world

Pre-emptive U.S. strike on North Korea could be 'catastrophic'

29 Comments
By ROBERT BURNS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


29 Comments
Login to comment

I miss the days when adults in our government would conduct foreign policy in a calm and calculated way, showing respect for other countries and their positions. Even if those other countries didn't go along, they at least quietly cooperated to keep the status quo and not undermine us in public. Now they are laughing at us because we have a crass clown for a president who underestimates the complexity of every issue while he blurts out idle threats and insults on the world stage.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Haw haw haw, now that's hilarious!

These aren't the 1800s.

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is a once powerful nation slowly coming to terms with it's decline. There are no perpetual empires.

But merica will try to go out gns smoking for sure.

However the fact will still remain.

The days of world leadership and colonialism veiled in nation building are done for. It's only a matter of time now.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Pre-emptive U.S. strike on North Korea could be 'catastrophic'

Absoluely true. But it WILL be absolutely catastrophic for North Korea.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"It's a shame that they're behaving this way," Trump said, "but they are behaving in a very, very dangerous manner and something will have to be done about it."

Is he talking about N. Korea or the USA? That statement could go either way.

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is a once powerful nation slowly coming to terms with it's decline. There are no perpetual empires.

They should ask the UK for some advice on this. The UK has direct experience with watching their empire collapse.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Absoluely true. But it WILL be absolutely catastrophic for North Korea.

Just like the so-called 'pre-emptive strike' (which is really just a euphemism for an invasion) of Iraq was devastating to Iraq.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

5 million were killed by the Korean War, mostly Koreans. Another war would kill many hundreds of thousands and drag both China and Russia into the conflict with America and South Korea, and maybe Japan. The decision is not America's to make and should at least be decided by South Korea and Japan which because of the constitution can't anyway.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Ultimately any military action of this nature is not only ridiculous but as everyone has stated above devastating for all except for the makers and suppliers military armaments, supplies, logistics, etc. and for those following the disaster to clean up and re-construct as well as resupply the military armaments and supplies. Look at who is and will be ultimately benefiting in all these wars...It certainly is not the people... is it..? Why be carried away by the rhetoric..?

If anything this entire scenario including whomever arming N Korea is using it to create new economic boom for the military establish and all of those involved to get richer and wealthier at the expense of the common people. All of that being justified by lableing and naming a small nation as rogue, dangerous, terrorist, etc. when it was either made to or forced to be such by the very nations who wish to attack it.

So wake up world... do not get "used" by those in power... fronting for those who are actually "benefiting" behind the scenes.

Remember that when a finger is pointed, there is "always" three fingers pointed back at those who point. And the most obvious thumb always points no where in particular... usually in a completely different direction.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If there is one characteristic of the typical USA citizens, is they quickly move to "solve your problem." NK is really the world's problem. All those USA presidents and all the sanctions by various countries have not solved the NK situation. Very soon the USA taxpayers are going to tell President Trump to dump the NK problem in the neighbors' lap. He may eventually do exactly that in frustration. The USA has the nuclear power to turn NK into an ash tray, and the ashes will represent millions of lives, including that of Kim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump is not the clown.

The puppets Abe and Moon are!

While Abe could make a bold and historic move to seize the thunder and go to Pyongyang for direct talks with Kim, thereby making Japan relevant again ,he opted to let Trump turn him into one of the blind mice together with Moon!

While far away USA will have another minor Pearl Harbor nostalgia if war breaks out it's Japan and Seoul that will suffer another Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is what Russia and China wants to avoid because the whole region will suffer when you have several clowns playing with nuclear fire.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

It's a lose-lose situation. Attack now and eliminate the risk of future devastation and crises, but at a cost of hundreds of thousands lives and possibly biological and nuclear attack with not even a clear ending or resolution.

Or you wait and NK develops a massive nuclear arsenal capable of hitting any of their perceived enemies around the world making future crises magnitudes more grave and catastrophic with the potential for millions of deaths.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Unfortunately if, like in Afghanistan, there are so few desirable hard targets to bomb, the US may have no other choice but to invade Iraq again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NK is really the world's problem.

Saber rattling is only a problem to this with too big of an ego to handle it. It's not actually a real problem, it's just an ego problem.

The only country that can actually claim to have a real problem with N. Korea is S. Korea, who have had various spats and conflicts over the years. No one else can make that claim.

All those USA presidents and all the sanctions by various countries have not solved the NK situation.

There is no situation to solve - NK is only saber rattling.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I have a bad feeling about all this. Is the world on the brink of nuclear conflict?

Neither "leader" is going to back down and both are being egged on by their adoring sycophants.

Maybe a coup within both regimes is the best pre-emptive surgical strike option.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So what to do ? Let N.K. fire the first Nukes ?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So what to do ? Let N.K. fire the first Nukes ?

If we attack NK before they attack us, we are guilty of that which we don't want them to do. And any retaliation on their part becomes entirely justified.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Should the war happen, i feel sorry for the South Koreans. Seoul will be turned into a war zone and a lot of Koreans will lose their lives - more than that of Americans ( who will be far away in the States watching everything from their big screen tv )

The decision whether to invade NK or not, should not be taken lightly and the US is in no position to call the shots. This decision should be left for South Korea to make because they will suffer the most.

This is North Korea, not Iraq, Syria or Libya. any provocation from the south will be met with aggressive response.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So what to do ? Let N.K. fire the first Nukes ?

Get their pre-emptive in first? Whoever fires first will trigger a regional armaggedon. I'm hoping that as "evil" as both regimes are; common sense will prevail and dialogue will be the order of the day.

It all reminds me of the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Justifying the unjustifiable.

Gosh help us all.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In South Korea there are more than 1 million Chinese, more than 150,000 Americans, more than 50,000 Japanese living there. Those countries would have to evacuate their citizens before a pre-emptive strike leading to an outright war.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The South Koreans should move their capital to Pusan rather than staying in Seoul, at least out of the North Korean's artillery reaching

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the South Koreans will blame U.S. for triggering Korean war2 rather than blaming the North if Trump strike first. That's what K.J. is seeking and why he is defiance

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No "could be", it WOULD be, plain and simple.

elephant200: "I think the South Koreans will blame U.S. for triggering Korean war2 rather than blaming the North if Trump strike first. "

Because the US would be to blame, plain and simple, for starting it. No one is forcing them to pre-emptively strike. What part of first strike do you not understand as starting something? If NK starts bombing the South and then the US bombs them, NK started it. Get it? Don't start making excuses before anything has happened.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just like the so-called 'pre-emptive strike' (which is really just a euphemism for an invasion) of Iraq was devastating to Iraq.

If it has to ultimately come to that, then so be it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

if it has to ultimately come to that, then so be it.

even if it means the death of tens and probably hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans?

America does not have the right to decide to strike North Korea. That alone is the decision of the country's here, South Korea and Japan, not America.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

zichi, DPRK has threatened loudly and repeatedly and in no uncertain terms to decimate Washington, Tokyo and Seoul and US bases throughout the Pacific area. No right to strike?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nandakandamanda

zichi, DPRK has threatened loudly and repeatedly and in no uncertain terms to decimate Washington, Tokyo and Seoul and US bases throughout the Pacific area. No right to strike?

Just like Iran and Israel have threatened to wipe each other out. For the time being and the near future, North Korea does not have the capabilities to attack Japan or America. There are more than 1.5 million foreigners living in SK including 150,000 Americans and 50,000 Japanese.

A strike against NK will be the start of a major war and will cause the death of many. America should not attack NK without the agreement of Japan and SK. Japan can't do that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I wish NK whose revenues are based on criminal activities disappeared from the face of the earth, but it exists today as a result of poorly handled international conflicts by the west. I was supportive of and would support preemptive strikes against NK, but when Gen. Mattis, a mad dog is negative, is reluctant, I say no.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was supportive of and would support preemptive strikes against NK

A preemptive strike is an invasion.

Let's not try to pretend it's something it's not.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yup. Our pre-emptive cruise missile strike on that Syrian airfield sure escalated into an invasion. Let's try to understand the terms being used.

"preemptive strike definition. A first-strike attack with nuclear weapons carried out to destroy an enemy's capacity to respond. A preemptive strike is based on the assumption that the enemy is planning an imminent attack."

"An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country,"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Either way, if you attack first, you are the one instigating the war. You are in the wrong.

There is no such thing as a 'preemptive strike'. There is only the opening volley to war.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites