Kim's message: War is coming to US soil

Kim's message: War is coming to US soil

By Kim Myong Chol
("Unofficial" spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea.)

10/06/06 "Asia Times" -- -- The Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea announced on October 3 that the DPRK planned to conduct a nuclear test. The Foreign Ministry stated that the planned nuclear test was in response to the grave situation created by the US, where "the supreme national security interests of the DPRK are at stake with the Korean nation standing at the crossroads of life and death".

The nuclear test, once conducted, will have far-reaching implications for the Koreas and the rest of the world. It carries five messages.

The first message is that Kim Jong-il is the greatest of the peerless national heroes Korea has ever produced. Kim is unique in that he is the first to equip Korea with sufficient military capability to take the war all the way to the continental US. Under his leadership the DPRK has become a nuclear-weapons state with intercontinental means of delivery. Kim is certainly in the process of achieving the long-elusive goal of neutralizing the American intervention in Korean affairs and bringing together North and South Korea under the umbrella of a confederated state.

Unlike all the previous wars Korea fought, a next war will be better called the American War or the DPRK-US War because the main theater will be the continental US, with major cities transformed into towering infernos. The DPRK is now the fourth-most powerful nuclear weapons state just after the US, Russia, and China.

The DPRK has all types of nuclear bombs and warheads, atomic, hydrogen and neutron, and the means of delivery, short-range, medium-range and long-range, putting the whole of the continental US within effective range. The Korean People's Army also is capable of knocking hostile satellites out of action.

All the past Korean heroes let the Land of Morning Calm be reduced to smoking ruins as the wars were fought on its soil, even though they repelled the invaders. One of the two major aspirations of the Korean people has been the buildup of military capability enough to turn enemy land into the war theater. Kim has splendidly achieved this aspiration.

The other has been the neutralization and phasing out of the American presence in Korea before the two Koreas come together as a reunified state. When President George W Bush agreed on the 2009 transfer of wartime operational control over South Korean forces to the South Korean president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signaled the withdrawal of US troops with combat troops relocated from the front line to bases behind Seoul.

The title "the greatest iron-willed, brilliant commander" is reserved for Kim Jong-il, who has led tiny North Korea to acquire the most coveted membership of the elite nuclear club, braving all the nuclear war threats, sanctions and isolation efforts on the part of the US. It is little short of a miracle that the leader has outmaneuvered and outpowered the Bush administration against heavy odds.

Kim is adding to the glory of Koguryo and Dankun Korea, vindicating the military-first policy inspired by tamul (the Koguryo term for standing up to a major power, valuing the pride of being descendants of Dankun Korea, developing newer weapons, restoring lost land and settling old scores with foreign invaders).

Revealing are headlines of New York Times articles. One op-ed on February 9, 2005, by Nicholas Kristof is headlined "Bush Bites His Tongue". The article says: "There are two words the Bush administration doesn't want you to think about: North Korea. That's because the most dangerous failure of US policy these days is in North Korea. President Bush has been startlingly passive as North Korea has begun churning out nuclear weapons like hot cakes."

One article dated February 13, 2005, by B R Myers is "Stranger Than Fiction". He writes: "To North Korea, diplomacy is another form of war. Under the leadership of Kim Jong-il, the Foreign Ministry has bullied the United Nations into submission and outwitted the United States into providing food aid - all the while developing a formidable nuclear arsenal. This is, of course, the hardline view of North Korea that prevails in some quarters in Washington. Yet it is also the official North Korean view of North Korea."

The February 20, 2005. article by David Sanger is headlined "America Loses Bite," with a senior Bush administration official quoted as saying, "It's counterproductive to draw a red line for North Korea because they will only view it as a challenge." The article notes: "In North Korea's case, red lines may be what Kim Jong-il sees in his rear-view mirror."

In his September 9, 2006, address to the 4th Global Strategic Review of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Mitchell Reiss offered a remarkable observation:

"Perhaps the least-noted and most astonishing aspect of the entire diplomatic process involving North Korea during the past few years has been the almost complete inability of four of the world's strongest military and economic powers, including three nuclear weapons states and three members of the UN Security Council - the United States, China and Russia and Japan - to shape the strategic environment in Northeast Asia.

