimously by the Security Council, as resolution 1874 (2009).......
Here we go is right.
Just read the resolution and it's pretty much boiler plate stuff. Can't see how it's going to stop N. Korea from continuing it's weapons program.It appear's to me that their program is self sufficient and not in need of outside assistance at this point. the resoluution doesn't have any teeth concerning vessels on the high seas that are flying flags other than N. korean but is "suspected" of carrying contraband.
Link to press release and Resolution. It's alot so I skipped the press release and only posting the resolution.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/sc9679.doc.htm
......The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m. and adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met today to take action on a draft resolution (document S/2009/301), sponsored by France, Japan, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom and the United States, which reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 825 (1993), resolution 1540 (2004), resolution 1695 (2006), and, in particular, resolution 1718 (2006), as well as the statements of its President of 6 October 2006 (S/PRST/2006/41) and 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7),
“Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
“Expressing the gravest concern at the nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“the DPRK”) on 25 May 2009 (local time) in violation of resolution 1718 (2006), and at the challenge such a test constitutes to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (“the NPT”) and to international efforts aimed at strengthening the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons towards the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and the danger it poses to peace and stability in the region and beyond,
“Stressing its collective support for the NPT and commitment to strengthen the Treaty in all its aspects, and global efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, and recalling that the DPRK cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon State in accordance with the NPT in any case,
“Deploring the DPRK’s announcement of withdrawal from the NPT and its pursuit of nuclear weapons,
“Underlining once again the importance that the DPRK respond to other security and humanitarian concerns of the international community,
“Underlining also that measures imposed by this resolution are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of the DPRK,
“Expressing its gravest concern that the nuclear test and missile activities carried out by the DPRK have further generated increased tension in the region and beyond, and determining that there continues to exist a clear threat to international peace and security,
“Reaffirming the importance that all Member States uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking measures under its Article 41,
“1. Condemns in the strongest terms the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK on 25 May 2009 (local time) in violation and flagrant disregard of its relevant resolutions, in particular resolutions 1695 (2006) and 1718 (2006), and the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7);
“2. Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology;
“3. Decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launches;
“4. Demands that the DPRK immediately comply fully with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1718 (2006);
“5. Demands that the DPRK immediately retract its announcement of withdrawal from the NPT;
“6. Demands further that the DPRK return at an early date to the NPT and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, bearing in mind the rights and obligations of States Parties to the NPT, and underlines the need for all States Parties to the NPT to continue to comply with their Treaty obligations;
“7. Calls upon all Member States to implement their obligations pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), including with respect to designations made by the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) (“the Committee”) pursuant to the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7);
“8. Decides that the DPRK shall abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and immediately cease all related activities, shall act strictly in accordance with the obligations applicable to parties under the NPT and the terms and conditions of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement (IAEA INFCIRC/403) and shall provide the IAEA transparency measures extending beyond these requirements, including such access to individuals, documentation, equipment and facilities as may be required and deemed necessary by the IAEA;
“9. Decides that the measures in paragraph 8(b) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to all arms and related materiel, as well as to financial transactions, technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms or materiel;
“10. Decides that the measures in paragraph 8(a) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to all arms and related materiel, as well as to financial transactions, technical training, advice, services or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms, except for small arms and light weapons and their related materiel, and calls upon States to exercise vigilance over the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of small arms or light weapons, and further decides that States shall notify the Committee at least five days prior to selling, supplying or transferring small arms or light weapons to the DPRK;
“11. Calls upon all States to inspect, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, all cargo to and from the DPRK, in their territory, including seaports and airports, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;
“12. Calls upon all Member States to inspect vessels, with the consent of the flag State, on the high seas, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo of such vessels contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;
“13. Calls upon all States to cooperate with inspections pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12, and, if the flag State does not consent to inspection on the high seas, decides that the flag State shall direct the vessel to proceed to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities pursuant to paragraph 11;
“14. Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, seize and dispose of items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution that are identified in inspections pursuant to paragraph 11, 12, or 13 in a manner that is not inconsistent with their obligations under applicable Security Council resolutions, including resolution 1540 (2004), as well as any obligations of parties to the NPT, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of 29 April 1997, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction of 10 April 1972, and decides further that all States shall cooperate in such efforts;
“15. Requires any Member State, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 11, 12, or 13, or seizes and disposes of cargo pursuant to paragraph 14, to submit promptly reports containing relevant details to the Committee on the inspection, seizure and disposal;
“16. Requires any Member State, when it does not receive the cooperation of a flag State pursuant to paragraph 12 or 13 to submit promptly to the Committee a report containing relevant details;
“17. Decides that Member States shall prohibit the provision by their nationals or from their territory of bunkering services, such as provision of fuel or supplies, or other servicing of vessels, to DPRK vessels if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe they are carrying items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraph 8 (a), 8 (b), or 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) or by paragraph 9 or 10 of this resolution, unless provision of such services is necessary for humanitarian purposes or until such time as the cargo has been inspected, and seized and disposed of if necessary, and underlines that this paragraph is not intended to affect legal economic activities;
“18. Calls upon Member States, in addition to implementing their obligations pursuant to paragraphs 8 (d) and (e) of resolution 1718 (2006), to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer to, through, or from their territory, or to or by their nationals or entities organized under their laws (including branches abroad), or persons or financial institutions in their territory, of any financial or other assets or resources that could contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes or activities, including by freezing any financial or other assets or resources on their territories or that hereafter come within their territories, or that are subject to their jurisdiction or that hereafter become subject to their jurisdiction, that are associated with such programmes or activities and applying enhanced monitoring to prevent all such transactions in accordance with their national authorities and legislation;
“19. Calls upon all Member States and international financial and credit institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans to the DPRK, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes directly addressing the needs of the civilian population, or the promotion of denuclearization, and also calls upon States to exercise enhanced vigilance with a view to reducing current commitments;
“20. Calls upon all Member States not to provide public financial support for trade with the DPRK (including the granting of export credits, guarantees or insurance to their nationals or entities involved in such trade) where such financial support could contribute to the DPRK’s nuclear-related or ballistic missile-related or other WMD-related programmes or activities;
“21. Emphasizes that all Member States should comply with the provisions of paragraphs 8(a)(iii) and 8(d) of resolution 1718 (2006) without prejudice to the activities of the diplomatic missions in the DPRK pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations;
“22. Calls upon all Member States to report to the Security Council within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution and thereafter upon request by the Committee on concrete measures they have taken in order to implement effectively the provisions of paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006), as well as paragraphs 9 and 10 of this resolution, as well as financial measures set out in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of this resolution;
“23. Decides that the measures set out at paragraphs 8 (a), 8 (b) and 8 (c) of resolution 1718 (2006) shall also apply to the items listed in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1a and INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2a;
“24. Decides to adjust the measures imposed by paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution, including through the designation of entities, goods, and individuals, and directs the Committee to undertake its tasks to this effect and to report to the Security Council within 30 days of adoption of this resolution, and further decides that, if the Committee has not acted, then the Security Council will complete action to adjust the measures within seven days of receiving that report;
“25. Decides that the Committee shall intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation of resolution 1718 (2006), the statement of its President of 13 April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/7) and this resolution, through a work programme covering compliance, investigations, outreach, dialogue, assistance and cooperation, to be submitted to the Council by 15 July 2009, and that it shall also receive and consider reports from Member States pursuant to paragraphs 10, 15, 16 and 22 of this resolution;
“26. Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to seven experts (“Panel of Experts”), acting under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks: (a) assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in resolution 1718 (2006) and the functions specified in paragraph 25 of this resolution; (b) gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures imposed in resolution 1718 (2006) and in this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance; (c) make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or Member States, may consider to improve implementation of the measures imposed in resolution 1718 (2006) and in this resolution; and (d) provide an interim report on its work to the Council no later than 90 days after adoption of this resolution, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;
“27. Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures imposed by resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution;
“28. Calls upon all Member States to exercise vigilance and prevent specialized teaching or training of DPRK nationals within their territories or by their nationals, of disciplines which could contribute to the DPRK’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“29. Calls upon the DPRK to join the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty at the earliest date;
“30. Supports peaceful dialogue, calls upon the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks without precondition, and urges all the participants to intensify their efforts on the full and expeditious implementation of the Joint Statement issued on 19 September 2005 and the joint documents of 13 February 2007 and 3 October 2007, by China, the DPRK, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States, with a view to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in North-East Asia;
“31. Expresses its commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to the situation and welcomes efforts by Council members as well as other Member States to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue and to refrain from any actions that might aggravate tensions;
“32. Affirms that it shall keep the DPRK’s actions under continuous review and that it shall be prepared to review the appropriateness of the measures contained in paragraph 8 of resolution 1718 (2006) and relevant paragraphs of this resolution, including the strengthening, modification, suspension or lifting of the measures, as may be needed at that time in light of the DPRK’s compliance with relevant provisions of resolution 1718 (2006) and this resolution;
“33. Underlines that further decisions will be required, should additional measures be necessary;
“34. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”
Action on Draft
The draft resolution (document SC/2009/301) was adopted unanimously by the Security Council, as resolution 1874 (2009).......
Last edited:
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
they wont..theyre to busy working the hell out of their peasants, exporting goods and continuing to keep jobs from the American people.
......Props to our government for continuing to sell us out!
But .....one of Obama puppet masters aka Hillary wil do something about it. Didnt yall hear what she said about NK way before Obama got into office? She will deal with it. And Obama, being the puppet ----- that he is, wil just fall in line and cosign it. Just wait and see.
they wont..theyre to busy working the hell out of their peasants, exporting goods and continuing to keep jobs from the American people.
......Props to our government for continuing to sell us out!
