Saturday, April 6, 2013

Is the US planning a preemptive strike against North Korea's nuclear facilities ?


Dr. Steve Pieczenik is a critically acclaimed author of psycho-political thrillers and the co-creator of the New York Times best-selling “Tom Clancy’s Op-Center” and “Tom Clancy’s Net Force” book series. He is also one of the world’s most experienced international crisis managers and hostage negotiators. His novels are based on his twenty years experience in resolving international crises for five U.S. administrations.




An interesting interview from Dr Steve Pieczenik above  ....


http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/04/did-china-supply-n-korea-with-an-orbital-nuclear-weapons-platform-2445898.html

( FWIW.... )



According to this story from LiveLeak.com, China supplied North Korea with an "Orbital Nuclear Weapons Platform" from which it can strike anywhere in the world at a moments notice. Is this the reason why Kim Jung-Un has suddenly taken such a bellicose attitude towards America? It was previously believed that North Korea didn't have the capability to strike the continental United States with nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, if this is true, it would certainly explain the recent concern coming from high-ranking US officials as well as the North Korean claim recently made that it had "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means". Is all of this North Korean nuclear war talk just a 'smoke screen' as Christopher Greene suggests in the video below or is there something more to it? Is North Korea just another NWO pawn playing a specific role designed to help bring in the New World Order via a nuclear or EMP strike above America?

China supplied North Korea with an orbital nuke platform

That's what NK launched into space recently.  It wasn't just a test satellite. It's small but potent and contains 5 tactical orbit-to-surface nukes, each with a 500 kiloton payload. 

This is why NK has adopted a totally warlike rhetoric. They may be outgunned and outnumbered but they have unlimited firing range. Detonated above the US/Europe/Asia/Japan they'll be able to knock out the electrical grid and begin their own ground invasion of South Korea and Japan, leaving Europe and the US to China.You can check out this article ( [link to http://www.northkoreatech.org] that mentions "4 objects being tracked by NORAD". However, 3 of those were probably rocket boosters and/or debris. 


However, you can track these objects in their parabolic path at the links, here
-
[KMS 3-2]( http://www.n2yo.com/?s=39026)

- The actual satellite

[Object 2]( http://www.n2yo.com/?s=39027)

(R/B - denotes rocket/booster) Still trackable in space

[Object 3]( http://www.n2yo.com/?s=39028)

- (Debris) Still trackable.


[Object 4]( http://www.n2yo.com/?s=39029)- (Debris) Still trackable.



Since the DPRK announced to international space orgs that they would have a Pacific splashdown of the main booster, and it fell, I have a hard time believing that there is "still a booster" out there. But, oh well... Let's just see how this whole thing plays out.

If they do happen to have a device capable of dropping an EMP blast over the US from one of these things, [it could take about 10 years to recover from one]( [link to http://www.wnd.com]

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=39027)


Keep in mind that the US government gave NK the nukes. Bill Clinton gave NK two fissionable nuclear reactors. When they threatened to make nuke bombs, George Bush gifted them with 4 more for a total of 6 fissionable nuclear reactors.  Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c2_1365188646&comments=1#xkfhplWpxPhijVtB.99




http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-05/us-secretly-deploys-b-1-strategic-bombers-e-6-doomsday-planes-near-north-korea


US Secretly Deploys B-1 Strategic Bombers, E-6 "Doomsday" Planes Near North Korea

Tyler Durden's picture




First the US fanfared the placement of two F-22 Raptors in the Osan airbase of South Korea. Then it demonstratively launched a B-2 stealth bomber on a training mission over a South Korean gunnery range. Then it deployed an anti-ballistic missile defense system to Guam and positioned two guided-missile destroyers in the waters near Korea. And now, courtesy of the Aviationist, we learn that the Pentagon has escalated once more in an ongoing cat and mouse game with North Korea, of who blinks first, and dispatched several B-1 ("Bone") Lancer strategic long-range bombers to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. What is different this time, however, is that unlike the previous very public and widely trumpeted reciprocal escalation steps, this particular deployment has been kept secret from the public (at least the broader public), "a fact that could be the sign that the U.S. is not only making symbolic moves (as the above mentioned ones), but it is preparing for the worst scenario: an attack on North Korea."
How has the Aviationist learned this?
From his station in Amarillo, Texas, author, investigative journalist, technologies expert Steve Douglass heard something interesting. In a message he sent us on Facebook he said:

“Late last night I monitored “DARK flight of seven” on PRIME (311.000 MHZ STRATCOM PRIMARY) asking for current weather for UAM [airport code for Guam - Andersen Air Force Base]. On the frequency of 251.100 Mhz,DARK flight also was calling for “GASSR 11 and GASSR 12? (KC-135s)  for “Tanker drag to BAB [Beale AFB, California]“.

“Dark” is the standard radio callsign for the 7th Bomb Wing’s B-1s based at Dyess AFB, near Abilene, Texas.

Even if U.S. bombers routinely deploy to Guam (where at least two B-2s are reportedly already based), the fact that seven “Bones” were apparently moving together is something a bit unusual, even if they were not going to Andersen AFB (they might need the weather report for UAM because it was an alternate airfield or simply a stopover on their way to somewhere else).

Actually, it’s also weird that some many big bombers were flying together (as the “flight of seven” heard by Douglass seems to suggest) since a standard ferry flight of multiple planes would normally see the aircraft move individually. And, another strange thing is that the pilot talked about their destination in the clear: if they wanted it to be secret, they would speak on secure radios.

Nevertheless, this might have been a non-standard deployment; a move ordered hours after U.S. satellites and spyplanes from South Korea and Japan had spotted North Korean missiles being readied for launch.
What is even more curious is that instead of merely serving as very expensive deterrence props, the squadron has a very offensive role, and is preparing for attack:
Earlier [Douglass] had intercepted an interesting communication off a military satellite in which an Ellsworth AFB’s B-1B, callsign “Slam 1?, was training to hit a “missile facility” in Snyder, Texas.

A practice run for a mission in the DPRK with a school bus depot standing in for the real thing?

Maybe.

American B-1 bomber pilots have reportedly shifted their training programs, focusing on in East Asia, more than Afghanistan and the Middle East. And, above all, any training mission has many similarities with actual sorties that would be flown against a real enemy in combat.

Anyway, Douglass has recorded an audio snippet of the exercise (available here). Based on the coordinates for Snyder, Texashere‘s the target on Google Maps.
Finally, and most disturbing, is that another aircraft also in the process of deployment is none other than the E-6 Mercury "Doomsday" plane, which are among the pinnacle in US Airforce nuclear war preparedness, tasked with "providing command and control of U.S. nuclear forces should ground-based control become inoperable" and whose core functions include conveying instructions from the National Command Authority to fleet ballistic missile submarines and also to further command post capabilities and control of land-based missiles and nuclear-armed bombers.
You can read more about the military air activity recently monitored by Steve Douglass in an extremely interesting article heposted on his blog that not only summarize the contents of the messages he sent to The Aviationist, but provides some more details about the alleged overseas deployment of E-6 Mercury “doomsday” planes from Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.

Perhaps to Kim Jong-un the military escalation to nuclear war is only one big joke, but to the US it is increasingly appearing very serious. And perhaps this is precisely what the Pentagon wanted all along?


Cyberwarfare - is there a link to alleged North Korean cyber attacks and the US posturing toward North korea ?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expanding-combat-zone-the-dangerous-new-rules-of-cyberwar-a-892238.html


Arming for Virtual Battle: The Dangerous New Rules of Cyberwar

By Thomas Darnstaedt, Marcel Rosenbach and Gregor Peter Schmitz
Photo Gallery: Taking On Cyber Threats
Photos
Capt. Carrie Kessler/ U.S. Air Force
Now that wars are also being fought on digital battlefields, experts in international law have established rules for cyberwar. But many questions remain unanswered. Will it be appropriate to respond to a cyber attack with military means in the future?
The attack came via ordinary email, when selected South Korean companies received messages supposedly containing credit card information in the middle of the week before last.
ANZEIGE
Recipients who opened the emails also opened the door to the enemy, because it was in fact an attack from the Internet. Instead of the expected credit card information, the recipients actually downloaded a time bomb onto their computers, which was programmed to ignite on Wednesday at 2 p.m. Korean time.
At that moment, chaos erupted on more than 30,000 computers in South Korean television stations and banks. The message "Please install an operating system on your hard disk" appeared on the screens of affected computers, and cash machines ceased to operate. The malware, which experts have now dubbed "DarkSeoul," deleted data from the hard disks, making it impossible to reboot the infected computers.
DarkSeoul was one of the most serious digital attacks in the world this year, but cyber defense centers in Western capitals receive alerts almost weekly. The most serious attack to date originated in the United States. In 2010, high-tech warriors, acting on orders from the US president, smuggled the destructive "Stuxnet" computer worm into Iranian nuclear facilities.
The volume of cyber attacks is only likely to grow. Military leaders in the US and its European NATO partners are outfitting new battalions for the impending data war. Meanwhile, international law experts worldwide are arguing with politicians over the nature of the new threat. Is this already war? Or are the attacks acts of sabotage and terrorism? And if a new type of war is indeed brewing, can military means be used to respond to cyber attacks?
The War of the Future
A few days before the computer disaster in Seoul, a group led by NATOpublished a thin, blue booklet. It provides dangerous responses to all of these questions. The "Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare" is probably no thicker than the American president's thumb. It is not an official NATO document, and yet in the hands of President Barack Obama it has the potential to change the world.
The rules that influential international law experts have compiled in the handbook could blur the lines between war and peace and allow a serious data attack to rapidly escalate into a real war with bombs and missiles. Military leaders could also interpret it as an invitation to launch a preventive first strike in a cyberwar.
At the invitation of a NATO think tank in the Estonian capital Tallinn, and at a meeting presided over by a US military lawyer with ties to the Pentagon, leading international law experts had discussed the rules of the war of the future. International law is, for the most part, customary law. Experts determine what is and can be considered customary law.
The resulting document, the "Tallinn Manual," is the first informal rulebook for the war of the future. But it has no reassuring effect. On the contrary, it permits nations to respond to data attacks with the weapons of real war.
Two years ago, the Pentagon clarified where this could lead, when it stated that anyone who attempted to shut down the electric grid in the world's most powerful nation with a computer worm could expect to see a missile in response.
A Private Digital Infrastructure
The risks of a cyberwar were invoked more clearly than ever in Washington in recent weeks. In mid-March, Obama assembled 13 top US business leaders in the Situation Room in the White House basement, the most secret of all secret conference rooms. The group included the heads of UPS, JPMorgan Chase and ExxonMobil. There was only one topic: How can America win the war on the Internet?
The day before, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had characterized the cyber threat as the "biggest peril currently facing the United States."
The White House was unwilling to reveal what exactly the business leaders and the president discussed in the Situation Room. But it was mostly about making it clear to the companies how threatened they are and strengthening their willingness to cooperate, says Rice University IT expert Christopher Bronk.
The president urgently needs their cooperation, because the US has allowed the laws of the market to govern its digital infrastructure. All networks are operated by private companies. If there is a war on the Internet, both the battlefields and the weapons will be in private hands.
This is why the White House is spending so much time and effort to prepare for possible counterattacks. The aim is to scare the country's enemies, says retired General James Cartwright, author of the Pentagon's current cyber strategy.
Responsible for that strategy is the 900-employee Cyber Command at the Pentagon, established three years ago and located in Fort Meade near the National Security Agency, the country's largest intelligence agency. General Keith Alexander heads both organizations. The Cyber Command, which is expected to have about 4,900 employees within a few years, will be divided into various defensive and offensive "Cyber Mission Forces" in the future.
Wild West Online
It's probably no coincidence that the Tallinn manual is being published now. Developed under the leadership of US military lawyer Michael Schmitt, NATO representatives describe the manual as the "most important legal document of the cyber era."
In the past, Schmitt has examined the legality of the use of top-secret nuclear weapons systems and the pros and cons of US drone attacks. Visitors to his office at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, the world's oldest naval academy, must first pass through several security checkpoints.
"Let's be honest," says Schmitt. "Everyone has treated the Internet as a sort of Wild West, a lawless zone. But international law has to be just as applicable to online weapons as conventional weapons."
It's easier said than done, though. When does malware become a weapon? When does a hacker become a warrior, and when does horseplay or espionage qualify as an "armed attack," as defined under international law? The answers to such detailed questions can spell the difference between war and peace.
James Lewis of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), one of the country's top cyberwar experts, is somewhat skeptical about the new manual. He sees it as "a push to lower the threshold for military action." For Lewis, responding to a "denial of service" attack with military means is "really crazy." He says the Tallinn manual "shows is that you should never let lawyers go off by themselves."
Claus Kress, an international law expert and the director of the Institute for International Peace and Security Law at the University of Cologne, sees the manual as "setting the course," with "consequences for the entire law of the use of force." Important "legal thresholds," which in the past were intended to protect the world against the military escalation of political conflicts or acts of terror, are becoming "subject to renegotiation," he says.
According to Kress, the most critical issue is the "recognition of a national right of self-defense against certain cyber attacks." This corresponds to a state of defense, as defined under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which grants any nation that becomes the victim of an "armed attack" the right to defend itself by force of arms. The article gained new importance after Sept. 11, 2001, when the US declared the invasion of Afghanistan an act of self-defense against al-Qaida and NATO proclaimed the application of its mutual defense clause to come to the aid of the superpower.


The question of how malicious malware must be to justify a counterattack can be critical when it comes to preserving peace. Under the new doctrine, only those attacks that cause physical or personal damage, but not virtual damage, are relevant in terms of international law. The malfunction of a computer or the loss of data alone is not sufficient justification for an "armed attack."
But what if, as is often the case, computer breakdowns do not result in physical damage but lead to substantial financial losses? A cyber attack on Wall Street, shutting down the market for several days, was the casus belli among the experts in Tallinn. The US representatives wanted to recognize it as a state of defense, while the Europeans preferred not to do so. But the US military lawyers were adamant, arguing that economic damage establishes the right to launch a counterattack if it is deemed "catastrophic."
Ultimately, it is left to each country to decide what amount of economic damage it considers sufficient to venture into war. German expert Kress fears that such an approach could lead to a "dam failure" for the prohibition of the use of force under international law.
So was it an armed attack that struck South Korea on March 20? The financial losses caused by the failure of bank computers haven't been fully calculated yet. It will be up to politicians, not lawyers, to decide whether they are "catastrophic."
Just how quickly the Internet can become a scene of massive conflicts became evident this month, when suddenly two large providers came under constant digital attack that seemed to appear out of nowhere.
The main target of the attack was the website Spamhaus.org, a project that has been hunting down the largest distributors of spam on the Web since 1998. Its blacklists of known spammers enable other providers to filter out junk email. By providing this service, the organization has made powerful enemies and has been targeted in attacks several times. But the current wave of attacks overshadows everything else. In addition to shutting down Spamhaus, it even temporarily affected the US company CloudFlare, which was helping fend off the attack. Analysts estimate the strength of the attack at 300 gigabits per second, which is several times as high as the level at which the Estonian authorities were "fired upon" in 2007. The attack even affected data traffic in the entire Internet. A group called "Stophaus" claimed responsibility and justified its actions as retribution for the fact that Spamhaus had meddled in the affairs of powerful Russian and Chinese Internet companies.
Civilian forces, motivated by economic interests, are playing cyberwar, and in doing so they are upending all previous war logic.
A Question of When, Not If
A field experiment in the US shows how real the threat is. To flush out potential attackers, IT firm Trend Micro built a virtual pumping station in a small American city, or at least it was supposed to look like one to "visitors" from the Internet. They called it a "honeypot," designed to attract potential attackers on the Web.
The trappers installed servers and industrial control systems used by public utilities of that size. To make the experiment setup seem realistic, they even placed deceptively real-looking city administration documents on the computers.
After only 18 hours, the analysts registered the first attempted attack. In the next four weeks, there were 38 attacks from 14 countries. Most came from computers in China (35 percent), followed by the US (19 percent) and Laos (12 percent).
Many attackers tried to insert espionage tools into the supposed water pumping station to probe the facility for weaknesses. International law does not prohibit espionage. But some hackers went further than that, trying to manipulate or even destroy the control devices.
"Some tried to increase the rotation speed of the water pumps to such a degree that they wouldn't have survived in the real world," says Trend Micro employee Udo Schneider, who categorizes these cases as "classic espionage."
"There is no question as to whether there will be a catastrophic cyber attack against America. The only question is when," says Terry Benzel, the woman who is supposed to protect the country from such an attack and make its computer networks safer. The computer specialist is the head of DeterLab in California, a project that was established in 2003, partly with funding from the US Department of Homeland Security, and offers a simulation platform for reactions to cyber attacks.
Benzel's voice doesn't falter when she describes a war scenario she calls "Cyber Pearl Harbor." This is what it could look like: "Prolonged power outages, a collapse of the power grid and irreparable disruptions in the Internet." Suddenly, food would not reach stores in time and cash machines would stop dispensing money. "Everything depends on computers nowadays, even the delivery of rolls to the baker around the corner," she says.
Benzel also describes other crisis scenarios. For example, she says, there are programs that open and close gates on American dams that are potentially vulnerable. Benzel is worried that a clever hacker could open America's dams at will.
Should Preemptive Strikes Be Allowed?
These and other cases are currently being tested in Cyber City, a virtual city US experts have built on their computers in New Jersey to simulate the consequences of data attacks. Cyber City has a water tower, a train station and 15,000 residents. Everything is connected in realistic ways, enabling the experts to study the potentially devastating effects cyber attacks could have on residents.
In Europe, it is primarily intelligence agencies that are simulating digital war games. Germany's foreign intelligence service, theBundesnachrichtendienst (BND), also has a unit that studies the details of future wars. It is telling that the BND team doesn't just simulate defensive situations but increasingly looks at offensive scenarios, as well, so as to be prepared for a sort of digital second strike.
"Offensive Cyber Operations," or OCOs, are part of the strategy for future cyberwars in several NATO countries. The Tallinn manual now establishes the legal basis for possible preemptive strikes, which have been an issue in international law since former US President George W. Bush launched a preemptive strike against Iraq in March 2003.
The most contentious issue during the meetings in Tallinn was the question of when an offensive strike is permissible as an act of preventive self-defense against cyber attacks. According to the current doctrine, an attack must be imminent to trigger the right to preventive self-defense. The Tallinn manual is more generous in this respect, stating that even if a digital weapon is only likely to unfold its sinister effects at a later date, a first strike can already be justified if it is the last window of opportunity to meet the threat.
The danger inherent in the application of that standard becomes clear in the way that the international law experts at Tallinn treated Stuxnet, the most devastating malware to date, which was apparently smuggled into Iranian nuclear facilities on Obama's command. The data attack destroyed large numbers of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment in the Natanz reprocessing plant. Under the criteria of the Tallinn manual, this would be an act of war.
Could the US be the perpetrator in a war of aggression in violation of international law? Cologne international law expert Kress believes that what the Tallinn manual says parenthetically about the Stuxnet case amounts to a "handout for the Pentagon," namely that Obama's digital attack might be seen as an "act of preventive self-defense" against the nuclear program of Iran's ayatollahs.
The Fog of Cyber War
According to the Tallinn interpretation, countless virtual espionage incidents of the sort that affect all industrialized nations almost daily could act as accelerants. Pure cyber espionage, which American politicians also define as an attack, is not seen an act of war, according to the Tallinn rules. Nevertheless, the international law experts argue that such espionage attacks can be seen as preparations for destructive attacks, so that it can be legitimate to launch a preventive attack against the spy as a means of self-defense.
Some are especially concerned that the Tallinn proposals could also make it possible to expand the rules of the "war on terror." The authors have incorporated the call of US geostrategic expert Joseph Nye to take precautions against a "cyber 9/11" into their manual. This would mean that the superpower could even declare war on organized hacker groups. Combat drones against hackers? Cologne expert Kress cautions that the expansion of the combat zone to the laptops of an only loosely organized group of individuals would constitute a "threat to human rights."
Germany's military, the Bundeswehr, is also voicing concerns over the expansion of digital warfare. Karl Schreiner, a brigadier general with the Bundeswehr's leadership academy in Hamburg, is among those who see the need for "ethical rules" for the Internet battlefield and believe that an international canon for the use of digital weapons is required.
Military leaders must rethink the most important question relating to defense in cyberspace: Who is the attacker? "In most cases," the Tallinn manual reads optimistically, it is possible to identify the source of data attacks. But that doesn't coincide with the experiences of many IT security experts.
The typical fog of cyberwar was evident most recently in the example of South Korea. At first, officials said that DarkSeoul was clearly an attack from the north, but then it was allegedly traced to China, Europe and the United States. Some analysts now suspect patriotically motivated hackers in North Korea, because of the relatively uncomplicated malware. That leaves the question of just who South Korea should launch a counterattack against.
The South Korean case prompts Cologne international law expert Kress to conclude that lawyers will soon have a "new unsolved problem" on their hands -- a "war on the basis of suspicion."
















    http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.it/2013/04/b-1bs-practicing-to-pound-north-korea.html


    Thursday, April 4, 2013


    B-1Bs practicing to pound North Korea - and on their way to Guam.

    I intercepted an interesting communication off a military satellite (most likely UFO) yesterday.

     A B-1B (SLAM ONE) was training to hit a "missile facility"possibly a practice run for a mission in the DPRK - but with a school bus depot in Snyder, Texas standing in for the real thing.

    Here's the recorded audio snippet:http://www.webbfeatproductions.com/satcom.mp3

    You can ascertain the coordinates for Snyder, Texas from the audio.

    Here's a link to those coordinates on Google Maps:http://goo.gl/maps/Ss4UP



    The B-1 was  from Ellsworth AFB  and practice-bombed (no real ordinance was expended) a school bus depot (yard) in Snyder, Texas.

    Now using a little educated guesstimation based on the look of the yard on Google Maps - the school buses could have been a decent stand-in for mobile missile launchers and the building next to it the "missile maintenance" center.

    You'll also notice they mention SA-6 and SA-8 - these are mobile ground-to-air missile launchers similar to this Russian example:



    SLAM ONE was cleared to use 2000 lb GBU 3 JDAMS to take out the hypothetical target.

    All communications were made in the clear. 

    Also:

    Late last night I monitored "DARK" flight of seven on PRIME (311.000 MHZ STRATCOM PRIMARY) asking for current weather for UAM. 

    On the frequency of 251.100 Mhz DARK flight also was calling for "GASSR 11 and GASSR 12" (KC-135s)  for "Tanker drag to BAB." BAB is Beal AFB in California.

    PS:  A source in Oklahoma says Tinker AFB just sent 2 E-6 Mercuryaircraft up. The controller remarked on their departure:  "Be safe and see you back in a few weeks. Come back in one piece!"

    -Steve Douglass

    PPS: You can listen in to the heavy iron flying westward on the live radio feed at the top of this page.

    Please note: There are two receivers on the feed - civil and military ATC communications. Sometimes you'll hear an overlap. 


    My monitoring post 

    My DIY UHF SATCOM antenna


    http://rt.com/op-edge/us-wants-new-korean-war-402/


    ‘US wants to take S. Korea into new Korean war’

    Published time: April 05, 2013 16:32
    An A-10 jet (top) belonging to the U.S. Air Force comes in for a landing at a U.S. air force base in Osan, south of Seoul April 3, 2013.  (Reuters/Lee Jae-Won)
    An A-10 jet (top) belonging to the U.S. Air Force comes in for a landing at a U.S. air force base in Osan, south of Seoul April 3, 2013. (Reuters/Lee Jae-Won)
    The US is trying to embroil South Korea in conflict with its Northern neighbor in a bit to oust its current government without taking heavy US casualties, political writer and journalist Dan Glazebrook told RT.
    The Oxford-based expert believes that only stopping US military provocations will bring stability to the region.

    RT: What do you think about the warning of North Korea telling international embassies to evacuate their staff? It sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it?
    Dan Glazebrook: Their intention has been clear from the start of this crisis. North Korea’s whole intention is to show its willingness and preparedness to defend itself should war be launched upon it. Every year we have these massive provocations of joint US and South Korean war games exercises right at the borders of North Korea. This year the provocations were stepped up to actually simulate a nuclear missile attack on North Korea. B2 bombers were used for the first time along with B52s and F22 bombers. So there is a military provocation from the US. North Korea feels rightly threatened – they’ve seen what’s happened to Iraq, to Libya and so on. It feels threatened because it knows it was in the explicit hit-list of the American government some years ago. It needs to make very clear that it will not tolerate any kind of infringement of its sovereignty, any kind of attack, and this is all about to show that it’s willing to defend itself.
    RT: We're receiving reports of an earthquake near North Korea - do you believe there could be any links with the country's nuclear intentions?
    DG: Well, I think we should wait and see what happens, but of course constantly North Korea has this policy called the Army First policy, where it’s constantly trying to develop its nuclear and military resources to defend itself. Again, the lessons of Iraq and Libya are very clear – Saddam Hussein gave up his weapons program and we saw what happened to Iraq as a result, kind of [Muammar] Gaddafi gave up his weapons program and we saw what happened to Libya as a result. So they are constantly trying to upgrade their weapons in order to defend themselves. Of course, one of the reasons for this constant annual provocation, these war games exercises, is to keep tensions of the peninsular high to justify the massive US military presence – it’s one of the most militarized regions on the entire planet.
    RT: Is there anything Washington can do to prevent a full scale confrontation in case North Korea is determined to take it to the extreme?
    DG: Of course, they can stop launching these provocations, stop simulating nuclear strikes against North Korea on its border. The thing is that they would love to occupy North Korea, they would love to have troops right upon the border of China. What stops them every time is that they calculate their losses would be in the magnitude of tens and tens of thousands of soldiers.  What they would dearly love then, the US and its allies, would be actually to get South Korea into a new Korean War in which South Korea took all the casualties. This is why the North is so determined to make it clear that if the US and its allies attempt to provoke some kind of inter-Korean conflict they will have to pay a heavy price for that.





    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4874435/north-korea-moves-second-missile-to-east-coast.html




    North Korea tells Brit diplomats to get out — then sets chilling April 10 deadline

    North Korea parades its Musudan missiles through Pyongyang last year
    Rocket ... North Korea parades its Musudan missiles through Pyongyang last year


    ROGUE state North Korea today sparked fears that it could trigger a nuclear strike as early as next WEDNESDAY.

    Crackpot Kim Jong-un’s regime today issued a chilling threat to British diplomats warning them to get out of Pyongyang.
    Alarmingly the North Korean government said it would not be able to guarantee the safety of embassies from April 10.

    Russian diplomats have also been advised to evacuate.

    Today the Foreign Office added that it is “considering next steps” after the threat.
    It is still unclear why next Wednesday has been set as a deadline – but it is sure to spark fears despot Kim Jong-un will launch an attack after that date.
    This week South Korean workers employed in factories in the North were also told to leave by April 10.
    The dramatic development came as North Korea moved a second missile to its east coast in a further threat to Japan, South Korea and US Pacific bases.
    The rogue state has already transported a Musudan missile with a range of 1,800 miles (3,000km) to the same area.


