North Korea would launch a ballistic missile attack on the United States if Washington made a pre-emptive strike against the communist state's nuclear facility, the man described as Pyongyang's "unofficial spokesman" claimed yesterday.
Kim Myong-chol, who has links to the Stalinist regime, told reporters in Tokyo that a US strike on the nuclear facility at Yongbyon "means nuclear war".
"If American forces carry out a pre-emptive strike on the Yongbyon facility, North Korea will immediately target, carry the war to the US mainland," he said, adding that New York, Washington and Chicago would be "aflame".
Included in the article is the news that On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium — a key component of advanced nuclear weapons — near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."
It is news reports like this that make one wonder why seemingly the entire focus of the U.S. strategy to deal with terrorism and world instability hinges on Iraq. But if we must invade, I hope it's dealt with swiftly (as I am sure it will be, as really the Iraqi military is almost as intimidating as the French) so we can shift focus to these IMO much more disturbing and pressing problems.
Funny how Iran and North Korea acting up is getting attention now. Perhaps Bush knew what he was talking about when he brought up the Axis of Evil comment in 2002. Now, tackling all of these separately:
Iraq: We're going in. Personally, I'd prefer going after the Saudi's, but thats just something I've always believed in. The only thing that concerns me about Iraq is it almost seems to easy right now. Back in '91, routing Iraq had a shocking tone to it, now, anything less than a 96 hour victory will be viewed as a disappointment.
Iran: I don't think we're going after them. I think they are 2-3 years from an internal revolution to overthrow the revolution of the late 70's.
North Korea: When people question why military action in Iraq and not in North Korea, it comes down to this simple belief: Horses for courses. If you go military into North Korea, Seoul gets bombed into the stone age right out of the gate. Plus, the sleeping giant China is nearby, and if anyone wants to think China will let an attack on North Korea go without response, look back at the Korean War. Plus, and this is a very big plus, the leader of North Korea is a certifiable lunatic. Sane people are easier to attack, because at least then you can devise a relatively coherant strategy of defense. Nutcases on the other hand means any strategy has to be thrown out the window.
I'll pay $49.95 for the Execute Bin Laden PPV. And I'll buy one of the lottery tickets at 10 bucks a pop to be the executioner.
Interesting when realpolitik collides with our government's stated worldviews. My question though is if NK is led by a lunatic, how can we hope to reason with him diplomatically? By that logic, shouldn't he be even more a necessary military target, since the insane will not listen to reason and might go off and nuke Seoul anyhow?
Iraq admitted it had the weapons, and agreed as a condition of ending the first Gulf War, and as a condition to the future lifting of sanctions, that it would destroy all of its weapons and programs and provide evidence that it was done.