world

North Korea says U.S. threats make war unavoidable; China urges calm

43 Comments
By Soyoung Kim and Heekyong Yang

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said direct talks with North Korea were "not on the table until they are willing to denuclearize."

And then the US will invade and change the regime while the people suffer even more hardship?

History shows what will happen..,,

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

US threats make war unavoidable, but sending missiles flying over Japan doesn't. Makes perfect sense.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

This is a game of chicken where the 2 man-baby drivers are two stupid to realize that in a game of chicken if neither yields both will perish.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

NK very funny now to play the victim. What happened to all their doomsday  rhetoric about how they were going to destroy the evil empire? Seems like the bigger and stronger bully is bullying the bully.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Sending missiles over Japan is not an implied threat issued by North Korea. The North Koreans wish to test missile trajectories-it's unfortunate that Japan is basically in the way.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

And then the US will invade and change the regime while the people suffer even more hardship?

History shows what will happen..,,

They have China and Russia to provide a security guarantee.

They always have had.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Sending missiles over Japan is not an implied threat issued by North Korea. The North Koreans wish to test missile trajectories-it's unfortunate that Japan is basically in the way.

If you look, they COULD target the missiles in a northern direction and then they would be flying near Russian territory.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Russia saying NK wants to talk? What a joke nation they are.

It’s the end of NK unfortunately unless they unilaterally give up their nuke and missile program. They have said they won’t, so there is nothing to talk about. NK is done

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Extanker - my sentiments exactly. Those preferring Kim over Trump should pack up and move to North Korea. As much as I dislike Trump as he is not fit for duty, comparisons between him and Kim (or Hitler, etc.) are ludicrous

2 ( +6 / -4 )

kurisupisuToday 08:04 am JST Sending missiles over Japan is not an implied threat issued by North Korea. The North Koreans wish to test missile trajectories-it's unfortunate that Japan is basically in the way.

In violation of multiple UN resolutions. If NK did this over China or Russia how long do you think they would last?

Matt HartwellToday 08:26 am JSTAnd then the US will invade and change the regime while the people suffer even more hardship?

History shows what will happen..,,

They have China and Russia to provide a security guarantee.

They always have

North Korea has a defense treaty with China going back to 1961 wherein China, a nuclear power will protect NK from attack. So they have NO NEED for a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal since South Korea does not have one either. This is the big flaw in their "we need nuclear weapons to keep the US from attacking us" argument.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

NK probably just wants security concessions and money and oil etc from Russia and China in exchange for influence and not going to war.

China fought with NK against the UN in the original Korean War, and that shouldn’t be forgotten.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So, if the US attacks North Korea then China and Russia will enter the fray?

No US president is willing to do that unless somehow Russia and China won't?

Either way the North Koreans will rely on themselves as they have already been bombed by the US......

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Are things going as Trump planned?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@theperson China fought with NK against the UN in the original Korean War, and that shouldn’t be forgotten.

Nor should it be forgotten that Stalin put Kim in power, supplied North Korea, and pushed Mao to get Chinese forces involved. Chinese troops suffered huge losses. (I'm not defending China, instead pointing fingers at both Stalin and Mao, two of the most evil men in modern history.)

6 ( +6 / -0 )

So, if the US attacks North Korea then China and Russia will enter the fray?

No US president is willing to do that unless somehow Russia and China won't?

Either way the North Koreans will rely on themselves as they have already been bombed by the US......

The Chinese have previously stated that if North Korea attacks the U.S first, China will not lift a finger to help North Korea providing the U.S does not seek to come up to the North Korea/China border. In other words, the U.S could conduct an all out air war and limited ground invasion to disable weapons etc, but they must not come too close. I imagine only South Koreans would be allowed to venture anywhere near the China/N.K border under those circumstances.

If however, the U.S conducts a pre-emptive strike, China will come to North Korea's aid.

The position of Russia is less clear, but given there support for North Korea recently and their "preparations" for war, it seems likely they would also support North Korea in some capacity, perhaps regardless of who starts the conflict.

At the end of the day however, I doubt Russia is willing to embark in all out war with the U.S over North Korea since they also have to worry about what the U.S and the Europeans might do in Europe against them.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Kurisu - the USSR declared war on Japan at the end of WW2 which resulted in Korea being split at the 38th parallel. The North Koreans invaded the South in 1950 and the UN Security Council authorized the sending UN forces to Korea to fight off what the world recognized as a North Korean invasion. The U.S. provided over 75% of the personnel for that war (my father was one of them). The war sucked for all involved and resulted in the demarcation line moving back to the 38th parallel. The North was backed by the USSR with China.

You are correct in stating a US President will not attack North Korea without certain assurances from China and Russia. I am sure there are still back channel communications going on about this issue.

In spite of what we all think, none of us here know what is really going on. There are much more informed men and women working on this issue (and I am not talking about Trump). It will be interesting to see what happens. Trump's foolish tweets about Kim seem to have stopped (for now) and I hope it stays that way.