But .....one of Obama puppet masters aka Hillary wil do something about it. Didnt yall hear what she said about NK way before Obama got into office? She will deal with it. And Obama, being the puppet ----- that he is, wil just fall in line and cosign it. Just wait and see.
Last edited by a moderator:
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea may fire a long-range ballistic missile toward Hawaii in early July, a Japanese news report said Thursday, as Russia and China urged the regime to return to international disarmament talks on its rogue nuclear program.
The missile, believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers), would be launched from North Korea's Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast, said the Yomiuri daily, Japan's top-selling newspaper. It cited an analysis by the Japanese Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites.
The missile launch could come between July 4 and 8, the paper said.
While the newspaper speculated the Taepodong-2 could fly over Japan and toward Hawaii, it said the missile would not be able to hit Hawaii's main islands, which are about 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometers) from the Korean peninsula.
A spokesman for the Japanese Defense Ministry declined to comment on the report. South Korea's Defense Ministry and the National Intelligence Service — the country's main spy agency — said they could not confirm it.
Tension on the divided Korean peninsula has spiked since the North conducted its second nuclear test on May 25 in defiance of repeated international warnings. The regime declared Saturday it would bolster its nuclear programs and threatened war in protest of U.N. sanctions taken for the nuclear test.
U.S. officials have said the North has been preparing to fire a long-range missile capable of striking the western U.S. In Washington on Tuesday, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would take at least three to five years for North Korea to pose a real threat to the U.S. west coast.
President Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak met in Washington on Tuesday for a landmark summit in which they agreed to build a regional and global "strategic alliance" to persuade North Korea to dismantle all its nuclear weapons. Obama declared North Korea a "grave threat" to the world and pledged that the new U.N. sanctions on the communist regime will be aggressively enforced.
In Seoul, Vice Unification Minister Hong Yang-ho told a forum Thursday that the North's moves to strengthen its nuclear programs is "a very dangerous thing that can fundamentally change" the regional security environment. He said the South Korean government is bracing for "all possible scenarios" regarding the nuclear standoff.
The independent International Crisis Group think tank, meanwhile, said the North's massive stockpile of chemical weapons is no less serious a threat to the region than its nuclear arsenal.
It said the North is believed to have between 2,500 and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, phosgene, blood agents and sarin. These weapons can be delivered with ballistic missiles and long-range artillery and are "sufficient to inflict massive civilian casualties on South Korea."
"If progress is made on rolling back Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, there could be opportunities to construct a cooperative diplomatic solution for chemical weapons and the suspected biological weapons program," the think tank said in a report released Thursday.
It also called on the U.S. to engage the North in dialogue to defuse the nuclear crisis, saying "diplomacy is the least bad option." The think tank said Washington should be prepared to send a high-level special envoy to Pyongyang to resolve the tension.
In a rare move, leaders of Russia and China used their meetings in Moscow on Wednesday to pressure the North to return to the nuclear talks and expressed "serious concerns" about tension on the Korean peninsula.
The joint appeal appeared to be a signal that Moscow and Beijing are growing impatient with Pyongyang's stubbornness. Northeastern China and Russia's Far East both border North Korea, and Pyongyang's unpredictable actions have raised concern in both countries.
After meetings at the Kremlin, Chinese President Hu Jintao joined Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in urging a peaceful resolution of the Korean standoff and the "swiftest renewal" of the now-frozen talks involving their countries as well as North and South Korea, Japan and the United States.
"Russia and China are ready to foster the lowering of tension in Northeast Asia and call for the continuation of efforts by all sides to resolve disagreements through peaceful means, through dialogue and consultations," their statement said.
The comments — contained in a lengthy statement that discussed other global issues — included no new initiatives, but it appeared to be carefully worded to avoid provoking Pyongyang. In remarks after their meetings, Medvedev made only a brief reference to North Korea, and Hu did not mention it.
South Korea's Lee said Wednesday in Washington that was essential for China and Russia to "actively cooperate" in getting the North to give up its nuclear program, suggesting the North's bombs program may trigger a regional arms race.
"If we acknowledge North Korea possessing nuclear programs, other non-nuclear countries in Northeast Asia would be tempted to possess nuclear weapons and this would not be helpful for stability in Northeast Asia," Lee said in a meeting with former U.S. officials and Korea experts, according to his office.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090618/AS.Koreas.Nuclear/
The missile, believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers), would be launched from North Korea's Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast, said the Yomiuri daily, Japan's top-selling newspaper. It cited an analysis by the Japanese Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites.
The missile launch could come between July 4 and 8, the paper said.
While the newspaper speculated the Taepodong-2 could fly over Japan and toward Hawaii, it said the missile would not be able to hit Hawaii's main islands, which are about 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometers) from the Korean peninsula.
A spokesman for the Japanese Defense Ministry declined to comment on the report. South Korea's Defense Ministry and the National Intelligence Service — the country's main spy agency — said they could not confirm it.
