ROK Army Considers ‘Pre-emptive Strike’ on North Korea

KB

North Korea is set to soon test her third nuclear device. In 2006 and 2009, nuclear tests were met with worldwide condemnation, Security Council sanctions and the withdraw of Pyongyang from the six-party talks.

In late January, the Security Council imposed a set of new sanctions on North Korea, as punishment for a space missile launch in December 2012. North Korea rejected the Council’s legitimacy and claimed that such actions were a violation of her sovereign rights, claiming they would conduct a new nuclear test in retaliation.

In a rare move, China has publicly condemned the actions of North Korea. There have been recent talks that South Korea may soon pursue a pre-emptive strike attack against the regime and her missiles – the North responding with war threats.

From Naver:

It has been reported that the military authorities have expressed a willingness to pursue a ‘pre-emptive strike‘ against North Korea, should concerns of the threat of more nuclear tests worsen across the country. Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (JCS), Jung Seung-jo , participated in a conference on 6th February 2012 and when asked whether in case of further developments towards nuclear testing should occur, the response of the military would be that of pre-emptive strike, replied in the affirmative. In the wake of the third nuclear test to be performed by North Korea, the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed a willingness to talk about issues arising from North Korea and the possible pre-emptive strike- which, as the first in this National Assembly should serve as a warning message to their neighbors to the North.High ranking military officials discussed the possibility of a pre-emptive strike at the ROK-US Security Consultative Meeting in October. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Jung Seung-jo said that a pre-emptive strike could be pursued to target nuclear weapons and other missiles should there be signs that the North may attack using nuclear technology. ROK-US Military authorities has been closely monitoring all North Korean weaponry activities and continuously recording developments by making lists of precise storage locations.

US ROK

In 2009, former Secretary of Defense, Kim Tae-young confirmed the location of North Korea’s nuclear weapons. There have been claims of some ten locations to store nuclear weapons in North Korea, one being a munitions factory in the mountainous province of Chagang.Chagang, Kanggye and Huichon are home to nuclear missile facilities while North Pyongan and Longjing home warhead assembly units and testing areas. There are some 8,000 underground facilities which are said to house nuclear weapons. These areas, their facilities and, the TEL (Transporter Erector Launcher) have emerged as the biggest threat to regional security. On April 15th 2012, to mark the 100th birthday of President Kim Il Sung, a missile named ‘KN-08’ [diameter 2m, length 18m] was unveiled. However, the warhead has yet to be tested. The missile is suspected to be made (in part) with Chinese components and was mounted on a special vehicle for its first appearance. Nuclear facilities and areas for the specialized long-range missiles [TEL] are geared up. Now at a dangerous crossroad in time, South Korea plans to have the capabilities to deploy 800 km-range ballistic missiles in 2015 when the wartime operational control returns to South Korea.

NK-08_2

In recent years there has been the introduction of the KDX-II and KDX-III to the navy and the XuanWu 3-C a land cruise missile on the South Korean side. Air force fighter jets with long range air to ground missiles (JASSM with 370km capabilities) are due to be exported from the United States subject to approval as well as the German air-launched cruise missiles which are still being considered. Measures have been introduced to improve the performance of the PAC-2 missile.

For the last five days the will of our military to pursue this preemptive strike against North Korea has been strongly protested by all those in Chosun who claim that in comparison this blow will show no mercy!

Comments from Naver:

woul****:

Kim Jung-un ignites World War III.- Nostradamus

libe****:

Remember that bitch who called soldiers home-guarding dogs? Would she be watching news these days?

ksk7****:

We cannot buy peace with money after all. Our unconditional aid in the past ended up helping North Korea get armed with nuclear weapons.

trv2****:

Pull the f-king bodies of Dae-jung and Mu-hyun out from their graves…

ppp9****:

Even if we implement pre-emptive strikes on North Korea, the UN wouldn’t help North Korea, would they.

jack****:

Kim Jae-kyu at the moment I hate you most.

frue****:

Nuke Dae-jung rotting in hell, do you realize what crazy shit you did? [referring to Kim Dae-jung government’s large-scale aid for North Korea.]

knj3****:

What’s good if war breaks out?

chh2****:

If war breaks out, pro-Japan collaborators will be the first ones to flee.

mode****:

This is such a serious situation. I don’t think you guys on here get how big the problem could turn into. If what the Joint Chief of Staff has said is true then North Korea has some pretty serious nuclear weapons of a 1000KT class. A 15KT grade atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and that killed 140k people. If those levels of weapons (1000KT) were dropped on this country then tens of millions of people would die instantly.

spam****:

I want to emigrate but I have no money!! I hate communists~~~

anff****:

Ahead with the pre-emptive strike, ke ke ke. Don’t shy away from war~~~

im2v****:

They will do the test after October. You know why? It’s because of the harvest period. If they prepare for war before that period ends, they will ruin the harvest. And if the harvest season goes wrong, Kim Jung-un will have to resign. Jang Seong-taek can take over or revolutions can happen. Some people thought Kim Jung-un would be done in one year or two.

Share This Article
Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • dim mak

    Sounds.. politically implausible

    I still believe that new pudgy kid isn’t entirely like his dad and can be bought off with chicken mcnuggets or something

    • exink

      “Chicken Mcnuggets”, Or as they have been re-named the North;
      “MagicallyEnhancedSuperChickeOfTheGreatPowerfulKoreanComrades, LovinglyRaisedByOurEternalLeaderAndAreInNoWayAssociatedWith ThoseCapitalistAmericanDogs…..orScotland!”

      Catchy isn’t?

      • Paul M

        Or Scotland you say? Sounds good, I’ll take a box of nine please with Juche fries.

  • Observer

    I’m often a bit worried about my friends’ and co-workers’ constant repetition of “nothing has happened in 60 years, so nothing’s going to happen now. It’s normal” argument to describe the situation. Just because something hasn’t happend in the past doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future.

    On the other hand, the people who are itching for a fight; don’t you realise a war would be disastrous for both countries? Do you realise it’s your friends and family members (and you) who would be on the front line?
    There’s a big difference between acting tough on the internet and fighting in a real war.

    Personally, I just hope that my friends’ “It’s normal” argument holds true, we will just have to wait and see….

    • dim mak

      There’s really no way to stop a country from getting nukes if they really wanted to anyway

      You would need an all out total war occupying invasion to do it, and the south loves their current lifestyle too much for that

      • Observer

        Agreed. One of Korea’s greatest weaknesses when it comes to their economy is their over-reliance on the Mega-Corporations. These Goliaths would suffer greatly and companies like Samsung could see their shares plummet in the event of an armed conflict.
        Lose-Lose

        • Hongwu Emperor

          South strikes the south loses. the north strikes, the south loses also [Observer said it pretty well].
          Negociations and peace is tough but at this case, its the better way.

  • dim mak

    And look at that guy’s ring o:

    • carmouflagger

      Looks like the one Panetta was wearing O.o

  • Kate

    This scares me, if war could happen then I don’t want to go anywhere near Korea. My husband keeps saying its all just political huff n puff but I’m not sure on that, just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it won’t and we would be living in the part that is going to get blown up first. This truely is worrisome to people traveling to Korea and living there :(

    • Ralph

      I am due to go to Korea in May, and I have no qualms about going there at all. I am not in the least bit worried. In fact, it’s at times like this, when tension rises, that it is good for foreigners to go there as it can help reassure locals that things are ok when they see foreigners holidaying as usual. I’ll take my chances.

      • Kate

        I’m going in march. I figure if it gets bad or likely something bad will happen, I am getting me and mine a plane ticket out.

  • ChuckRamone

    I’m not that worried about the threat from North Korea itself. There’s a lot of hype surrounding their military strength. They have a starving populace, outdated weaponry, supposed nukes that would be fired on inaccurate and weak missiles, and a military that would possibly become disloyal in the event of a war. I am, however, worried about China getting involved. It most certainly will, as it did in the Korean War. That’s the biggest threat. Even Russia could possibly get sucked in. Then we’re talking a full scale international war that would include the US and maybe Japan. Civilians would get hit the hardest. But I would love to see the North collapse and Korea reunite in my lifetime.

    • jon776

      China and Russia wouldn’t risk it. They would lose much more than what the US would if they got involved. NK and China aren’t even ideologically similar anymore.

      • Ralph

        You are right in saying that they probably wouldn’t risk it, but what they could do instead is engage in a limited proxy war. So the war itself would be fought only on Korean soil between the forces of the 2 Koreas, with US and Chinese troops possibly facing each other on the battlefield ostensibly there as advisers and in support roles, but in reality engaged in fighting.

        • commander

          One possoble scenario is that as China and Washington have shared interests in keeping the status quo on the Korean Peninsula, two giants could have a backroom deal in an emergency, caused by an unpredictable North, on the Korean Peninsula.

          In the Korean War, Bejing had the misperception that U.S. placing the peninsula out of its defense perimeter, the so called Achison Line, made the Soviet-installed leader Kim Ill-seung’s argument for a reunification by force perauasive. But, the U.S. belatedly recognized the geopolitical significance of the peninsula’s location, forcing it to repel the North’s invasion.

          Now, the two powers clearly recognize the magnitude of two Koreas in their respective strategies, sharing the belief that any unilateral attempt to change the statua quo would prompt the other’s armed intervention.

          In addition, the prospect for an economic disaster accompanying a war on the peninsula is compelling two powers to remain cautious, with the U.S. catching its breath after its pullout of two wars in the Middle East, and China being preoccupied with tackling domestic thorny problems.

          I think the two giants know the line what they should not overstep regarding the peninsular matters.

      • ChuckRamone

        China would only be involved out of self-interest, not because of any sense of camaraderie. They want the peninsula to remain divided – the North is a buffer against the capitalist, American-allied South.

        • jon776

          They also want the money to keep coming in. Without the US, China’s economy plummets.

          • commander

            Vice Versa. The world’s biggest holder of U.S. T bonds, China is also bolstering the American deficit economy by purchasing the bonds issued in quantity easing.

            A saying goes, if China wants to challenge U.S. surpremacy, the easiest thing to do is sell U.S. bonds in its possession. The two is too deely interdependent to say that one stands over the other.

        • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

          China is in a rough spot.

          On one side, it supports America because its economy is so closely tied with America’s now and is the main force behind their growth.

          On the other side the North Korea is practically a giant refugee camp, holding millions of North Koreans that may flee into China if the regime falls, destroying Chinese stability. It’d be the equivalent to nearly all of Mexico illegally immigrating to America. The country just would not be able to handle such an influx.

          • Hongwu Emperor

            what about north refugees going SOUTH instead?? that’s an likely scenario also.

    • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

      Well it’s official that North Korea concluded a third nuclear test, raising a giant middle finger to the U.N. With a nuke and working satellite, North Korea doesn’t need soldiers or ballistic missiles or whatever. All they need is to send that nuke into orbit and drop it on anyone ’round the globe, and no one wants to take that ‘bullet’. Hence the sanctioning. That does not stop the Kim regime as they’ll just pump even more of their miniscule budget into the nuclear program.

      It might be different this time however as even China is getting sick of North Korea’s shenanigans.

  • dk2020

    Just when I thought Kim Jong Un was different .. if only there was a way to sabotage Kim’s regime without causing a war .. but I guess that was the only way the US killed Saddam Hussein ..

    • Hongwu Emperor

      a bloody stupid war risking the lives of thousands of innocents, AND [in the korean matter] the risk of a total war, which would leave the SOUTH ALSO in rubbles?? believe in me, the south would also suffer greatly from a war.

  • chucky3176

    The government said, first strike is one of the options. That does not mean there will be war. It is wise to leave all options open, to worry and confuse the enemy. In all likelihood, there will be no preemptive strike unless South Korea is provoked like in 2010 when the North lobbed shells into South Korea. South Korea and the US will continue to hope the North changes their mind, and putting off doing anything until the North get their nuke and their intercontinental missile able to reach the US. By then, there isn’t anything anybody can do about it.

  • PixelPulse

    I know North Korea is usually all bark with no bite but it still worries me.

  • commander

    I doubt if his remarks are genuine or can be put into practice. His words appear to be part of deterrence strategy against North Korea’s threat of a thid nuclear test.

    First, a preemptive strike could be out of mutual obligations of the KORUS mutual “defense” treaty. The defence treaty provides that in case of an “external attack”on either of two allies, the allied nations have to be in consulatation. The treaty also stipluates that only when such an attack on one ally is perceived by the other as a threat to the latter’s peace and and security, the other take moves to counter the common threat, “following its own constitutional procedures”

    This means a preemtive attack by South Korea would not be within the external attack in the alliance treaty. Even if it is within, the U.S., an ally that guarantees the security of the South with deterrence strategy against the the comminist North, have to win approval for any action from the U.S. Congress, where a protracted debate over the necessity for immediate intervention could hamper the U.S. military aid.

    Thus, I think that the U.S. and Korea military officials, mindful of this delicate provisions of the mutual defense treaty, seems to see the latest remarks as designed to allay the fear felt by locals and bunsiness men of the North’s third nuclear test, and as a warning against the nuclear aspirant giving up a nuclear detonation.

    Second, the wartime operational control of the South Korean military is still possessed by the US foces here, though its handover to Seoul is slated for 2015. This impies that in the event of an all-out war that is ignited by an preemtive assault by Seoul, all wartime operations have to be controlled by the USFK. In reality, the military ties of this kind forces the U.S. to demand that Seoul have to consult with Washington on any moves that could touch off a slide toward a war where the USFK is obliged to command the South Korean military.

    Therefore, the Washington’s acquiecense in the preemptive strike announcement from Seoul indicates that the two allies see the remarks is intended to calm public anxiety and warn Beijing and Pyongyang of a third nuclear test, while showing how serious Seoul takes the looming threat from the commumist regime.

    In a nutshell, there are remote chances of Seoul launching a preemtive strike on Pyongyang.

  • Jay K.

    man i actually salute this general he’s got balls. the only thing is china. if it wasnt there north korea would have been wiped out of this world a long time ago. fucking commies.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      Lol, if Uncle Sam wasn’t there to save your ass, you would of been one of them fuckin commies too.

      • ChuckRamone

        If history had been totally different, and entire countries hadn’t existed, then, like, things would be the exact opposite of how they are now. How deeply insightful. Thanks for your wise words.

  • x1sfg

    SECDEF has a Green Lantern ring of power in that photo, we’ll be fine

  • Paul Gillett

    Left Korea because of Gangnam style. Staying out because of war.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»