This is a problem that has been kicked down the road for too long. I hope the resolution is a peaceful one.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So, if the US attacks North Korea then China and Russia will enter the fray?

it will be over before China or Russian can do anything.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Why doesn't the US show good faith by giving up its own nuclear and missile programs? We saw in Iraq that the government gave up some of its short-range missiles which the US deemed illegal, then they were invaded anyway. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was invaded by US proxies. The US does not have a good record in this field.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The military industrial complex need a new war to increase profits, NK happens to be pre vocative. Perfect. See where this is going....must buy shares in an arms company.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I am not an American. But I have many American friends and have visited many times too.

I have always said that I'd much prefer to live in the US rather than my home country if I ever left Japan.

But honestly speaking...I'm scared by some of the rhetoric that comes out of the US.

Honestly guys...if you didn't speak English and looked different from me...I'd be proper bricking myself!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"The outbreak of war is not in any side's interest. The ones that will suffer the most are ordinary people."

i disagree a war is in the military industrial complexes interest, and yes ordinary people will suffer but its not like bankers and elites ever cared.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Nothing new here. This whole situaiton is being manufactured so as to allow US gov't to sidestep political process in Washington, with the new added bonus of providing a mechanism for Japan to sidestep its pacificist constitution, and act as the US' political ally and counterbalance to Vhina in the region...statecraft 101. Next....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, as long as N. Korean soldiers are infested with parasitic worms from eating food grown in human feces, I don't think they'll really be ready for war anytime soon. Just a lot of drum beating.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"China urges calm"

Thanks a lot, China. Wen are y'all ever actually going to take any action to help resolve the situation?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

DPRK have talked themselves into a box. Hope they enjoy it in there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

my bad...that be China....

Nan FerraToday 11:14 am JST

Nothing new here. This whole situaiton is being manufactured so as to allow US gov't to sidestep political process in Washington, with the new added bonus of providing a mechanism for Japan to sidestep its pacificist constitution, and act as the US' political ally and counterbalance to Vhina in the region...statecraft 101. Next....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever.

Kim Jung Fat Boy is a grade A piece of work. I hate him. I hate his stupid hair cut. I hate his stupid family and I hate his stupid family's monarchiial communist slave state.

but that is not what I hate most.

I hate that I will not, under any circumstances, back any action that Trump takes towards North Kore.

There is no way I will follow that man into battle. None.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Smoke and mirrors. There won´t be a "war" between a superpower and a tinpot dictatorship with an economy the size of Shibya-ku (if that). Besides, the situation of course does not exist in a vaccum. The issue is chaing the NK regime while letting the Kim clan survive. And Trump is working on that by talking to China.

Anybody who takes the propaganda emating from the likes of North Korea TV and CNN at face value outs hirself as a low-information consumer.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Anybody who takes the propaganda emating from the likes of

Russia Today, or its paid keyboard brigade members, any Rupert Murdoch outlet, Hannity, Limbaugh, Alex Jones or the like outs himself as a low information consumer. Or one paid to deepen the divides among American.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

OssanAmericaToday  08:59 am JST

kurisupisuToday 08:04 am JST Sending missiles over Japan is not an implied threat issued by North Korea. The North Koreans wish to test missile trajectories-it's unfortunate that Japan is basically in the way.

In violation of multiple UN resolutions. If NK did this over China or Russia how long do you think they would last?

"So far we're in agreement."

Matt HartwellToday 08:26 am JSTAnd then the US will invade and change the regime while the people suffer even more hardship?

History shows what will happen..,,

They have China and Russia to provide a security guarantee.

They always have

North Korea has a defense treaty with China going back to 1961 wherein China, a nuclear power will protect NK from attack. So they have NO NEED for a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal since South Korea does not have one either. This is the big flaw in their "we need nuclear weapons to keep the US from attacking us" argument.

"The same could be said about the defense treaty between Japan and the US so there is NO NEED for Japan to have nuclear/ballistic missile arsenals either. Do you agree?"

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There is no need for war or sanctions. France, Germany, China, and numerous countries in Africa are ignoring sanctions supposedly placed on NK by the UN. Kim has won and intends to stay in power. Accept it world, because the almighty $$$ in any currency is what the world is about.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Stuart haywardDec. 8 02:00 pm JSTOssanAmericaToday  08:59 am JST

North Korea has a defense treaty with China going back to 1961 wherein China, a nuclear power will protect NK from attack. So they have NO NEED for a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal since South Korea does not have one either. This is the big flaw in their "we need nuclear weapons to keep the US from attacking us" argument.

"The same could be said about the defense treaty between Japan and the US so there is NO NEED for Japan to have nuclear/ballistic missile arsenals either. Do you agree?"

Japan does not seek to possess a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal. Neither does South Korea. And neither country are saying they "need" it.

What is the point of your question?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So they have NO NEED for a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal since South Korea does not have one either. This is the big flaw in their "we need nuclear weapons to keep the US from attacking us" argument.

This presupposes China won't sell the DPRK put to placate the US or to reap a benefit from the US.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tommy JonesToday 07:03 am JSTSo they have NO NEED for a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal since South Korea does not have one either. This is the big flaw in their "we need nuclear weapons to keep the US from attacking us" argument.

This presupposes China won't sell the DPRK put to placate the US or to reap a benefit from the US.

Yes it does. But by that line of thinking, both Japan and South Korea should also maintain nuclear arsenals since the U.S. could do the same thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmericaToday  06:57 am JST

Stuart haywardDec. 8 02:00 pm JSTOssanAmericaToday  08:59 am JST

North Korea has a defense treaty with China going back to 1961 wherein China, a nuclear power will protect NK from attack. So they have NO NEED for a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal since South Korea does not have one either. This is the big flaw in their "we need nuclear weapons to keep the US from attacking us" argument.

"The same could be said about the defense treaty between Japan and the US so there is NO NEED for Japan to have nuclear/ballistic missile arsenals either. Do you agree?"

Japan does not seek to possess a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal. Neither does South Korea. And neither country are saying they "need" it.

What is the point of your question?

" I simply asked you the question out of curiosity after reading your comment of why NK doesn't need nuclear weapons. I wondered if you would use the same logic towards Japan? Though you already avoided my question, I'm still curious of your opinion because it is a topic being talked about in the US & Japan and I believe it will become a "natural" progression as Japan expands its weapons industries in the future."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump might not be able to bark at N. Korea for a few days. He will be under doctor's care. When he was insulting Hiilary, he could not finish sentences and WH informed it will let us know in a. few days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stuart haywardToday 08:51 am JSTOssanAmericaToday  06:57 am JST

Japan does not seek to possess a nuclear/ballistic missile arsenal. Neither does South Korea. And neither country are saying they "need" it.

What is the point of your question?

" I simply asked you the question out of curiosity after reading your comment of why NK doesn't need nuclear weapons. I wondered if you would use the same logic towards Japan?

Though you already avoided my question, I'm still curious of your opinion because it is a topic being talked about in the US & Japan and I believe it will become a "natural" progression as Japan expands its weapons industries in the future".

If the United States no longer agreed to provide protection to Japan and South Korea, and they felt they were under a credible threat of attack by a greater nuclear power, and they stated that they "needed" a nuclear arsenal to protect themselves I would be hard put to dismiss their point of view.

However, North Korea is and continues to be protected by a nuclear armed China under a defense agreement going back to 1961, and the United States has not made any effort or even threatened to attack North Korea. Note that Trumps "destroy" comment was what would happen IF North Korea attacked the US or it's allies. The annual US-SK exercises are training to defend from a North Korean invasion. Not a preparation for invasion as the North Korean propaganda machine has been churning out for decades. This of course is because the NK regime maintains control over the people by instilling a perpetual state of war, exemplified by their Song Gun policy. As I stated, North Korea does NOT need a nuclear arsenal, and it is both disappointing and bewildering that China does not make North Korea understand reaity. Unless of course China is benefitting from all this. Trust this satisfies your "curiosity".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OsanAmerican

Thanks for your reply but just like NK is protected by China at this moment so is Japan protected by the US. I didn't ask "WHTAT IF" the US decided to no longer protect Japan.

So I'll take it that you're against Japan aquring nuclear weapons in the present reality that there IS still a protective defense agreement between the US and Japan.

Thank you for clarifying your stance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stuart haywardToday 07:41 pm JSTOsanAmerican

Thanks for your reply but just like NK is protected by China at this moment so is Japan protected by the US. I didn't ask "WHTAT IF" the US decided to no longer protect Japan.

Thanks for agreeing that NK is currently protected by China therefore has no need for a nuclear arsenal.

However, the "WHAT IF" is the crucial part of answering your solely hypothetical question. A question which incidentally need not even be asked as it is common sense.

So I'll take it that you're against Japan aquring nuclear weapons in the present reality that there IS still a protective defense agreement between the US and Japan.

I am against Japan and/or South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons while under the current security agreements with the United States. That this is common sense is supported by the fact that neither nation is currently seeking to acquire a nuclear arsenal. If that changes, what you call "what if" my position may be subject to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerican

For your information, I'm against any country having or acquiring nuclear weapons!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stuart haywardToday 07:39 am JSTOssanAmerican

For your information, I'm against any country having or acquiring nuclear weapons!

Most sane people are. But it's far too late to be standing on a soap box demanding that no countries should have nukes. The ones who already have them won't give them up. Neither will those actively seeking to have them. Nor will those who do not have them but are protected by nations who do. The best I can hope for now is that no country will ever use them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well Trump did threaten North Korea on a daily basis. So you can't call Kim Jong Un insane. He is "reacting".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerican

Im glad we a least agree on one point but I'm not standing on a "soap box" nor have I DEMANDED that no country should have them, I simply stated that I'm AGAINST having or acquiring them. I don't have the power to demand anything but I can state how I feel.

Nuclear weapons don't stop people from attacking countries that have them, they may cause most countries to think twice before going into an all out war but I feel the risk are far to dangerous to continue going down the same old path, especially with a country like NK. Ones actions/reactions and foreign policies, seem to play the largest roll in wether a country is attacked or becomes involved in war.

0 ( +0 / -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