Tension on the divided Korean peninsula has spiked since the North conducted its second nuclear test on May 25 in defiance of repeated international warnings. The regime declared Saturday it would bolster its nuclear programs and threatened war in protest of U.N. sanctions taken for the nuclear test.
U.S. officials have said the North has been preparing to fire a long-range missile capable of striking the western U.S. In Washington on Tuesday, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it would take at least three to five years for North Korea to pose a real threat to the U.S. west coast.
President Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak met in Washington on Tuesday for a landmark summit in which they agreed to build a regional and global "strategic alliance" to persuade North Korea to dismantle all its nuclear weapons. Obama declared North Korea a "grave threat" to the world and pledged that the new U.N. sanctions on the communist regime will be aggressively enforced.
In Seoul, Vice Unification Minister Hong Yang-ho told a forum Thursday that the North's moves to strengthen its nuclear programs is "a very dangerous thing that can fundamentally change" the regional security environment. He said the South Korean government is bracing for "all possible scenarios" regarding the nuclear standoff.
The independent International Crisis Group think tank, meanwhile, said the North's massive stockpile of chemical weapons is no less serious a threat to the region than its nuclear arsenal.
It said the North is believed to have between 2,500 and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, phosgene, blood agents and sarin. These weapons can be delivered with ballistic missiles and long-range artillery and are "sufficient to inflict massive civilian casualties on South Korea."
"If progress is made on rolling back Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, there could be opportunities to construct a cooperative diplomatic solution for chemical weapons and the suspected biological weapons program," the think tank said in a report released Thursday.
It also called on the U.S. to engage the North in dialogue to defuse the nuclear crisis, saying "diplomacy is the least bad option." The think tank said Washington should be prepared to send a high-level special envoy to Pyongyang to resolve the tension.
In a rare move, leaders of Russia and China used their meetings in Moscow on Wednesday to pressure the North to return to the nuclear talks and expressed "serious concerns" about tension on the Korean peninsula.
The joint appeal appeared to be a signal that Moscow and Beijing are growing impatient with Pyongyang's stubbornness. Northeastern China and Russia's Far East both border North Korea, and Pyongyang's unpredictable actions have raised concern in both countries.
After meetings at the Kremlin, Chinese President Hu Jintao joined Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in urging a peaceful resolution of the Korean standoff and the "swiftest renewal" of the now-frozen talks involving their countries as well as North and South Korea, Japan and the United States.
"Russia and China are ready to foster the lowering of tension in Northeast Asia and call for the continuation of efforts by all sides to resolve disagreements through peaceful means, through dialogue and consultations," their statement said.
The comments — contained in a lengthy statement that discussed other global issues — included no new initiatives, but it appeared to be carefully worded to avoid provoking Pyongyang. In remarks after their meetings, Medvedev made only a brief reference to North Korea, and Hu did not mention it.
South Korea's Lee said Wednesday in Washington that was essential for China and Russia to "actively cooperate" in getting the North to give up its nuclear program, suggesting the North's bombs program may trigger a regional arms race.
"If we acknowledge North Korea possessing nuclear programs, other non-nuclear countries in Northeast Asia would be tempted to possess nuclear weapons and this would not be helpful for stability in Northeast Asia," Lee said in a meeting with former U.S. officials and Korea experts, according to his office.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090618/AS.Koreas.Nuclear/
Will US Intercept NK Missile?
The media wants to know if America will attempt to take out a North Korean missile if it is test launched in the near future. The answer is not obvious, but my initial speculation is we would not do so for a variety of reasons.
Mainly, we will not tip our hand regarding our capabilities unless we see a real threat. If there is an effort to take it out it must succeed or else it will send a bad signal to the world: we are not as protected as some fear.
Even if we are as protected as some fear and many of us hope, there is a risk of an anomaly which could give the exact same wrong impression. There is no way to discern a fluke mishap with a flawed defense system. Wrong impressions can result in bad decisions by our enemies. Just ask Saddam regarding Kuwait.
If we do take out the missile then I would be truly concerned about North Korea and what it is trying to do. The US has allowed many nations to test and fly rockets that could easily carry a warhead to our shores. China and the USSR have long had the know-how to deposit a payload on our door step. A change in attitude would send a signal as well. One would have to wonder why there was a sudden change in the US approach to missile tests from past practices.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2010
The media wants to know if America will attempt to take out a North Korean missile if it is test launched in the near future. The answer is not obvious, but my initial speculation is we would not do so for a variety of reasons.
Mainly, we will not tip our hand regarding our capabilities unless we see a real threat. If there is an effort to take it out it must succeed or else it will send a bad signal to the world: we are not as protected as some fear.
Even if we are as protected as some fear and many of us hope, there is a risk of an anomaly which could give the exact same wrong impression. There is no way to discern a fluke mishap with a flawed defense system. Wrong impressions can result in bad decisions by our enemies. Just ask Saddam regarding Kuwait.
If we do take out the missile then I would be truly concerned about North Korea and what it is trying to do. The US has allowed many nations to test and fly rockets that could easily carry a warhead to our shores. China and the USSR have long had the know-how to deposit a payload on our door step. A change in attitude would send a signal as well. One would have to wonder why there was a sudden change in the US approach to missile tests from past practices.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2010
I don't recall that China or the USSR used the kind of threatening language towards an ally of the U.S., as did Iran, or were threatened and run by government-religious nuts, as in Iran, or had leaders that were unstable as Kim Jong Ill, in North Korea. China, Russia and the U.S. knew and understood nuclear deterrence. The Gang of 2 doesn't seem to speak in terms of deterrence; their message seems to have an offensive tone to it, as opposed to a defensive tone.strata-sphere.com/blog said:
The world 'might' be better off, without any country having nukes. But, the Genie is out of the bottle and realistically its too late for abstinence. Wouldn't the next best move be to prevent as many from joining the club as possible, especially those who appear to be unstable or irrational ???
QueEx
<font size="5"><center>
Officials: Hawaii anti-missile move a safeguard</font size></center>
This image provided by the U.S. Navy shows the heavy lift vessel MV Blue Marlin
entering Pearl Harbor, Hawaii with the Sea Based X-Band Radar (SBX) aboard Jan. 9
2006. SBX is a combination of the world’s largest phased array X-band radar carried
aboard a mobile, ocean-going semi-submersible oil platform. U.S. Defense Secretary
Robert Gates said Thursday June 18, 2009 that the military has set up additional
defenses around Hawaii, consisting of a ground-based mobile missile system and a
radar system nearby. Together they could shoot an incoming missile in mid air. (AP
Photo/US Navy - Ryan C. McGinley)
Associated Press
By Anne Gearan
and Pamela Hess
June 19, 2009
WASHINGTON—A new anti-missile system ordered for Hawaii is partly a strategy to deter North Korea from test-firing a long-range missile across the Pacific and partly a precaution against the unpredictable regime, military officials said Friday.
The United States has no indication that North Korean missile technology has improved markedly since past failed launches, and military and other assessments suggest the communist nation probably could not hit the westernmost U.S. state if it tried, officials said.
The North's Taepodong-2 could travel that far in theory, if it works as designed. But three test launches have either failed or do not demonstrate anything close to that range.
Nonetheless, past failure should not be considered a predictor, one military official said, and the seaborne radar and land-based interceptors were added this week as a prudent backstop.
Military and other U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the U.S. response a day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is concerned about the potential for a North Korean missile launch toward Hawaii.
A senior defense official would not discuss details of range estimates for North Koreans missiles, but said the same principle of caution for Hawaii would apply if the North appeared to threaten U.S. territories in the Pacific.
Japanese media have reported the North Koreans appear to be preparing for a long-range test near July 4. The Daily Yomiuri reported that Japan's Defense Ministry believes a long-range missile was delivered to the new Dongchang-ni launch site on North Korea's west coast on May 30.
U.S. analysts say that after the last test fizzled, the North wants to prove its missile capability both as proof of military strength and as a sales tool for its lucrative overseas weapons deals.
A U.S. counterproliferation official said the U.S. government is not currently seeing preparations for launch of a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, sometimes short-handed as a TD-2. The official said a launch sometime in the future could not be ruled out but it is too soon to be seeing ground preparations for a launch around July 4.
"I don't see any evidence that Hawaii is in more danger now than before the last TD-2 launch," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation.
It took North Korea about 12 days to complete ground preparations before the April launch of a Taepodong-2, roughly equivalent to a U.S. Titan missile.
If North Korea does launch a long-range missile from its new Dongchang-ni site on the west coast, it could be placed on a southeast trajectory toward Hawaii.
However, the only three long-range missiles fired by North Korea so far have fallen well short of the 4,500 miles required to reach the chain of American islands.
The North Korea missile launched in April traveled just under 2,000 miles before falling into the Pacific. That was about double the distance traveled by a similar missile launched in 1998. North Korea also launched a missile in 2006 but it fizzled shortly after take off.
------
Associated Press reporter Sagar Meghani contributed to this report.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ficials_hawaii_anti_missile_move_a_safeguard/
Officials: Hawaii anti-missile move a safeguard</font size></center>
This image provided by the U.S. Navy shows the heavy lift vessel MV Blue Marlin
entering Pearl Harbor, Hawaii with the Sea Based X-Band Radar (SBX) aboard Jan. 9
2006. SBX is a combination of the world’s largest phased array X-band radar carried
aboard a mobile, ocean-going semi-submersible oil platform. U.S. Defense Secretary
Robert Gates said Thursday June 18, 2009 that the military has set up additional
defenses around Hawaii, consisting of a ground-based mobile missile system and a
radar system nearby. Together they could shoot an incoming missile in mid air. (AP
Photo/US Navy - Ryan C. McGinley)
Associated Press
By Anne Gearan
and Pamela Hess
June 19, 2009
WASHINGTON—A new anti-missile system ordered for Hawaii is partly a strategy to deter North Korea from test-firing a long-range missile across the Pacific and partly a precaution against the unpredictable regime, military officials said Friday.
The United States has no indication that North Korean missile technology has improved markedly since past failed launches, and military and other assessments suggest the communist nation probably could not hit the westernmost U.S. state if it tried, officials said.
The North's Taepodong-2 could travel that far in theory, if it works as designed. But three test launches have either failed or do not demonstrate anything close to that range.
Nonetheless, past failure should not be considered a predictor, one military official said, and the seaborne radar and land-based interceptors were added this week as a prudent backstop.
Military and other U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the U.S. response a day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he is concerned about the potential for a North Korean missile launch toward Hawaii.
A senior defense official would not discuss details of range estimates for North Koreans missiles, but said the same principle of caution for Hawaii would apply if the North appeared to threaten U.S. territories in the Pacific.
Japanese media have reported the North Koreans appear to be preparing for a long-range test near July 4. The Daily Yomiuri reported that Japan's Defense Ministry believes a long-range missile was delivered to the new Dongchang-ni launch site on North Korea's west coast on May 30.
U.S. analysts say that after the last test fizzled, the North wants to prove its missile capability both as proof of military strength and as a sales tool for its lucrative overseas weapons deals.
A U.S. counterproliferation official said the U.S. government is not currently seeing preparations for launch of a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, sometimes short-handed as a TD-2. The official said a launch sometime in the future could not be ruled out but it is too soon to be seeing ground preparations for a launch around July 4.
"I don't see any evidence that Hawaii is in more danger now than before the last TD-2 launch," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation.
It took North Korea about 12 days to complete ground preparations before the April launch of a Taepodong-2, roughly equivalent to a U.S. Titan missile.
If North Korea does launch a long-range missile from its new Dongchang-ni site on the west coast, it could be placed on a southeast trajectory toward Hawaii.
However, the only three long-range missiles fired by North Korea so far have fallen well short of the 4,500 miles required to reach the chain of American islands.
The North Korea missile launched in April traveled just under 2,000 miles before falling into the Pacific. That was about double the distance traveled by a similar missile launched in 1998. North Korea also launched a missile in 2006 but it fizzled shortly after take off.
------
Associated Press reporter Sagar Meghani contributed to this report.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ficials_hawaii_anti_missile_move_a_safeguard/
North Korea threatens to harm US if attacked
SEOUL, South Korea — President Barack Obama assured Americans in an interview broadcast Monday that the U.S. is prepared for any move North Korea might make, amid reports that Pyongyang is planning a long-range missile test to follow up its provocative nuclear test last month.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered additional protection for Hawaii as a precaution, though experts say North Korea doesn't yet have a ballistic missile that can reach Hawaii and has not mastered mounting a nuclear bomb on a long-range missile.
Still, North Korea declared itself a "proud nuclear power" and warned it will strike if provoked.
"It would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to think it can remain unhurt if it ignites the fuse of war on the Korean peninsula," the country's main Rodong Sinmun said in a commentary.
The U.S., which has 28,500 troops in South Korea, has said it has no such intentions.
Obama assured Americans that "this administration — and our military — is fully prepared for any contingencies." His interview with CBS News' "The Early Show" was taped Friday for broadcast Monday.
"I don't want to speculate on hypotheticals," Obama told CBS. "But I want ... to give assurances to the American people that the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted in terms of what might happen."
A U.S. destroyer, meanwhile, was shadowing a North Korean cargo ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons.
The Kang Nam, accused of engaging in illicit trade in the past, appeared to be heading toward Myanmar, a South Korean intelligence official said Monday. He said the ship is believed to be transporting banned weapons. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitive nature of the information.
Myanmar's military government, which faces an arms embargo from the United States and the European Union, reportedly has bought weapons from the North in the past.
The Kang Nam is the first ship being tracked under new U.N. Security Council sanctions designed to punish the North for its defiant underground nuclear test last month. It could become a test case for the interception of North Korean ships at sea — a move Pyongyang has said it would consider an act of war.
The sanctions require U.N. member states to inspect vessels believed to contain banned goods — with the consent of the nation whose flag the ship is flying. The resolution also orders member states not to provide fuel and other supplies to North Korean ships suspected of carrying banned items.
However, North Korea is unlikely to allow any inspection of its cargo, making an interception impossible, said Hong Hyun-ik, an analyst at the Sejong Institute think tank.
A Japan-based destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, was relatively close to the North Korean ship but had no orders to intercept it, a senior U.S. military official told The Associated Press on Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
The ship is named after the grandfather and father of Senator John McCain. He said the U.S. should board the Kang Nam even without North Korean permission if hard evidence shows it is carrying missiles or other cargo in violation of U.N. resolutions.
"It's going to contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations that pose a direct threat to the United States," McCain said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Navy spokesman Cmdr. Ron Steiner said he could not comment on the warship's activity. A Japanese Defense Ministry spokeswoman also declined to provide any details but said Japan and U.S. defense officials were monitoring the situation.
Japan's Coast Guard, meanwhile, said it received a notice from North Korea's maritime authority saying ships would be banned from the waters off the coast of northern North Korea and southeastern Russia between June 25 through July 10 "for military exercises."
Coast Guard spokesman Go Nagai said the exercise wasn't considered a threat to Japan's national security.
Washington and North Korea's neighbors scrambled to find a way to defuse tensions on the Korean peninsula, with U.S. defense officials heading Monday to Beijing for talks with their Chinese counterparts.
Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy was en route to Beijing and was scheduled to continue on to Tokyo and Seoul later in the week for discussions about North Korea.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world-asia/20090621/AS.Koreas.Nuclear/
Re: North Korea Agrees to Give Up Nukes
<font size="4"><center>
North Korea reveals new uranium-enrichment program
confirming the country's long-term deceit, U.S.
and South Korean diplomats said Monday</font size></center>
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/north.korea.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T1" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/north.korea.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T1">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<font size="4"><center>
North Korea reveals new uranium-enrichment program
confirming the country's long-term deceit, U.S.
and South Korean diplomats said Monday</font size></center>
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/north.korea.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T1" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/north.korea.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T1">link</A>
</IFRAME>
lets see how dangerous they are when an alliance of American, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese start kicking ass.
I put them into amateur terms and Il and big baby... still comes up dangerous.
What did the shrub put them up as>? Axis of evil
p.s. What alliance
what you seeing right now
is for special ops at work
Re: North Korea Agrees to Give Up Nukes
North Korea agrees to suspend nuclear activities
North Korea Agrees to Stop Enriching Uranium, scaring the World with Missiles
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un succeeded his father, Kim Jong II, who passed away in December.
North Korea has agreed to <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">suspend uranium enrichment and nuclear and long-range missile tests</span> in a breakthrough in negotiations with the <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">United States</span>, which is set <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">to provide food aid in return</span>.
STORY
For real, this time; or is this just Leap Year ? ? ?
North Korea agrees to suspend nuclear activities
North Korea Agrees to Stop Enriching Uranium, scaring the World with Missiles
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un succeeded his father, Kim Jong II, who passed away in December.
North Korea has agreed to <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">suspend uranium enrichment and nuclear and long-range missile tests</span> in a breakthrough in negotiations with the <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">United States</span>, which is set <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">to provide food aid in return</span>.
STORY
For real, this time; or is this just Leap Year ? ? ?
Fuzzy_McNut
Banned
Amos 2:1-2 North Korea Prepares Imminent Nuclear Test
Koreans are you modern day moabites....
U.S. Military Drills Kicks Off Amid North Korea Nuclear Threat : New Threat Posted From N. Korea
Koreans are you modern day moabites....
U.S. Military Drills Kicks Off Amid North Korea Nuclear Threat : New Threat Posted From N. Korea
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
North Korea: Nuke test just a
"first response" aimed at U.S.
A North Korean soldier patrols along the Yalu River near the North Korean town of Sinuiju after the
country conducted it's third nuclear test on February 12, 2013. / Getty Images
FULL STORY
North Korea: Nuke test just a
"first response" aimed at U.S.
A North Korean soldier patrols along the Yalu River near the North Korean town of Sinuiju after the
country conducted it's third nuclear test on February 12, 2013. / Getty Images
PYONGYANG, North Korea North Korea said the atomic test it conducted Tuesday in the remote, snowy northeast was merely its "first response" taken with "maximum restraint," in response to what it called U.S. threats, and said it will continue with unspecified "second and third measures of greater intensity" if Washington maintains its hostility.
The underground test, which set off powerful seismic waves, was a crucial step toward its goal of building a bomb small enough to be fitted on a missile capable of striking the United States. The test drew immediate condemnation from Washington, the U.N. and others. Even its only major ally, China, voiced opposition.
President Barack Obama, who was scheduled to give a State of the Union address later Tuesday, said nuclear tests "do not make North Korea more secure." Instead, North Korea has "increasingly isolated and impoverished its people through its ill-advised pursuit of weapons of mass destruction," he said in a statement.
North Korea claimed the device was smaller than in previous tests; Seoul said it likely produced a bigger explosion.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed the test Tuesday, saying in a statement: "The U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that North Korea probably conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of P'unggye on February 12, 2013. The explosion yield was approximately several kilotons. Analysis of the event continues."
The test was a defiant response to U.N. orders to shut down atomic activity or face more sanctions and international isolation. It will likely draw more sanctions from the United States and other countries at a time when North Korea is trying to rebuild its moribund economy and expand its engagement with the outside world.
The Security Council will meet on Tuesday to discuss its reaction to the test, Reuters reports'.
The underground test, which set off powerful seismic waves, was a crucial step toward its goal of building a bomb small enough to be fitted on a missile capable of striking the United States. The test drew immediate condemnation from Washington, the U.N. and others. Even its only major ally, China, voiced opposition.
President Barack Obama, who was scheduled to give a State of the Union address later Tuesday, said nuclear tests "do not make North Korea more secure." Instead, North Korea has "increasingly isolated and impoverished its people through its ill-advised pursuit of weapons of mass destruction," he said in a statement.
North Korea claimed the device was smaller than in previous tests; Seoul said it likely produced a bigger explosion.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed the test Tuesday, saying in a statement: "The U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that North Korea probably conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of P'unggye on February 12, 2013. The explosion yield was approximately several kilotons. Analysis of the event continues."
The test was a defiant response to U.N. orders to shut down atomic activity or face more sanctions and international isolation. It will likely draw more sanctions from the United States and other countries at a time when North Korea is trying to rebuild its moribund economy and expand its engagement with the outside world.
The Security Council will meet on Tuesday to discuss its reaction to the test, Reuters reports'.
FULL STORY
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
How long will China back a defiant N. Korea?
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50139735&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57568865/north-korea-nuke-test-just-a-first-response-aimed-at-u.s/" />
.
How long will China back a defiant N. Korea?
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50139735&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57568865/north-korea-nuke-test-just-a-first-response-aimed-at-u.s/" />
.
Re: Amos 2:1-2 North Korea Prepares Imminent Nuclear Test
North Korea conducts its third nuclear test
North Korea confirmed it conducted its third nuclear test
and now its Foreign Ministry is threatening what it calls
"measures of greater intensity"
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50140853&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57568865/north-korea-nuke-test-just-a-first-response-aimed-at-u.s/" />
,
North Korea conducts its third nuclear test
North Korea confirmed it conducted its third nuclear test
and now its Foreign Ministry is threatening what it calls
"measures of greater intensity"
<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50140853&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57568865/north-korea-nuke-test-just-a-first-response-aimed-at-u.s/" />
,
Re: North Korea Warns of Nuclear War
U.S. to add missile interceptors to
counter North Korean saber-rattling
FULL STORY
U.S. to add missile interceptors to
counter North Korean saber-rattling
WASHINGTON — Responding to a new level of belligerence from North Korea, the United States will place more missile interceptors in Alaska to respond to a nuclear threat that’s advancing faster than anticipated, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday.
His announcement comes as North Korea has ratcheted up its rhetoric, threatening to attack the U.S. and taking a more aggressive tone toward South Korea.
Fourteen new ground-based interceptors will be placed mostly in a reopened missile field at Fort Greely, about 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks, and will bring the number of U.S. interceptors in the area to 44. Hagel said the $1 billion program should be ready by 2017.
The defense secretary said it was important to make the move now and “not to take any chances, to stay ahead of the threat and to assure any contingency . . . to make sure we’re not reacting to (North Korea’s) timeline.”
His announcement comes as North Korea has ratcheted up its rhetoric, threatening to attack the U.S. and taking a more aggressive tone toward South Korea.
Fourteen new ground-based interceptors will be placed mostly in a reopened missile field at Fort Greely, about 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks, and will bring the number of U.S. interceptors in the area to 44. Hagel said the $1 billion program should be ready by 2017.
The defense secretary said it was important to make the move now and “not to take any chances, to stay ahead of the threat and to assure any contingency . . . to make sure we’re not reacting to (North Korea’s) timeline.”
FULL STORY
This is 9/11 all over again, the United States may try to instigate another conflict where it will act like a victim. The U.S. a capitalist country does not want the influence of Communism spreading to the region, as a result of North Korea.
This was the same tactic that resulted in 9/11 and Pearl Harbor; whereby sanctions, blockades of oil shipments (Japan), establishing a military presence near Mecca; results in an attack that leads to war. Somebody needs to say something, I don't get the military exercises and excessive troop presence near the border. Kim Jim Un could do a Jim Jones have everybody drink radioactive KoolAid while launching missiles at the U.S.
This time Kim Jung Un will be a couple miles underground, living comfortably, with nuclear missiles being launched at the United States. It won't be fun for the West Coast such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle that will have missile with their name painted on it.
It starting to look eerily similar to North Korea, sanctions that starve people, withdrawal from the armistice and eventually nuclear attack on the United States.
This was the same tactic that resulted in 9/11 and Pearl Harbor; whereby sanctions, blockades of oil shipments (Japan), establishing a military presence near Mecca; results in an attack that leads to war. Somebody needs to say something, I don't get the military exercises and excessive troop presence near the border. Kim Jim Un could do a Jim Jones have everybody drink radioactive KoolAid while launching missiles at the U.S.
This time Kim Jung Un will be a couple miles underground, living comfortably, with nuclear missiles being launched at the United States. It won't be fun for the West Coast such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle that will have missile with their name painted on it.
It starting to look eerily similar to North Korea, sanctions that starve people, withdrawal from the armistice and eventually nuclear attack on the United States.
Last edited: