N. Korea threatens nuclear strike on White House

[Lovelife090994]

http://news.yahoo.com/n-korea-threatens-nuclear-strike-white-house-090550866.html

Seoul (AFP) - A top-ranking North Korean military official has threatened a nuclear strike on the White House and Pentagon after accusing Washington of raising military tensions on the Korean peninsula.

The threat came from Hwang Pyong-So, director of the military's General Political Bureau, during a speech to a large military rally in Pyongyang Sunday on the anniversary of the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War.

Hwang, who holds the rank of vice marshal in the Korean People's Army, said a recent series of South Korea-US military drills, one of which included the deployment of a nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier, had ramped up tensions.

"If the US imperialists threaten our sovereignty and survival... our troops will fire our nuclear-armed rockets at the White House and the Pentagon -- the sources of all evil," Hwang said in his speech broadcast Monday on state television.

It is not the first time that North Korea's bellicose rhetoric has included threats of nuclear strikes on the continental United States and US bases in the Pacific.

But most experts believe it is still a long way from developing a viable intercontinental ballistic missile with the required range.


The North has conducted three nuclear tests, but is not thought to have mastered the miniaturisation techniques necessary for mounting a warhead on a missile.

It does possess a range of short-and mid-range missiles capable of striking South Korea and Japan, and has conducted a series of test firings into the Sea of Japan (East Sea) in recent weeks.

The latest test on Saturday -- guided by the leader Kim Jong-Un -- simulated a short-range missile strike on South Korea where 28,500 US troops are stationed, the North's state media said.

It defied censure by the UN Security Council which officially condemned Pyongyang on July 17 over the recent tests as violations of UN resolutions prohibiting the North from using ballistic missile technology.


Bad move North Korea. Why is North Korea still in the hands of an insane, fat, sadistically happy, pig who only seeks to bring misery?

[Typhlosion]

That's a lot of news you're posting :lol:

I wish the DPRK actually sent this missile. We would finally have a solid reason to fix their country.
Bad move North Korea. Why is North Korea still in the hands of an insane, fat, sadistically happy, pig who only seeks to bring misery?
What? Of course not. It's the same game the DPRK has been playing for years: food stocks go low, start to invest in nuclear technology, threaten USA/Korea, get food in exchange for stopping investment on nuclear technology. The only misery is not opening up for the global economy.

[Ethe14]

Damn it I was going to post this but you beat me to it :P. Anyway yeah this is just Kim's way of rattling so his sword to get attention back on him. Besides they aren't even capable of hitting and U.S territory. Japan maybe but I doubt that too.

[Lovelife090994]

That's a lot of news you're posting :lol:

I wish the DPRK actually sent this missile. We would finally have a solid reason to fix their country.

What? Of course not. It's the same game the DPRK has been playing for years: food stocks go low, start to invest in nuclear technology, threaten USA/Korea, get food in exchange for stopping investment on nuclear technology. The only misery is not opening up for the global economy.

Sorry. I won't post anymore news for a while then.

[OrKing]

North Korea seems to be like that one kid who threatens violence every time someone annoys him yet never actually does anything. Only some people still take North Korea seriously. Guess it has something to do with the nukes. :lol:

[CharlieHorse]

North Korea again?
jeez

[thatcountrykid]

this shit needs to stop.

[Miserabilia]

Sigh. F*ing NK man.

[Harry Smith]

lol if this happened the table at the pentagon would rise by about 6 inches

[Vlerchan]

this shit needs to stop.
I agree.

I say we nuke NK now whilst we still have the chance.

[thatcountrykid]

i wouldnt say nuke em as it is costly with extreme civilian casualty and will effect allied nations. i say shock and awe. b-2's,b-52's,f-18's,a-10's. missiles. after we weaken them then begin a ground war

[Harry Smith]

i wouldnt say nuke em as it is costly with extreme civilian casualty and will effect allied nations. i say shock and awe. b-2's,b-52's,f-18's,a-10's. missiles. after we weaken them then begin a ground war

oh you're so brave sending another 50,000 americans to die, B-52? The fat old bomber from the cold war. The vietnamese were able to shoot them down like flies.

But sure let's invade North Korea-it worked well in Iraq

[thatcountrykid]

oh you're so brave sending another 50,000 americans to die, B-52? The fat old bomber from the cold war. The vietnamese were able to shoot them down like flies.

But sure let's invade North Korea-it worked well in Iraq


im two years from joining man. if i vote to go it means im going. and hey they joined the military. they know what they signed up for. b-52's are still flyin strong. and there is a different between the North korea and iraq but this isnt a debate.

[UnknownError]

i wouldnt say nuke em as it is costly with extreme civilian casualty and will effect allied nations. i say shock and awe. b-2's,b-52's,f-18's,a-10's. missiles. after we weaken them then begin a ground war

i think the last thing the world needs is any more unnecessary wars.

[thatcountrykid]

oh you're so brave sending another 50,000 americans to die, B-52? The fat old bomber from the cold war. The vietnamese were able to shoot them down like flies.

But sure let's invade North Korea-it worked well in Iraq

i think the last thing the world needs is any more unnecessary wars.

i wouldny consider war with north korea unnecessary

[Hideous]

That's just insane.

[phuckphace]

The only misery is not opening up for the global economy.

totally, mang. one of these days we're gonna liberate them, and finally they too will know the joy of big greasy steamers birthed from Ronald McDonald's magic capitalist rectum.

[Southside]

i wouldny consider war with north korea unnecessary

It would be unnecessary, it'd be an unprovoked war just like the last couple wars we've been apart of.

Now of course I agree that N. Korea's government is tyrannical and the people over there deserve to be liberated and free but that does not justify going over there with B-52's and blowing the place up. I think in due time the N. Korean people will find the courage/strength to stage a coup or something like that to topple the government.

Its probably a group of guys right now in North Korea secretly planning to topple the regime, every dictator has his day(Except Castro).

[thatcountrykid]

It would be unnecessary, it'd be an unprovoked war just like the last couple wars we've been apart of.

Now of course I agree that N. Korea's government is tyrannical and the people over there deserve to be liberated and free but that does not justify going over there with B-52's and blowing the place up. I think in due time the N. Korean people will find the courage/strength to stage a coup or something like that to topple the government.

Its probably a group of guys right now in North Korea secretly planning to topple the regime, every dictator has his day(Except Castro).

so testing missles in a simulation to attack south korea isnt provocative? firing on south korea isnt provocative?

[Harry Smith]

so testing missles in a simulation to attack south korea isnt provocative? firing on south korea isnt provocative?

It's no different to what the US did in the 1940's and 50's. Heck the US dropped one on Japan just to show what the Soviets the power that they had.

But sure I'd love the US to attack another country-it's getting worse than the British in the 1800's.

[thatcountrykid]

It's no different to what the US did in the 1940's and 50's. Heck the US dropped one on Japan just to show what the Soviets the power that they had.

But sure I'd love the US to attack another country-it's getting worse than the British in the 1800's.

oh yeah thats exactly why we did. thats sarcasm if you couldnt tell.

war sucks. no one wars war but shit needs to get done somehow.

[Vlerchan]

i say shock and awe. b-2's,b-52's,f-18's,a-10's. missiles. after we weaken them then begin a ground war
It seems like an obviously bad idea to bomb civilian population centres - shock & awe - and then expect to be greeted as liberators when you deploy ground forces.

so testing missles in a simulation to attack south korea isnt provocative? firing on south korea isnt provocative?
You're supportive of the US invading right?

[Harry Smith]

oh yeah thats exactly why we did. thats sarcasm if you couldnt tell.

war sucks. no one wars war but shit needs to get done somehow.

Yes it was, you bombed islands in the pacific to show off the power of your new bombs, you got people to go to Nevada to watch you set off the new atomic bombs, you had people like Curtis LeMay (Chief of the Defense Staff and VP candiate in 1968) saying that the US should wipe out the Soviets with an air attack.

It's very hpyocrical of you to denounce North Korea for threatening language when the first thing you do is call for them to be bombed with some sort of lust. Oh yeah lets give them some good old freedom, send some good old B-52 in those sons of bitches won't know that the strong arm of uncle sam has hit them.

You're as much a warmonger as Kim Jon Il.

yes with diplomacy first, not war first diplomacy latter. You can't just bomb nearly every country in the world and then say oh yeah war happens. It's just raping someone and saying 'oh yeah people get raped'

[Kahn]

I have no care for what far-away leaders in far-away lands have to say about our Country. To threaten them with nuclear retaliation and subsequent conquest, and destruction, would be like a 22 year old Floyd Mayweather beating a 12 year old boy to a pulp. War doesn't need to happen. Domestic affairs are more important than butthurt Koreans, at the moment.

[Lovelife090994]

Yes it was, you bombed islands in the pacific to show off the power of your new bombs, you got people to go to Nevada to watch you set off the new atomic bombs, you had people like Curtis LeMay (Chief of the Defense Staff and VP candiate in 1968) saying that the US should wipe out the Soviets with an air attack.

It's very hpyocrical of you to denounce North Korea for threatening language when the first thing you do is call for them to be bombed with some sort of lust. Oh yeah lets give them some good old freedom, send some good old B-52 in those sons of bitches won't know that the strong arm of uncle sam has hit them.

You're as much a warmonger as Kim Jon Il.

yes with diplomacy first, not war first diplomacy latter. You can't just bomb nearly every country in the world and then say oh yeah war happens. It's just raping someone and saying 'oh yeah people get raped'

You can't blow things up forever, they'll pop. Kim Jon Il is way worse than this commentor at the present. Besides, you are bringing up WWII again.

[thatcountrykid]

Yes it was, you bombed islands in the pacific to show off the power of your new bombs, you got people to go to Nevada to watch you set off the new atomic bombs, you had people like Curtis LeMay (Chief of the Defense Staff and VP candiate in 1968) saying that the US should wipe out the Soviets with an air attack.

It's very hpyocrical of you to denounce North Korea for threatening language when the first thing you do is call for them to be bombed with some sort of lust. Oh yeah lets give them some good old freedom, send some good old B-52 in those sons of bitches won't know that the strong arm of uncle sam has hit them.

You're as much a warmonger as Kim Jon Il.

yes with diplomacy first, not war first diplomacy latter. You can't just bomb nearly every country in the world and then say oh yeah war happens. It's just raping someone and saying 'oh yeah people get raped'

i dont "lust" for war. war is shit but sometimes like the case with north korea war would be the only answer. i have not seen a single moment were diplomacy solved a problem within 30 years.

[thatcountrykid]

I have no care for what far-away leaders in far-away lands have to say about our Country. To threaten them with nuclear retaliation and subsequent conquest, and destruction, would be like a 22 year old Floyd Mayweather beating a 12 year old boy to a pulp. War doesn't need to happen. Domestic affairs are more important than butthurt Koreans, at the moment.


well if the 12 year old has, lets just say here, nuclear weapons that can reach our allies, i would consider it a problem.

[Vlerchan]

i have not seen a single moment were diplomacy solved a problem within 30 years.
The USSR - Reagan-Gorbachev talks.
Northern Ireland - The Troubles and The Good Friday Agreement.
Iran - recent WMD talks.

Etc.

You'll also find that historically a lot more conflicts have been solved through diplomacy than war. The problem is that since diplomacy isn't as exciting as war it doesn't get written about that often.

[Kahn]

well if the 12 year old has, lets just say here, nuclear weapons that can reach our allies, i would consider it a problem.

Ifs are so tricky. If that were true, and if nuclear weapons were used on Asia or its subsequent islands, the entire Asian continent would wage war against the North Koreans. A nuclear detonation wouldn't affect just the Koreans and whichever ally of ours you'd like to assume they nuked, but its effects would be felt by all nations in the area. These modern nukes aren't like those produced by The Manhattan Project and, if you're scenario were to happen, I'm assuming they're leveling a major population center, whereas we avoided those altogether (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

His words mean little. He simply cannot risk such a move. The Koreans would be devestated in the aftermath.

[thatcountrykid]

Ifs are so tricky. If that were true, and if nuclear weapons were used on Asia or its subsequent islands, the entire Asian continent would wage war against the North Koreans. A nuclear detonation wouldn't affect just the Koreans and whichever ally of ours you'd like to assume they nuked, but its effects would be felt by all nations in the area. These modern nukes aren't like those produced by The Manhattan Project and, if you're scenario were to happen, I'm assuming they're leveling a major population center, whereas we avoided those altogether (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

His words mean little. He simply cannot risk such a move. The Koreans would be devestated in the aftermath.

you never know what a guy with a severe case of little man syndrome would do. and he does have nukes that can reach japan and of course south korea.

[The37thElement]

Pretty cute, North Korea, pretty cute.

[Kahn]

you never know what a guy with a severe case of little man syndrome would do. and he does have nukes that can reach japan and of course south korea.

To go to war based on the low character of a leader would be a bit premature. You could say that toppling his regime would save potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives (this is all IF he used his weapons of mass destruction), but how many lives would be expended waging such a war?

Kim Jong-un can threaten all he wants. Unless he acts on those threats, we should pay him as little mind as possible.

[thatcountrykid]

To go to war based on the low character of a leader would be a bit premature. You could say that toppling his regime would save potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives (this is all IF he used his weapons of mass destruction), but how many lives would be expended waging such a war?

Kim Jong-un can threaten all he wants. Unless he acts on those threats, we should pay him as little mind as possible.

just like we payed little mind to hitler and his threats?

[Kahn]

just like we payed little mind to hitler and his threats?

Hitler sued for peace 25 times over the course of World War 2. For such an aggressive man, he sought many alternatives to destruction. What did Churchill have to say about the war?

"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to." - Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

[thatcountrykid]

yeah hitler asked for peace after he got this little country. like ok ill stop war after i get this. no i want this too.

i say there was no other solution than combat

[Kahn]

yeah hitler asked for peace after he got this little country. like ok ill stop war after i get this. no i want this too.

i say there was no other solution than combat

How hypocritical it is of us to condemn Hitler for using force to defend his people, when we justify war by saying "combat was simply necessary." Hitler never wanted war. It was the League of Nations who waged war on Hitler, after he occupied parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria- all of which were prior German territory which had a majority German population, all of which welcomed Hitler with open arms.

To which side should we blame for warmongering truly?

[thatcountrykid]

How hypocritical it is of us to condemn Hitler for using force to defend his people, when we justify war by saying "combat was simply necessary." Hitler never wanted war. It was the League of Nations who waged war on Hitler, after he occupied parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria- all of which were prior German territory which had a majority German population, all of which welcomed Hitler with open arms.

To which side should we blame for warmongering truly?

poland welcomed hitler? france welcomed hitler? bullshit.

Thats like saying russia is justified in taking crimea from ukraine which is how hitles started with Czechoslovakia.

[Kahn]

poland welcomed hitler? france welcomed hitler? bullshit.

Thats like saying russia is justified in taking crimea from ukraine which is how hitles started with Czechoslovakia.

The Polish government welcomed Hitler? No. France welcomed Hitler? I didn't say that. France waged war on Hitler, along with Great Britain, launching the European war.

The German-Polish citizens occupying Danzig welcomed Hitler overwhelmingly, as they took up 95.03% of the population. In light of this fact, one may be surprised to learn of the brutal atrocities committed against those citizens by the Polish government and the Polish people. Some of these atrocities included seizure of property, rape, finding corpses with their faces smashed in, amputations, disembowelments, death-trauma births, random shootings, etc. Germany had protested these humanitarian violations to the Leage of Nations on numerous occassions, but their calls went unanswered. Was Hitler supposed to let his people be slaughtered and oppressed?

On the subject of the Sudetenland, again, we're faced with the revelation that the people occupying this territory were majority German and before World War I they were German lands. After being annexed, in the official election in 1938, the people of Sudetenland voted 97.32% for the NSDAP (Nazi party). Clearly, these people welcomed Hitler as much as the hundreds of thousands of Germans in Danzig did.

Do you want me to tell you about Austria?

Please don't put words into my mouth. Read what I said and think about it. France waged war on Germany, they had every right to defend themselves and invade France. By your logic, we should have left Texas to Mexico.

[Vlerchan]

In light of this fact, one may be surprised to learn of the brutal atrocities committed against those citizens by the Polish government and the Polish people.
Would you mind providing a source supporting this claim? I wasn't aware of any oppression of ethnic-Germans in Danzig before the war.

Danzig also wasn't part of Poland.

France waged war on Germany, they had every right to defend themselves and invade France.
France waged war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland.

Germany was undoubtedly in the wrong there.

---

I also think it's ridiculous to try and compare NK to Nazi-Germany but perhaps that's just me.

[rtw1997]

Sounds like another cry for attention from the little despot.

[Kahn]

Would you mind providing a source supporting this claim? I wasn't aware of any oppression of ethnic-Germans in Danzig before the war.

Danzig also wasn't part of Poland.


France waged war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland.

Germany was undoubtedly in the wrong there.

---

I also think it's ridiculous to try and compare NK to Nazi-Germany but perhaps that's just me.

In response to your request for sources; http://archive.org/stream/PolishAtrocitiesAgainstTheGermanMinorityInPoland/Poland_djvu.txt

Germany invaded Poland because of its continued oppression against her people. France's war, therefore, or at least in my opinion, was not justified. For if they were so concerned with Polish borders, why didn't they declare war on the Soviet Union after their invasion of Poland just a few weeks after? If they were so concerned with German expansion, why'd they let Hitler annex Austria, and the Sudetenland? (I'd like to assert the fact that in 1939 95% of its population was German. Should Texas have been left to the Mexicans, because it was Mexican territory? Or were the Americans right to annex it because of the American majority?)

Interpretation of history is subjective.

In response to your second statement, I agree. Its silly to try to compare these two nations or leaders. The comparison was made, however.

EDIT: Danzig was in fact German prior to World War I and was made a semi-autonomous city-state via the Treaty of Versailles after the end of World War I.

EDIT 2: I should learn to read posts better. You were correct and I was correct. Danzig was maintained, but not owned, by the Poles.

[Vlerchan]

In response to your request for sources:
I would have appreciated something that wasn't compiled by Nazis. I'm going to find it hard to accept any allegations against the Poles all things considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler).

I worked with it anyway and did some quick research. Lots of Stormfront links came up. Here's what I found on a WWII board:

To be more exact: the report is filed in the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz (file: "Dokumentation der Verschleppungsmärsche und polnische Kriegsverbrechen im September 1939", No. 12, BA, Ost. Dok. 7) and was the result of interrogating 593 survivors. The report states that 3841 ethnic Germans had been killed by local Polish civilians and retreating Polish soldiers during the "Bromberger Blutsonntag". The official report of the German diplomatic service (Auswärtigen Amt) states that in whole Poland (not only Bromberg) 5437 ethnic Germans were killed. On February 7, 1940, the Reichsministerium ordered that in the media and publications only the 58,000 was to be used and that Jewish Bolshewists had to be named as the murderers instead of Polish soldiers and civilians.

Source: Benz - "Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile", page 47

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1767961#p1767961

It seems that the atrocities took place both right before and during WWII [note: I'm not entirely sure of this: the only specific atrocities I could learn about occurred in the first few days of WWII - edit: I did a quick skim and it doesn't seem like any of the atrocities occurred before the outbreak of war] but the number of dead ethnic-Germans was exaggerated by Hitler to allow for a greater propaganda impact - 5800 became 58000. The above matches up with the information found in your source which is the "SECOND REVISED EDITION" and was published in "1940" and reports that "More than 58,000 Dead and Missing".

France's war, therefore, or at least in my opinion, was not justified.
Danzig was a protectorate of the League Of Nations. I'd equate invading it with declaring war on the LoN - inc. France.

I think you would agree though that even if these reports of oppression are true - and it's dubious at best - then that's still not a basis to invade Poland who weren't even in control of Danzig at the time.

For if they were so concerned with Polish borders, why didn't they declare war on the Soviet Union after their invasion of Poland just a few weeks after?
I literally cannot think of a worse move from a strategic point of view.

Or were the Americans right to annex it because of the American majority?
I think that the people should decide via a referendum.

[Kahn]

I would have appreciated something that wasn't compiled by Nazis. I'm going to find it hard to accept any allegations against the Poles all things considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler).

I worked with it anyway and did some quick research. Lots of Stormfront links came up. Here's what I found on a WWII board:

To be more exact: the report is filed in the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz (file: "Dokumentation der Verschleppungsmärsche und polnische Kriegsverbrechen im September 1939", No. 12, BA, Ost. Dok. 7) and was the result of interrogating 593 survivors. The report states that 3841 ethnic Germans had been killed by local Polish civilians and retreating Polish soldiers during the "Bromberger Blutsonntag". The official report of the German diplomatic service (Auswärtigen Amt) states that in whole Poland (not only Bromberg) 5437 ethnic Germans were killed. On February 7, 1940, the Reichsministerium ordered that in the media and publications only the 58,000 was to be used and that Jewish Bolshewists had to be named as the murderers instead of Polish soldiers and civilians.

Source: Benz - "Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile", page 47

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1767961#p1767961

It seems that the atrocities took place both right before and during WWII [note: I'm not entirely sure of this: the only specific atrocities I could learn about occurred in the first few days of WWII - edit: I did a quick skim and it doesn't seem like any of the atrocities occurred before the outbreak of war] but the number of dead ethnic-Germans was exaggerated by Hitler to allow for a greater propaganda impact - 5800 became 58000. The above matches up with the information found in your source which is the "SECOND REVISED EDITION" and was published in "1940" and reports that "More than 58,000 Dead and Missing".


Danzig was a protectorate of the League Of Nations. I'd equate invading it with declaring war on the LoN - inc. France.

I think you would agree though that even if these reports of oppression are true - and it's dubious at best - then that's still not a basis to invade Poland who weren't even in control of Danzig at the time.


I literally cannot think of a worse move from a strategic point of view.


I think that the people should decide via a referendum.

I stay away from forums such as Stormfront for their extreme bias. Further, I'm not going to lie- I was hard-pressed to find any reports of humanitarian violation before the war as well. I will do my due diligence because I feel that theres more to be told than whats been said but up to this point, but attempting to refute you would be assanine- your information is likely correct, coming from more reliable sources (and searching for a variety of sources on a mobile phone is tedious).

I also hadn't considered the fact that Danzig was a protectorate of the League of Nations. I hold my own stipulations on Frances war that I will not share.

I agree that via popular vote is the best way to go about these events but in lieu of the discussion, whats the difference?

[Vlerchan]

I stay away from forums such as Stormfront for their extreme bias.
It was just an observation.

In retrospect I shouldn't have mentioned it. It doesn't matter who else has made use of your source.

I agree that via popular vote is the best way to go about these events but in lieu of the discussion, whats the difference?
It adds both certainty and legitimacy to the proceedings.