"They have proven thoroughly incapable of preventing an impoverished, dysfunctional country of only 23 million people from consistently endangering the peace and stability of the world's most economically dynamic region. This has been nothing less than a collective failure."

The December 29, 2002, Washington Post article by Michael Dobbs says: "US officials note that North Korea's action has been condemned by most of its neighbors and potential big-power patrons, such as China and Russia, Japan and South Korea. Such logic is unconvincing to many experts on North Korea. They contend that Kim is trying to set up a situation in which he wins, whatever happens."

The second point is that a nuclear test will be a legitimate exercise of North Korea's sovereign right in supreme national-security interests of the country. The sole reason for the development of nuclear weapons is more than 50 years of direct exposure to naked nuclear threats and sanctions from the US. The Kim administration seeks to commit nuclear weapons to actual use against the US in case of war, never to use them as a tool of negotiations.

It is sheer illusion to think that sanctions and isolation will stop North Korea from the planned nuclear test. US hostility, threats and sanctions are the very engines that have propelled the development of nuclear weapons. Absent US hostility, nuclear blackmailing, sanctions, threats of isolation and regime change, the Kim administration would never have thought at all of acquiring nuclear deterrence.

What makes North Korea unique among those states Bush lumped together as the "axis of evil" is that only it has been subjected to US nuclear threats and sanctions and singled out as a prime target of nuclear preemption. The US refuses to end the state of war with North Korea while keeping combat-ready nuclear-attack forces ready in bases in Japan and South Korea. North Korea is not host to any foreign military bases. The US is engaged in ceaseless nuclear-attack exercises in and around Japan and South Korea.

The US, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan and Israel conducted numerous nuclear detonation experiments in legitimate exercise of their sovereignty. There is no international convention or treaty that prohibits North Korea from conducting underground nuclear tests. No country is allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of North Korea in material breach of Chapter 2 of the UN charter, unless they are prepared to risk triggering nuclear war with North Korea.

The third message is that the nuclear-armed North Korea will be a major boon to China and Russia. Nuclear-armed, the two countries are friendless in case of war with the US. The US has nuclear-armed allies, such as the UK and France. The Americans have a network of military bases around the two countries, while they have none. The presence of a mighty nuclear weapons state in Korea should be most welcome to Russia and China.

The People's Republic of China has every reason to welcome a nuclear-armed North Korea, whatever it may say in public. The nuclear deterrence of North Korea is a major factor in reducing US military pressure on China on the question of the independence of Taiwan.

The fourth point is that the North Korea government of Kim does not care at all whether Japan goes nuclear, or that South Korea and Australia follow suit. In the first place, those countries are practically nuclear-armed because they are under the nuclear umbrella of the US and house American nuclear bases and because Tokyo's military spending is 10 times that of Pyongyang's and Seoul's defense budget is five times that of Pyongyang's. It is too obvious that they are capable of acquiring nuclear weapons at short notice.

The factor that has prevented them from developing their own nuclear weapons is political pressure from the US, not because North Korea was only conventionally armed. The US has insisted that they should be under the nuclear umbrella and buy expensive high-tech weapons from them.

Their becoming nuclear powers will signal that the US is no longer a reliable cop. At long last de-Americanization of the US allies and neutralization of the US in the rest of the world will be set into motion. This is one of the reasons why the Kim administration has every reason to secretly welcome the nuclear arming of junior US allies.

The main enemy to North Korea is the US, the sole surviving superpower in the world. Acquisition of hundreds of nuclear weapons by Japan and South Korea will not have any serious impact on the total balance of nuclear power. Japan and South Korea have too much to lose in a nuclear war with North Korea, while North Korea has little.

It is important to note that the nuclear weapons and long-range means of delivery are not aimed at South Korea and will be common property shared with South Korea under a confederated government.

The fifth and last point is a long, overdue farewell to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, with the Bush administration standing in the dock as prime defendant accused of sabotaging nuclear non-proliferation. Had the Americans been steadfast in upholding the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by reducing their nuclear weapons and respecting the sovereignty and independence of the non-nuclear states, North Korea would not have felt any need to defend itself with nuclear weapons.

A nuclear test by North Korea will go a long way toward emboldening anti-American states around the world to acquire nuclear weapons. There is a long line of candidate states.

It is important to note that the North Korean Foreign Ministry pledges to faithfully implement its international commitment in the field of nuclear non-proliferation as a responsible nuclear-weapons state and to prohibit nuclear transfer.

Kim Myong-chol is author of a number of books and papers in Korean, Japanese and English on North Korea. He is executive director of the Center for Korean-American Peace. He has a PhD from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Academy of Social Sciences and is often called an "unofficial" spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ06Dg01.html

No votes yet

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thanks Clinton

Too bad Clinton and his liberal losers paid Kim to get his nuclear program off the ground. I suppose now it's "liar" Bush's fault, huh Vees?

Where'd you get that from?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be contentious. I never heard that before and I'd like to follow it up.

--
A tidy house is the sign of a stolen computer.

HA! Good One!

oh wait...
you're not joking...

Bush has been in power for 6 years and done NOTHING about North Korea. But yet somehow them joining the nuclear club is Clinton's fault. Will Bush ever be accountable for ANYTHING? Record deficits, expanded government, US citizens under warrantless surveillance, a nuclear N. Korea and probably Iran, and you like that guy?

What Clinton did is called engagement and negotiation. And it worked. How many nuclear bombs did N. Korea test when Clinton was in power?

He just "negotiated" with

He just "negotiated" with them while they were busy developing their nuclear weapons technology behind the scenes. Clinton negotiated a deal to build a nuclear reactor for them. Hmmmm, a nuclear reactor is a nice place to start when it comes to making plutonium for a bomb, but N. Korea was supposed to be nice and not develop a weapon. Clinton trusted N. Korea. Bush did not. Clinton just tried to appease them, and he certainly didn't do anything effective that really stopped their weapons program, though he would claim that he did.

Korea a tough case -

We lost that war back in 1956 - China supported North Korea and Douglas McArthur wanted to nuke China to teach them a lesson. Our president got rid of McArthur (who, the stories go, called the president a "stupid little bastard" - and Dougie was a big man). At least the Chinese agreed to the partitioning of Korea. Since then the Chinese (officially - who knows what the unofficial reality is) seem to see NK as a threat to stability in the region. For about 20 years now, NK has been testing rockets (always aimed toward Japan) but nothing was ever done except call Kim a "bad boy". The Japanese are really scared because they're NK's biggest enemy and the USA is only the second biggest. They fear payback for the war atrocities from WW2.

Dubbyah certainly wasn't at his diplomatic best when he called NK part of "an axis of evil", stated that there will be a "regime change", and proceeded to invade Iraq. That what all pretty damned stupid considering we knew that NK had rockets which could deliver nuclear payloads to Japan (and for all we know, as far as Anchorage /Juno/Fairbanks). We also knew he was working on nukes - all that despite the fact that NK is one of the most difficult countries to get any info out of. NK really is run by a loony - even the Chinese who used to support Kim can't get through to him. UN sanctions won't work because Kim is quite happy to allow his people to suffer while he builds up his war machine. Now that we know he has working nukes (how many and can they be mounted on rockets yet), it's pretty dangerous to attempt to prepare an invasion force at this point. See, if Saddam had the weapons we were told he had, do you think we'd have any chance of amassing that fleet in the Persian gulf? Our invasion force would have nothing to worry about though - Japan will still be the primary target.

Told ya Iraq was nothing but a smokescreen for Dubbyah. We're really in it now.

Now even the GOP is talking about a hasty retreat from Iraq. Oh great - even more trouble. Iraq will have a civil war and the likely winners (ultimately) will be the Shiite with support from Iran - if we're lucky. Although they are also enemies of Al'Qaida (Al'Qaida would love to exterminate all of them because they are considered heretics), they will have so many of their own problems to deal with that they won't be able to address the problem of terrorist camps being built.

And back to Korea - the GOP says the Democrats are spineless dogs because they voted against anti-ballistic missile defenses. Well good - anyone selling you ABM is selling you the Brooklyn Bridge. Basically, if you can't hit an ICBM within about 20s of launch, you're never going to hit it. They travel at incredible speeds and we know the Russian missiles can deploy up to 50 dummy loads. Forget a snowball's chance in hell - you've got more like a snowflake's chance in hell of stopping that. If you want some idea of how fast the ICBMs travel, go watch a launch next time we use a Titan to put up a satellite. The rocket is the same used to carry nukes. Watching these large rockets take off is almost a religious experience - they are damned impressive. Just look at the failure rate of the 'Patriot' missiles - they can't even stop much slower short-range rockets. Really the only way to prevent the enemies missiles from hitting us is to sabotage all their missiles - that is certainly much more feasible than ABM. Guess what our scientists as well as the Russians figured out back in the 1960s - the only feasible ABM strategy is a space-based nuke. Guess what else - neither side wanted nukes in space. Well, we can have them now because the very first thing Dubbyah did in office was to say that old treaty with Russia was invalid. It was a good treaty though - if the Russians had nukes in space they certainly wouldn't be trying to aim them at any weapons we launch, and we would have done the same.

Well, let's be grateful that the Iranians aren't as bad as Dubbyah claims they are because we have one serious mess here now. That's what we get for having a shoot-'em-up president - a president that is so damned stupid he believes a war could be won in a matter of "days or weeks, not months or years". All this torture stuff isn't doing us any good either - Dubbyah sure knows how to make enemies. Oh, and there's Cuba - we're so lucky they have no plans to cause us any trouble - Venezuela too. Don't forget our cowboy president has recently threatened wars with those countries.

Re: Korea a tough case

Quote:
NK has been testing rockets (always aimed toward Japan)...

This might be just poorly worded, but it creates an aggressive impression that just isn't true.

North Korea tests ballistic missiles, yes; but they do not "aim" them at Japan. The reason they appear to go towards Japan is simply due to the earth's rotation.

Look at a map of Korea. Without hitting another country, how could you test a missile that can go hundreds of miles? There is only one way -- you fire it out into the Sea of Japan. And that's exactly what North Korea does. It should be noted that like all missile-testing countries, North Korea gives international notice of their tests so their tests do not appear as a sneak attack on their neighbors.

North Korea is now testing missiles designed to launch satellites and could carry nuke warheads to other continents. Those missiles' flight path will be carried over Japan just because of the earth's rotation.

But as undesireable as these tests are, North Korea is not "aiming" their missiles at anyone.

If we don't like those missile tests, we can either expect that North Korea fall to its knees and surrender (but don't hold your breath), or perhaps we can sign a peace treaty with them and assure them that the US will not attack their country.

Those are the two ways tensions will be reduced. Which do you think is more likely to happen?

Re: North Korean nuke summary

Quote:
Too bad Clinton and his liberal losers paid Kim to get his nuclear program off the ground.

That quote is simply right-wing rubbish and is demonstrably false. Clinton's policy of engaging the North was one of the smarter US policy moves. Let's recap:

* North Korea claims it started its nuclear program up under Clinton because the US war-gamed a nuclear first-strike against North Korea. We do know the war game happened, we just aren't positive about North Korea's motivation for starting its program -- but the North's claim is certainly logical.

* The Clinton administration negotiated the deal for the North to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for more active monitoring and replacing the North's old heavy-water reactors (which generate a good amount of plutonium and are great for building nukes) with modern US light-water reactors which would be very difficult to build nukes with. The North fully abided by this agreement.

This policy resulted in the North opening up. North Korea dreamed of being a regional energy supplier, supplying electricity to energy-starved China and to South Korea. Chinese and South Korean businessmen started opening up factories in the North. Korean families crossed the border for the first time in decades to reunite. These were all great things and directly resulted from Clinton's policy.

* When Bush was appointed US president a series of events happened. The light-water reactor project was already behind schedule and underfunded. Bush cut funding further and even more serious, he cut off the oil shipments that the US had committed to delivering to the North until the reactors were completed (the oil shipments were to make up for the loss of power when the North froze their reactors). In short, Bush killed the Clinton agreement with the North.

* Add to that the fact that Bush publicly insulted the South Korean president's (in front of the president, no less) "sunshine" policy of economic, family, and cultural exchanges between North and South Korea. (Why would Bush stick his nose into Korea's internal affairs in a move that would only increase tension between the North and South?)

* Then Bush came out with his illegal "Bush Doctrine", claiming the right to invade any country he wanted to. He also put North Korea on notice with his "axis of evil" insult of the North.

* And what a surprise, in response to the illegal US invasion of Iraq, North Korea withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

* North Korea then built and tested a bomb.

I wish that North Korea would spend their money on other things, but North Korea's moves are logical and one might argue an appropriate response to US threats and the abrogation of Clinton's agreement.

I also think it's important to note what North Korea has been asking for during Bush's reign:

* The North wants a peace treaty with the US ending the Korean war (which is technically still on -- it's legally just in a cease-fire mode).

* The North wants economic sanctions to be lifted.

In return, the North was willing to scrap their nuclear program and to allow inspections again.

Is that really all that unreasonable? But what was the US response? Bush refuses to talk one on one with North Korea and refuses to give any guarantees that the US will not attack North Korea.

When viewed fully, it seems that Bush got exactly what he wanted -- I mean, did he really expect North Korea to fall to its knees and to cave in to his breaking Clinton's agreement and to US insults and threats?

Clinton is to blame

Quote:
North Korea

North Korea's feared aim to create nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles was a serious problem for the Clinton Administration. In 1994, North Korea, a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, refused to allow international inspectors to review two nuclear waste sites. The inspectors wanted to see if North Korea was in violation of the treaty since they were suspected of reprocessing spent fuel into plutonium, which could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.[46] Despite diplomatic pressure and repeated warnings by Clinton,[47] North Korea refused to allow the inspections and even raised the prospect of war with South Korea, an ally of the United States.

After private diplomacy by former president Jimmy Carter, the Clinton administration reached a breakthrough with North Korea in October 1994 when North Korea agreed to shut down the nuclear plants that could produce materials for weapons if the United States would help North Korea build plants that generated electricity with light-water nuclear reactors. These reactors would be more efficient and their waste could not easily be used for nuclear weaponry.[48] The United States also agreed to supply fuel oil for electricity until the new plants were built, and North Korea agreed to allow inspection of the old waste sites when construction began on the new plants.[48] This 1994 Agreed Framework, as it was known, kept the Yongbyon plutonium enrichment plant closed and under international inspection until 2002. After which North Korea broke off the treaty and restarted plutonium production. In October of 2006, North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon.*

Clinton gave in to North Korean threats thus strengthening North Korea's conviction that the US could be manipulated. In 2002 they tried the same trick only then we got a president that kept his back straight.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#North_Korea

Isn't that what he just said?

I realise that I might have completely misinterpreted this thread, but it seems to me that your Wikipedia article essentially restates IntnsRed's post. In short, North Korea was developing nukes, but Clinton (with Carter's help) managed to convince them to stop production and build cleaner reactors that wouldn't produce weapons grade plutonium. As well as that, inspectors were allowed in to oversee the process.

As far as I can see this is a summary of both posts. Is this correct?

If so, I'm trying to work out where the threat is that Clinton gave in to. When I went to school this was what was called a win-win situation, and was considered the mature way to deal with differences.

There was this one kid at school who would happily negotiate around a problem, then decide at the last minute the deal didn't suit him. He'd just grab your marbles and run off. He was happy (he had the most marbles, and he kept rubbing our noses in it), and because he was the biggest kid in school nobody dared touch him. That didn't stop everyone thinking he was a prize idiot though. After a while we just stopped playing with him.

Funny how these things keep repeating themselves.

--
A tidy house is the sign of a stolen computer.

Re: Isn't that what he just said?

I don't think there's much use in trying to convince someone who thinks Bush is honest to listen to reality. As a Bush aide famously said, they don't act based on reality. :-)

But for more details of the "not reported on Fox" reality of US and North Korean negotiations, you'll find this article interesting (in spite of some of its rhetoric, the facts the article lays out are correct).

The author starts out with a quote from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which bluntly states that countries can withdraw from the treaty.

The hypocrisy and double standards are simply mind-boggling!

* The US announces a "doctrine" that it will attack any country it wants to, without provocation. The UN does nothing.

* The US then launches an unprovoked attact on Iraq. The UN Secretary General (and many others) call it "illegal" but the UN does nothing.

* North Korea pleads for years for normal relations with the US, assurances that the US won't attack it, and they get nothing but the US violating an agreement with the North.

* North Korea then legally withdraws from the NPT and tests a nuclear weapon. The UN uses sanctions against North Korea.

I think it's safe to say the UN has its priorities backwards and is horribly broken.

Yes the UN is broken. The

Yes the UN is broken. The real problem with North Korea is that the U.S. doesn't like the idea of a crazy communist leader who oppresses his people having access to a nuclear weapon.

As far as the U.S. acting unilaterally, when you are the most powerful nation in the world, that's what you can do. Not that it's always good or right, but that's reality. While the UN continually proves its impotence, the U.S. is left to look out for its own, and act unilaterally.

To be good or bad, that is the question

You're exactly right there. The US is big and strong enough to do whatever it wants (recent military snafus notwithstanding). You've hit the nail on the head by saying that it's not always good or right.

All the leftie-commie-pinko-hippy-treehuggers on this forum ask is that the US uses its strength to do good and not bad. Why can't that be reality?

--
A tidy house is the sign of a stolen computer.

negotiations...

Negotiations with N Korea have always been plagued with innumerable problems. One goes like this:

NK: I will do all these sensible things if the USA agrees to these demands:
> promises never to attack NK under any circumstance
> agrees to allow all NK products into the USA without tarriff
> [long list of other ridiculous demands]

And another goes like this:
USA: We will enter into negotiations with NK if NK agree to the following list of demands... (long list of demands ranging from sensible to outrageous)

I get the impression that people in power simply don't want any negotiations with NK and would rather have the country fall apart in a civil war - something which the Chinese would like to avoid. China (and Russia) prefer 'stability' (even if it means a loon has absolute control of the place) because it means:
1. they can continue to sell weapons (hey, don't complain - our munitions manufacturers legally sell weapons to all sorts of scum governments)
2. there's a smaller threat of having to deal with refugees

It's a bit like the Cuban situation really - lots of embargoes, no chance of negotiations. But in the case of Cuba I think communism would have been long dead if we didn't have all the trade restrictions - at the very least it would have evolved more like China. And of course Cuba isn't run by a raving lunatic and is no threat to the USA - the only real threat was when Russia was moving mid-range nukes into Cuba as part of its deal with Castro, and that was resolved about 40 years ago.

The UN is meant to be an arbitrator and attempt to resolve problems in an effort to avoid a war. Because most members have a say, they are automatically rendered pretty useless at resolving a genuine crisis. So, nations need to prepare for war regardless of the UN, but preferably with backing by other member nations and preferably with the support of at least 2 of UK/Germany/France. However, ignoring the UN altogether and just jumping into wars is on the whole dumber than playing along with this rather lame organization. When we attacked Afghanistan there wasn't much of a complaint. When we announced we were attacking Iraq there were a lot of legitimate complaints. Now North Korea comes up as a big genuine problem and Dubbyah's got his tail between his legs vainly hoping the UN can be of use. Our troops are spread thin, we're losing in Afghanistan and we're losing in Iraq. Now the N.Koreans can be really nasty so what do we do now? By what measure are we winning this 'war on terror'? It's really a management and PR war - there were no solid objectives from the start, so no measure of success and all facts are pointing to failure at numerous levels. The president was an imbecile to announce "Mission Accomplished" after a few weeks of bombing Iraq. I mean, what mission was that - to bomb Iraq? Easily accomplished, but it doesn't accomplish anything useful.

As usual, the UN will get nowhere with N.Korea - what then - we just hope people forget and plod along hoping N. Korea (as in the past) doesn't actually attack anyone on a large scale? That's what I'm betting on - I certainly don't see Dubbyah coming up with a real solution.

Syndicate content