What's new

North Korea - US Tension: News & Discussions

Gates Says US Prevented South Korea Airstrike on North

SEOUL — South Korea declined to comment Wednesday on revelations that the United States talked it down from launching a retaliatory airstrike on North Korea in 2010.

The claims were made in the newly published memoir of former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in which he also describes former South Korean president Roh Moo-Hyun as “probably a little bit crazy.”

The 2010 incident followed the North’s surprise shelling of a South Korean border island in November of that year.

The attack triggered what Gates labeled a “very dangerous crisis,” with the South Korean government of then-President Lee Myung-Bak initially insisting on a robust military response.

“South Korea’s original plans for retaliation were, we thought, disproportionately aggressive, involving both aircraft and artillery,” Gates wrote in his memoir.

“We were worried the exchanges could escalate dangerously,” he added.

Over the next few days, Gates said he, US President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had numerous telephone calls with their South Korean counterparts in an effort to calm things down.

“Ultimately, South Korea simply returned artillery fire on the location of the North Koreans’ batteries that had started the whole affair,” he said.

The South Korean government declined to confirm Gates’s version of events.

“We have no comment,” a defense ministry spokesman told AFP.

There are currently more than 28,000 US troops stationed in South Korea and under the terms of their mutual defense pact, the United States would assume overall military command of their joint forces in the event of a full-scale conflict.

Because the 1950-53 Korean War concluded with a ceasefire rather than a peace treaty, South and North Korea technically remain at war.

The risk of escalation after the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island was especially high, with South Korea’s patience at breaking point following the recent sinking of one of its warships by what it said was a North Korean submarine.

According to Gates, the North’s only major ally China had helped ease tensions by simultaneously “weighing in with the North’s leaders to wind down the situation.”

In his memoir, Gates spoke of his admiration for Lee Myung-Bak, saying the conservative president was “tough-minded, realistic and very pro-American.”

This assessment contrasted sharply with his view of Lee’s predecessor, the liberal Roh Moo-Hyun, who Gates described as “anti-American and probably a little crazy.”

Gates professed astonishment at Roh telling him that the two biggest security threats in Asia were the United States and Japan.

Roh served as president from 2003-2008. In 2009, he jumped to his death from a cliff behind his retirement home after being questioned by prosecutors about suspected corruption scandals involving his family.

Gates Says US Prevented South Korea Airstrike on North | Defense News | defensenews.com
 
North Korea threatens war on US over Kim Jong-un movie

_75819668_022759557-1.jpg


North Korea has promised "merciless" retaliation if a forthcoming Hollywood movie about killing Kim Jong-un is released, say agencies.

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said in state media that the movie's release would be an "act of war".

He did not mention the title, but a Hollywood movie called The Interview with a similar plot is due in October.

Hollywood actors James Franco and Seth Rogen star in the action-comedy film.

They play a talkshow host and his producer who are invited to interview Kim Jong-un, and are subsequently recruited by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to assassinate the leader.

The film's teaser trailer, posted on YouTube, shows a lookalike actor playing Kim Jong-un, as well as fight scenes involving what appear to be North Korean tanks and helicopters, and a nuclear missile launch.

The North Korea spokesman was quoted by the state KCNA news agency as saying: "Making and releasing a movie on a plot to hurt our top-level leadership is the most blatant act of terrorism and war and will absolutely not be tolerated."

He added that the "reckless US provocative insanity" of mobilising a "gangster filmmaker" to challenge the North's leadership was triggering "a gust of hatred and rage" among North Korean people and soldiers.

"If the US administration allows and defends the showing of the film, a merciless counter-measure will be taken," the spokesman was quoted as saying.

Apparent evidence emerged last week supporting claims that North Korea is further developing its missile technology. Some experts said they had identified a new anti-ship cruise missile shown in a North Korean propaganda film. Other observers were more skeptical.

North Korea is holding three Americans in custody. The latest to be detained is said to be a tourist named Jeffrey Edward Fowle who reportedly left a Bible at a hotel.

Rogen, one of the directors of The Interview, recently said he was inspired by journalists' trips to North Korea.

He told Yahoo: "People have the hypothetical discussion about how journalists have access to the world's most dangerous people, and they hypothetically would be in a good situation to assassinate them."

He added that the film was originally about meeting Kim Jong-il, but they had to revise the script when he died in 2011 and his son Kim Jong-un took power.

BBC News - North Korea threatens war on US over Kim Jong-un movie
 
:shout:Stupid movie
Who plays Kim Jong-un, ugly.
Not in order to discredit North Korea, even the basic facts have changed it,
Kim Jong-un looks better than that fool.:partay:
 
I think this is stupid fat fucking gold

No brain won't rule

North Korea no matter know that every day to play for women

North Korea spent

Well get fat to international a life
 
Although the alliance has changed substantially since its Cold War origins, it is still grounded in protecting the ROK from DPRK attacks or invasion. While most U.S. Cold War adversaries have abandoned communism, or in the case of the PRC an ideological commitment to conflict with imperial powers, North Korea has not changed its ideology or hostile stance to the outside world. Even while North Korean citizens suffer from hunger and privation, the Kim regime spends an estimated 22.9 percent of its GDP on defense, the highest percentage in the world. In addition, despite North Korea’s relatively small size, it has one of the largest military forces in the world, with an estimated 1,190,000 troops in 2012, as compared to the 639,000 ROK troops. While it is true that many North Korean troops are less well nourished, trained, or equipped than their ROK or U.S. counterparts, North Korea maintains a 100,000+ large detachment of Special Operations forces trained to infiltrate into South Korea, attack strategic infrastructure, carry out assassinations, and potentially act as a delivery mechanism for a biological or chemical attack against the ROK. Making the DPRK threat more acute, the DPRK has positioned most of its forces and artillery south of Pyongyang and in close proximity to the DMZ, meaning that a DPRK attack could occur with little warning.

Beyond conventional forces, North Korea’s missile and nuclear program is a major threat to South Korea, as well as Japan and others in the region. According to the Nautilus Institute, an artillery attack against Seoul would likely result in 3,000 deaths in the first few minutes, and up to 30,000 deaths within a short period of time thereafter, along with massive damage to infrastructure. Aside from the short-range missile threat, North Korea possesses medium range missiles, such as the Nodong missile, that can hit all of South Korea and most of Japan. Importantly, the Nodong missile is believed to be able to carry a small nuclear weapon.

The nuclear threat is the most prominent reason for worldwide concern about North Korea, which currently is believed to have between six and eight nuclear weapons. This problem has direct implications for the United States. In 2015, Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, the current U.S. commander in South Korea told the Senate Armed Service Committee that he believes that North Korea has the capability to place a nuclear warhead on a long-range missile that could hit the United States. The sophistication of North Korean nuclear weapons capabilities has been increasing. North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006 resulted in a yield of less than 1,000 tons of TNT, however by the third test in 2013 was estimated to have a yield of 6-40 Kilotons. Beyond nuclear weapons, Joseph Bermudez Jr. estimates North Korea to have between 2,500-5,000 tons of chemical weapons agents such as chlorine and mustard gas, hydrogen cyanide, and sarin.

Expert estimates vary about the effectiveness of the DPRK military; however, given the short distance between the front line DMZ forces and the 25 million plus residents of Seoul, as well as the numerous asymmetric capabilities that the DPRK possess, the DPRK has the potential to wreak devastating human and economic damage on South Korea. Since the end of the Korean War and the signing of the armistice in 1953, a state of mutual deterrence has existed, but this state has depended on the strength of the U.S.-ROK alliance. However, despite this deterrence, the DPRK has proven willing to commit violent provocations resulting in U.S. and South Korean casualties. The two most recent examples of this tendency is the 2010 North Korean sinking of the Cheonan, which killed 46 ROK seamen, and the 2010 North Korean shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, which killed four ROK citizens and wounded an additional three civilians and fifteen soldiers. Many North Korean provocations do not result in physical damage, but are intended to register displeasure with the U.S.-ROK alliance and to increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula and in the region, such as firing missiles into coastal waters during joint U.S.-ROK military exercises, or most recently firing two short range missiles off of its western coast two days before U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter visited Seoul. While some dismiss America’s East Asian alliances as a holdover from the Cold War, in the case of the U.S.-ROK alliance it is clear that the original purpose has not lost meaning, because even as ROK capabilities have grown, the DPRK still has manifest hostile intent and large conventional and asymmetrical capabilities that are more than a paper tiger threat to South Korea and the region.

Leon Whyte is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University as well as the Senior Editor for the Current Affairs section of the Fletcher Security Review. His research interests include transnational security and U.S. alliances in East Asia.




Reference: The Diplomat
 
It will be China-SoKor alliance against Japan in the future.
 
'Strategic Patience': Failed US North Korea policy - China.org.cn

By Fan Jishe
January 15, 2016


d02788e9b6de18029e440c.jpg

Republican presidential campaign frontrunner Donald Trump made hilarious and ridiculous remarks immediately after North Korea's fourth nuclear test.



Republican presidential campaign frontrunner Donald Trump made hilarious and ridiculous remarks immediately after North Korea's fourth nuclear test. President Obama may not publicly echo Mr. Trump's view, but he may have applauded Mr. Trump's argument privately. So here comes the next question: How will President Obama respond to the fourth test?

Most likely, President Obama's follow-up moves will be developed in the next couple of days. He or his team will talk and/or meet with counterparts in South Korea and Japan to convey the message of assurance, to reaffirm the American security commitment. Possibly, some cooperative and coordinated political and economic moves against North Korea will be taken. Discussion of missile-defense deployment in Northeast Asia will come back to the table again. The routine joint military exercises with allies will be conducted next month or the month after next. The basic message is: Don't worry, be happy, I am still here protecting you guys.

The United States will urge the United Nation Security Council to issue a statement to express grave concerns, to condemn North Korea's provocative moves, and to urge North Korea to exercise restraint, etc. This mission has been accomplished now//before??//. Countries concerned will be asked to implement the past sanction resolutions strictly. Finally, the United States will try to cook a United Nation Security Council sanction resolution to punish North Korea economically and financially.

The United States will become pushy and demanding once again. American diplomatic envoys will flock to Beijing, urging China to do more. They expect China to do anything possible to punish North Korea harshly, and to bring North Korea down to its knees.

What else President Obama can do? Nothing meaningful is likely. It is just a routine job for him, and that pattern has been there for the past seven years. President Obama called his policy toward North Korea "Strategic Patience". He might be patient enough, but patience is not North Korea's game.

"Strategic Patience" has turned out to be a great failure. Among the four nuclear tests done by North Korea, three were done in President Obama's two terms. In 2010, two major regional security crises erupted, which almost brought the Peninsula to the brink of another war. North Korea launched several satellites, which might boost North Korea's ballistic missile technology research and development. North Korea also disclosed its fairly well-advanced uranium enrichment program in 2010. North Korea's 5MW reactor resumed operation, and a light-water reactor is in construction. Meanwhile, the uranium enrichment plant is expanding. North Korea keeps moving forward, while the Obama administration keeps waiting and watching with "strategic patience".

Why has President Obama developed and continued such a doomed-to-fail North Korea policy? It is only because he has a mindset and logic similar to Mr. Trump's. What is that then? The laundry list could be quite long:

No.1: North Korean leaders are "madmen", thus not rational. Really? Most North Korea observers and those American officials who were involved in the negotiations with North Koreans in 1990s would disagree on this.

No.2: North Koreans are not trustworthy, and they do not observe deals reached by negotiations. Let us be fair. North Korea implemented most of those obligations required in the 1994 Agreed Framework, while American's performance is really questionable due to domestic political fights. North Korea's uranium enrichment program may have violated the spirit of that deal, but literally it implemented its commitment seriously.

No. 3: North Korea, under internal and external pressure, may collapse. Similar poor judgments have misguided American policy toward North Korea for quite a long time. There were several natural disasters in last two decades and two leadership transitions and associated power shifts, and the country's internal hardship is further exacerbated by sanctions imposed on it. However, North Korea survived, sometimes survived well, from those challenges.

No. 4: The Six Party Talks cannot work. Six Party Talks might not be efficient and effective enough to get the nuclear issue solved overnight; however, there was only one nuclear test and very limited missile tests in the duration of the talk. This platform may not be perfect, but if any long-lasting and comprehensive solution is to be reached, the Six Party Talks represent the most indispensable platform.

No. 5: The North Korea nuclear issue is China's problem and China's fault, and China has leverage necessary to solve this problem. No country in Northeast Asia would be better off with a nuclearized North Korea. However, China never ever encouraged or supported North Korea's efforts to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction. China has tried every efforts possible to promote a diplomatic solution, support United Nation statements and resolutions, doing the diplomatic job privately and publicly. China has done more than could reasonably be expected — why ask for more?

A policy based on poor judgment and logic will get nowhere, and an approach that has failed in dealing with North Korea in the past is not going to succeed after the latest test

Considering he is approaching the end of his second term, it might be a bit late for President Obama to change American policy in substantial terms. But better late than never — it is critically important to learn from past failures.

Here follow some brief suggestions for him to digest:

1. North Korea's nuclear proliferation violated its treaty commitment and United Nations Security Council resolutions, and this issue will negatively affect this region. There is no doubt about that, but there is no consensus over how serious that challenge might be, and what might be the long-term repercussions if denuclearization is not achievable. It is time to rebuild consensus in this regard.

2. The United States has been working so hard using political isolation, diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions and military deterrence against North Korea, however, that did not work well. Might it be the time to try an alternative approach? The Obama administration also needs to think harder about whether its military deployment and other moves are conducive to promote cooperation and coordination among major powers on this issue.

3. The Obama administration has been very much frustrated by North Korea, and truly believes negotiation would not work. Nothing positive comes out of this posture, while negative outcomes are accumulating gradually. The Obama administration's policy is neither soft enough nor tough enough. Then, why not approach North Korea diplomatically?

4. Neither China nor the United States is ready to accept the deteriorating situation, and both countries share common goals but differ in approaches. Might it be the time for both countries to meet halfway, to work together addressing this issue instead of finger-pointing at each other?

Certainly President Obama can go ahead with his "Strategic Patience" strategy, but it is a doomed-to-fail strategy. His foreign policy legacy will be judged not only by his success in rapprochement with Myanmar and Cuba, the nuclear deal with Iran, and the withdrawal from war on terror, but also by his policy toward North Korea.

This article was first published at Chinausfocus.com To see the original version please visit http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/strategic-patience-failed-u-s-north-korea-policy/

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn.
 
Back
Top Bottom