    The compound housing the British, Swedish and German embassies
    Fears ... the compound housing the British, Swedish and German embassies
    Today, a Foreign Office spokesman reportedly said: “We can confirm that the British Embassy in Pyongyang received a communication from the North Korean government this morning.
    “It said that the North Korean government would be unable to guarantee the safety of embassies and international organisations in the country in the event of conflict from April 10.”
    The Foreign Office today confirmed that it has “no immediate plans to withdraw our embassy” in Pyongyang and said it condemned the “provocation” by the North Korean government.
    A spokesman went on: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has responsibilities under the Vienna convention to protect diplomatic missions, and we believe they have taken this step as part of their continuing rhetoric that the US poses a threat to them.”
    The Foreign office declined to disclose how many staff are working in Pyongyang, but said no decision had yet been taken on whether to pull out. "We are considering next steps," the spokesman added.


    South Korean female army reservists raise their hands to adopt a resolution against North Korea
    Troops ... South Korean female army reservists raise their hands to adopt a resolution against North Korea
    South Korea is currently engaged in joint military exercises with the US
    Pledge ... South Korea is currently engaged in joint military exercises with the US
    Two rockets have been loaded onto mobile launchers and hidden in special underground facilities on North Korea's east coast , according to a government official.
    The official added: “The North is apparently intent on firing the missiles without prior warning.”
    The range of the second missile is unknown though it is believed to be an inter-continental ballistic KN-08 missile, which is untested by the regime.
    It came as a powerful 6.2 magnitude earthquake struck near the North Korean border in far-eastern Russia.
    The epicenter of the quake, which struck at 1pm (GMT) was south-west of Vladivostok, around five miles from Russian border town Zarubino.
    Meanwhile, the Pentagon has pledged to tone down pronouncements about its military build-up after the crisis on the Korean peninsula threatens to spiral out of control.
    In recent days, the US has flown two B-2 stealth bombers over South Korean and announced an expansion of missile defence systems in Alaska and Guam.
    But rather than encouraging North Korea to back down, the US's military movements have prompted even greater threats and belligerent rhetoric from Pyongyang.







    North Korea moves second missile

    PYONGYANG move sees South Korea deploy two warships with missile-defence systems

    South Korean soldiers prepare to fire a howitzer during a military exercise
    Drills ... South Korean soldiers prepare to fire a howitzer during a military exercise

    On US official said: “Our actions thus far have had their intended effect: they've shown our deterrence capability and our willingness to defend South Korea.
    “We always make adjustment and if going quiet for a short period of time gives the North Koreans space to dial back their rhetoric, fine.”
    However, Washington still plans to forge ahead with joint military exercises with Seoul – including an amphibious assault drill – branded by the North as “rehearsal for invasion”.
    The exercises codenamed Foal Eagle began on March 1 and will end on April 30.
    Some US analysts expressed alarm over the intensity of the North’s threats. Centre for Strategic Studies senior adviser Victor Cha said: “The rhetoric is off the charts.”
    But despite the North's threats to attack the US, David Cameron was today slammed for making the extraordinary claim yesterday that North Korea could strike Britain.
    A South Korean soldier stands on a military guard post near the demilitarised zone
    Young ... a South Korean soldier stands on a military guard post near the demilitarised zone
    Experts disputed his comments, saying North Korea does not have missiles that can reach Europe nor can mount nuclear warheads on them, sparking comparisons with the “sexed-up” dossier which Tony Blair used to justify the invasion of Iraq ten years ago.
    International Institute for Strategic Studies director Mark Fitzpatrick said: “North Korea does not have any missile capabilities that could hit Britain and it is difficult to envision circumstances when North Korea ever would want to attack the UK even if they could.”
    The Philippines has said it is ready to help the US amid threatened attacks from North Korea, the country’s foreign minister said, hinting at the possibility of more US military bases there.
    US forces have previously used military bases and civilian airports in the Philippines to repair and refuel aircraft and warships deployed in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


    No comments:

    Post a Comment