MERGED ---> what's up with north korea? + North Korea exports missles

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
North Korea exports missles.

Interesting catch today on the high seas. One of the members of the "Axis of Evil" was caught shipping bad things on the high seas. One dozen scud missles and parts were found on a North Korean vessel headed to Yemen.

Yemen is one of our "allys" yet they seem to be a haven for Al-Qaeda. I wonder who the scud missles were for........Our governement has issued a statement saying that they do not believe they were headed into Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36608-2002Dec10.html

North Korea has had a history of this type of sale. Last August they sold some scuds to Yemen and later in the year fuel for the scuds was shipped to Yemen.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021202-71029594.htm

The situation in the Middle East seems to get scarier by the day. I wonder if Sting might have some insight into why Yemen would be purchasing these materials if they are our "ally"? Why would they continue to do business with a governement that the US has deemed an exporter of terror?


Peace Out!
 
Last edited:
Yemen wants the ballistic missiles because they are becoming much more common through out the region. North Korea is a very willing seller. Supply and Demand is the relationship here. Its important to realize that these are ballistic missiles and not Chem/Bio/Nuclear weapons. The question is was this a shipment that came late for Yemen after the USA told Yemen to stop its deals with North Korea, or is Yemen trying to smuggle to get these missiles without the USA knowing, is there Al Quada elements within the Yemens government or the country that somehow arranged the transfer, or is there another country where the missiles were to be shipped to after first going into Yemen?

Don't really have the answers to these questions, just speculation. It seems unlikely to me that Yemen would be that desperate to get 12 Scud missiles from North Korea that they would attempt to smuggle them behind the USA's back. There are other countries that are not under an embargo that they could get Scuds from.
 
This is really getting to an ugly stage isn't it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,865094,00.html

Rumsfeld gets tough on North Korea

John Gittings in Hong Kong and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday December 24, 2002
The Guardian

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, yesterday warned North Korea that America could fight and win two regional conflicts. He advised Pyongyang not to become "emboldened" by the US administration's immediate focus on Iraq.
"We are capable of fighting two major regional conflicts. We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other, and let there be no doubt about it," Mr Rumsfeld said.

His comments came amid desperate diplomatic efforts to head off the growing Korean crisis.

The UN has confirmed that North Korea has carried out its threat to remove UN seals and dismantle monitoring cameras at a laboratory used to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said: "There is not any legitimate purpose for the facility other than separating plutonium from spent fuel."

Senator Joseph Biden, the outgoing chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned that North Korea's plan to restart a programme for plutonium extraction could allow it to produce bombs "within months".

Mr Biden said the crisis was "a greater danger immediately to US interests _ than Saddam Hussein".

While the rhetoric sharpened, Mr Rumsfeld insisted that Washington would pursue a diplomatic strategy against North Korea for the moment, as that crisis was still at a relatively early stage.

Pyongyang has issued a series of threats, including one to "destroy the earth" if the US resorted to nuclear war against it. South Korea's president, Kim Dae-jung, and the president-elect, Roh Moo-hyun, sought to calm the mood by saying they wanted a peaceful resolution.

While Russia expressed concern at the North's weekend announcement, the deputy foreign minister warned the US not to aggravate the crisis.

But the US state department yesterday rejected Pyongyang's insistence that the crisis can be solved if the US signs a treaty of non-aggression. "We will not bargain or offer inducements for North Korea to live up to the treaties and agreements it has signed," a spokesman said.

US intelligence sources were quoted by the BBC as saying they believe "North Korea may already have a small number of nuclear bombs and the material to make a few more".

The North Korean media has given Bush administration hardliners all the material they may want.

The communist party's newspaper, the Workers' Daily, declared that "the army and people of the DPRK are fully ready to mercilessly strike the bulwark of US imperialist aggressors" - implying that they could hit targets in the US
 
Rumsfeld says U.S. can win war in two theaters
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that the United States has the military might to counter the threat of two "axis of evil" states ? North Korea and Iraq ? simultaneously. Top Stories
? Frist elected Senate leader
? As war nears, Israel prepares for Iraq hits
? Global events make holiday rally for stocks an unlikely gift news
? Russian city puts face of Christ on its flag
? Telling the world about the Christ of Christmas


His assurances that U.S. armed forces are not stretched too thin came as Pyongyang announced an aggressive move toward building nuclear weapons.
"I have no reason to believe that North Korea feels emboldened because of the world's interest in Iraq," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "If they do, it would be a mistake. We are perfectly capable of doing that which is necessary."
North Korea said yesterday that it is removing monitoring equipment set up by international inspectors to safeguard weapons-grade plutonium at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor.
The announcement sets up the possibility that, while fighting a war in Iraq this winter, the United States also might have to divert valuable military assets to thwart North Korea's nuclear ambitions. One U.S. military option, though not actively being considered, is to bomb North Korea's nuclear facilities to prevent Pyongyang from quickly assembling two to three atomic weapons.
President Bush has threatened Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with military strikes if he does not disarm. Mr. Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon press conference yesterday where he discussed the twin problems of North Korea and Iraq, said a buildup of American forces in the Persian Gulf continues even as a second crisis is forming in North Korea.
There are about 60,000 U.S. troops near Iraq, with 50,000 more slated to be deployed in January. Mr. Rumsfeld said he is alerting Reserve units that might be called up to round out active combat forces, such as heavy Army armored divisions, in the event of war with Iraq.
Baghdad yesterday shot down an unmanned Predator spy plane over southern Iraq. An Iraqi fighter jet apparently violated an allied no-fly zone in the south to fire at the drone before retreating north.
Allied aircraft typically retaliate against Iraqi ground fire by dropping precision-guided bombs on anti-aircraft batteries and command posts.
U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf, said the Predator went down at 7:30 a.m. EST.
"They got a lucky shot today, and they brought down the Predator," Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs chairman, said at the Pentagon press conference.
But Mr. Rumsfeld quickly said, "It is not a fact. We do not know for sure that it was shot down."
It was the third Predator drone shot down over southern Iraq. Iraq repeatedly has tried to knock down manned allied jets enforcing the northern and southern exclusion zones, which severely restrict the activities of Iraq's military.
North Korea has picked this time to make provocative statements about a nuclear-arms program it was supposed to freeze under a 1994 agreement with President Clinton.
Confronted with evidence to the contrary by the Bush administration, North Korea admitted during the summer that it has systematically violated the accord by acquiring bomb-making components. Mr. Bush has labeled North Korea, Iraq and Iran as an "axis of evil" that threatens world peace.
The communist regime in Pyongyang intensified its rhetoric yesterday by announcing that it was removing plutonium-monitoring equipment. Analysts say North Korea is likely to have sufficient nuclear-grade plutonium to make two or three weapons.
North Korea's official newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said in an editorial that Washington could settle the issue by agreeing to a nonaggression pact. The United States rejects such a treaty with North Korea, which is one of the world's last communist police states.
South Korea, whose president-elect, Roh Moo-hyun, favors closer ties with the North, condemned Pyongyang's recent moves.
"Despite repeated warnings from our government and the international community, North Korea took further actions to unfreeze its nuclear activities, raising regional tension and amplifying international concerns over nuclear proliferation," Seoul said in a foreign ministry statement.
China, an ally of North Korea, recently broke with Pyongyang by saying the Korean Peninsula should be free of nuclear weapons.
The U.S. military's 1.4 million active-duty force is structured based on requirements in a policy statement called the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Under the most recent QDR approved by Mr. Rumsfeld, the military is required to be able to defeat and occupy a foreign power while nearly simultaneously winning a war against a second foe.
Most analysts interpret the requirement as winning a war in the Persian Gulf against Iraq or Iran while repelling an invasion by the North into South Korea.
Mr. Rumsfeld yesterday forcefully asserted that his commanders today can carry out the QDR.
"We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other," he said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
As he contemplates the timing for sending more men and women to the Gulf, Mr. Rumsfeld criticized the way the military's "total force" concept operates. To deploy heavy-combat units to war, the Pentagon must first perform the time-consuming practice of activating Reserve and National Guard units that support those divisions.
The defense secretary has ordered his staff to study whether some of those jobs cannot be permanently shifted to the active force so deployments go faster.
"You cannot do the things you normally would do with active forces ? to prepare ports and prepare airfields and to train people and to begin that process of being able to respond ? without activating Reserve and Guard," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It's a shame that we're organized that way, and we intend to see that we're no longer organized that way in the future."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021224-25452610.htm
 
N.Korea defence chief vows to punish 'U.S. hawks'



SEOUL, Dec 24 (Reuters) - North Korea's military will deal "merciless punishment" to the United States in the event of nuclear war, Pyongyang's Defence Minister Kim Il-chol said on Tuesday.

Ratcheting up North Korea's often belligerent rhetoric amid tensions over the communist state's nuclear weapons programme, Kim said his army will "fight to the end against the imperialists and class enemies under the present serious situation.

"The U.S. hawks are arrogant enough to groundlessly claim that the DPRK (North Korea) has pushed ahead with a "nuclear programme," bringing its hostile policy toward the DPRK to an extremely dangerous phase," the state-run Korean Central News Agency quoted Kim as saying.

"If they, ignorant of their rival, dare provoke a nuclear war, the army and people of the DPRK led by Kim Jong-il, the invincible commander, will rise up to mete out determined and merciless punishment to the U.S. imperialist aggressors with the might of single-hearted unity more powerful than A-bomb," he said.

North Korea, denounced by President George W. Bush as a member of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran, has set alarm bells ringing by removing U.N. monitoring equipment at a nuclear reactor capable of yielding weapons-grade plutonium.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-PLS-PLS&id=12240345000222492&dt=20021224034500&w=RTR&coview=
 
Thanks for keeping this one active Dreadsox

Interesting choice of priorities for North Korea....

The masses are starving and the North Korean government wants to activate a nuclear "power plant" that would overwhelm the country's power grid.

A couple of well placed cruise missles would make the world a safer place....
 
the world is quite frightening.

to all those who support war, why do you believe the us is wasting their time with iraq when a much more serious threat exists in north korea?
 
Cow,

Because we believe a more serious threat exist in Iraq. Iraq has attacked and invaded 4 different countries over the past 20 years. North Korea has NOT attacked or invaded any country in 50 years. North Korea runs a very repressive regime and is cruel to its people. It has the world 4th largest army today. But only once in its history has it ever invaded another country and that was over 50 years ago.

What makes the threat of Saddam unique is that he has or is trying to get a lot of the WMD weapons that North Korea, but more importantly, has attacked and invaded four countries recently, used Chemical weapons against his own people and Iranian troops. North Korea has not done any of those things in the past half century.

Another important factor is that Iraq is close to 67% of the worlds energy reserves. In addition, the countries that border Iraq are comparitively weak compared to the countries that border North Korea. North Korea is one of the few countries that borders two Nuclear powers, China and Russia. The South Korean Military with 750,000 troops is not a push over and is one of the largest military's in the world.

Saddam is a greater threat becauses he has used his military to attack multiple countries, been willing to risk his own survival in doing so, and has used nearly every weapon that he has.
 
what's up with north korea?

come on.

no need to build the nukes.

where's hawkeye pierce when we need him?
:no:
 
i was seargent divine in our high schools rendition of MASH two and a half years ago. man was that fun.

anyway, north korea is acting like a neglected child. this is completely foolish of them. theyre putting so much effort into this, while their people starve. its rediculous.

despite their idiocy, i wish the united states WOULD open negotations with them. every country under the un must strive for a peaceful end to this.

as far as im concerned, north korea is FAR more of a threat than iraq.
 
Cow of the Seas said:


as far as im concerned, Nrth Korea is FAR more of a threat than iraq.

I am almost tat the point of seconding this! Me thinks the President could make this case easily.

I alos wonder if North Korea is trying to show that the US is toothless on this issue.


Peace
 
Hello,

So what did North-Korea do these past few days?
Hmmm, lemme think...

- Break seals of a nuclear reactor, re-opening it (a nuclear reactor which is capable of producing radioactive material for a nuclear bomb)
- Transport plutonium to that reactor (in about 2 months it's fully started up)
- Expel UN weapon inspectors (reports the South-Korean press)
- Start 'war talk' with threats to the USA

Despite Sting2's (ad nauseum) repeated statement that North-Korea isn't that bad as it hasn't attacked 4 countries in a few years (it's only in war with South-Korea for 50 years or so, so that's no big deal) I'm more worried about North-Korea than about Iraq. If you compare the 2:
- A country which is mostly disarmed but may have some weapons left (maybe also of the abc categorie) compared to a country with a big army, claiming they have nuclear weapons and it's not known if they have more
- A country with an aggressive dictator who will nevertheless do anything to stay in power, even if that means complying to the demands of the international community compared to a country with a leader that is suddenly spouting aggressive language, but from a country that has always be extremely stubborn
(extra for US citizens)
- A country on the other side of the world compared to a country which likely has missiles that can reach the USA

Take your pick...

At this moment I'm against action/war against Iraq, but I hope the UN will soon step up to eliminate the Korean problem (disarm, change of regime, etc.) As Dreadsox says, it's more than easy for any government to make a case against North-Korea and why it should be disarmed.

Let's hope the world will be safer in 2003...

Marty
 
Clinton did just about as good of job babysitting North Korea as he did Al-Queda and Afganistan.

Here's to 'ya buddy! Nice job!
 
North Korea has been a threat for 50 years. What keeps them from being a greater threat than Iraq? The South Korean military with full U.S. backing. Iraq has no such opposing army on its borders.
 
nbcrusader said:
North Korea has been a threat for 50 years. What keeps them from being a greater threat than Iraq? The South Korean military with full U.S. backing. Iraq has no such opposing army on its borders.

Good point.
 
Ya but are there any defense to a nuke? Well with the exeption of another nuke.

They have gotta be stopped. They are pretty much doing this right in the faces of the US and trying to piss them off. Both countries are threats but a country that is activaly saying and making prep. to make nukes should pose the bigger threat.
 
We need to be mindful of the potential responses to an attack against North Korea's nuclear plant.

An attack against Iraq will yield a response against ___ (?) Israel? Iran? Kuwait?

North Korea can always direct an attack against South Korea, no matter who lobs a cruise missle into their nuclear plant.
 
Popmartian,

North Korea has made the same threats to the USA and South Korea for nearly 50 years now. Their statements are often hostile but have never ever materialized into action or war since 1950. It is significant that there has been peace on the Korean peninsula for the past 50 years. This is in stark contrast to the middle east and the Persian Gulf. Saddam and Iraq, when it comes to behavior, are in many ways the opposite of North Korea. Saddam has invaded and attacked multiple countries in recent history. North Korea has not attacked anyone in recent history. Saddam has used every weapon that he has had. North Korea has not.

Bottom line, the thing that makes Iraq so much more dangerous than North Korea is BEHAVIOR! Merely having weapons of mass destruction does not make a country dangerous. It is first and that Countries behavior then combined with weapons of mass destruction that makes a country enormously dangerous.

North Korea is a threat, but not in the way that Iraq is a threat. North Korea is primarily and isolated country bordered by two Nuclear Powers, Russia and China, and then South Korea which has a large military itself with 700,000 troops on active duty. While North Korea has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction, they have basically been completely contained for 50 years now, unlike Iraq.

Does North Korea have the potential to strike South Korea and hit other countries in the regions with Ballistic missiles? Yes. Does their behavior over the past 50 YEARS suggest that they will? NO! Behavior is the chief difference between Iraq and North Korea. Its the reason military action may be necessary in Iraq, and why a more conservative course of action needs to be taken with North Korea.

North Korea has had Nuclear Weapons most likely since 1994 when the first crises began. Their hostile words have been the same year after year since 1953. Yet, their actions have shown that these hostile words have been nothing but that, words. North Korea is not a risk taker, in the way and degree, that Iraq is.
 
Sting,

Do you not think the beavior of kicking the UN ispectors out of North Korea is hostile? I do.

You are coming across as being more reactive. What if NK attacked a country tommorow then do we act? You are being preventive with Ira but think talking to NK is the solution? Isnt this how 911 came along? Now you are reacting to that attack. An attack can come at anytime, should we wait till that time before we respond to hostile words and actions from NK
 
Bonoman,

When I speak of hostile action, I mean mass violent action on a massive scale that occurs in attacking another country or a full scale invasion. North Korea has certainly decided to not honor its agreement with the UN from 1994, but that in of itself is not a hostile action.

I've never stated that military action with North Korea is not an option, but that Iraq poses a greater threat because of its BEHAVIOR. Again, its behavior + Weapons of Mass destruction that makes the need for military action a very real possibility.

One does not want to use military force if it is not needed. Judging by North Korea's behavior of the past 50 years, they are not about to attack anyone. North Korea is not in violation of 16 United Nations resolutions past under chapter 7 rules. Again, the mere fact that a country possess WMD materials is not the trigger for military action, its BEHAVIOR plus WMD that creates the need for military action. The USA never contemplated military action against South Africa or Brazil despite the fact that at one time South Africa had a nuclear weapon and Brazil could have built one. The reason of course was that their Behavior in foreign policy was not threatening.

But North Korea is still a threat but not in the way that Iraq is. Disarming North Korea could require an invasion of North Korea. Do to the size of the North Korean Army it would require more US military forces than what would be needed to defend South Korea from an attack. It is a much more difficult task to pull off because of the size of the North Korean Military. The North Korean Military's proximity to Seoul South Korea presents a delicate problem not present in the situation with Iraq. Most of North Korea's 10,600 + Conventional Artillery is in range of Soul South Korea. It is a certainty that North Korean Artillery could cause massive damage in Seoul South Korea if there is a military invasion of North Korea. A substantial amount of North Korean Artillery is built into the side of mountains with large concealed concreate doors that open up when they fire. Finding and Taking these large fortified guns out will take time. During this time, massive losses could be inflicted on the civilian population of Seoul to a degree that Iraq is not immediately capable of doing to any of its neighbors. Seoul is less than 30 miles from the Border with North Korea. North Korea's side of the border is a massive military fortification. This is a tactical and technical situation that does not exist with Iraq.

The above facts does not mean that the USA should completely avoid striking North Korea if that becomes necessary, but that there are many considerations that have to be taken into account that are not problems in military intervention against Iraq.

Of course the above does not take into account the fact that North Korea has Nuclear Weapons while Iraq currently does not but is trying to get them. The risk in attacking a Nuclear armed country is immeasurably greater than attacking one with just Bio/Chem weapons. This is another problem and risk that does not exist in yet in the Iraq situation. It is also an obvious reason that Iraq should be dealt with now before it obtains a Nuclear weapon.

Bottom line, Iraq's Behavior + WMD equal a threat that must be disarmed by military force if necessary. North Korea's technical abilities are very threatening, but their behavior over 50 years does not indicate that they are about to attack anyone or fire a ballistic missile at anyone. North Korea has not been at war with anyone in 50 years. That fact is not something you can just sweep under the rug.

No one wants to use military action if it is not necessary. Events in Iraq right now are leading to military action being a necessity. The Question to ask in BOTH situations on North Korea and Iraq is this: Is the risk of continueing with just containment greater than the risk of invasion?

In the case of Iraq, it is a greater risk to simply continue with just containment vs. invasion, if Iraq does not comply soon. In the case of North Korea, an invasion would be more risky than the policy of containment that has worked for 50 years, at the moment. The risk factor with North Korea could change though.

Iraq's actions have proven that it is an aggressive nation. North Korea's actions over the past 50 years in regards to its actions against other countries have been passive comparitively to Iraq.

Its not simply about prevention or reacting but rather a solution based on the level of risk in both situations and risk in the different senerio's for resolving those situations.
 
allright...i will agree with you on the fact that iraq posses the most immediate threat but i still rermain unconvinced that NK threat (as in how many ppl can be killed) is still there and should be dealt with very soon.

I am not sure of this but has NK ever been in the business of selling weapons? Would they ever support Iraq in a war with US?
 
Bonoman,

The North Korean threat you speak of has been there by most estimates since 1994 when it is believed they most likely built their first Nuclear Weapons. Their Conventional, and Chem/Bio Weapons have been there for nearly 50 years. The Risk now is that they could increase their stockpile from about 5 to several dozen.

North Korea has sold Ballistic Missiles to Iran, Yemen, and Pakistan. Ballistic Missiles are considered to be conventional weapons but can be fitted with Nuclear/Bio/Chem warheads instead of conventional ones.

They do not have the ability to support Iraq against the USA unless they found a way to smuggle them Ballistic missiles or other weapons. Sanctions have kept such large weapons platforms out of Iraq.
 
"North Korea exports missiles"

That's nothing new. Besides, the first exportation of the US is weapons or military-related. I don't see why the Americans are fussy about other countries having nuclear military capacities, since their country has the most and the most weapons and their economy first stuff is related to weapons.
 
Holy John said:
"North Korea exports missiles"

I don't see why the Americans are fussy about other countries having nuclear military capacities...

Maybe you'd be singing a different tune if Canada was a potential target for nukes sold to terrorists from Iraq or North Korea. The people of all FREE nations are in the war on terrorism, not just the US, eh?
 
Holy John said:
"North Korea exports missiles"

That's nothing new.

Maybe it isn't. Having reread the article, tha major deal is that they were being exported to YEMEN. Yemen, the country in which the USS Cole was bombed, and a country in which many Al-Qaeda operatives seem to like to hang out in. Maybe, that is the reason it was a big deal at the time. Within 24 hours, when it was realized who the missles were for, they were released.

Peace
 
wolfwill23 said:


Maybe you'd be singing a different tune if Canada was a potential target for nukes sold to terrorists from Iraq or North Korea. The people of all FREE nations are in the war on terrorism, not just the US, eh?

Have any nukes been sold to terrorists by whoever? We don?t know.

Has any A weaponry been sold to whoever by Iraq or NK? We don?t know, but don?t think so; Iraq not capable of selling, NK probably not evil enough (but who knows - we don?t know).

How many nations are free? How many have agreed w the war on terrorism? Have all so-called free nations agreed? How many have agreed w the war on terrorism in general, how many have agreed w U.S. methods of fighting terrorism?

Maybe you?d be singing a different tune if you learned to research correctly and to express your opinions more eloquent.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom