The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    North Korea threatens to "wipe out the aggressors once and for all"

    By Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 10:27am | World Affairs

    From the official Korean Central News Agency:

    "If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all."

    A week ago, in response to U.S. threats to inspect cargo coming to and from North Korea, the same news agency vowed that North Korea would treat such actions as a declaration of war of promised a "100 or 1,000-fold retaliation with merciless military strike."

    So if we intercept a cargo ship, say the Kang Nam, which is suspected of delivering weapons to Myanmar, it will provoke a war which will wipe out the U.S.

    Uh, OK. Better stay away from those cargo ships.

    With its U.N. allies faltering, the North Koreans are afraid of an American led blockade that would curtail one of its only sources of hard currency. Lacking any negotiating leverage other than its army and missile arsenal, North Korea has once again fallen back on the "I'm f-ing crazy! Don't mess with me" defense.

    But they're not crazy, or at least not crazy to the point of suicide. As I wrote in a recent post, the "1,000-fold" thread is a bluff, and this latest threat is even bluffier. North Korea can devastate Seoul, but they cannot wipe anyone off the map, least of all the U.S. The promised missile test on the 4th will be a dud. Unless they're extraordinarily lucky, I predict that the missile will not go anywhere near Hawaii. That's probably better for North Korea anyway. Americans get a little crazy themselves when attacked on their own soil.

    In short, North Korea has no real navy, no real allies, and no real economy. They can't stop sanctions if the U.S. and allies impose them. All they have to negotiate with is one suicidal attack, and so that's all we hear about from their mouthpieces whenever they're unhappy. While we should take the risk of an attack seriously, we should not take the threats at face value. The North Korea regime won't commit suicide for a ship.

     

    Late update: Rumors that Kim Jong Il will soon cede powers to his son, Kim Jong Un.

    Late late update: The North Korean government is running dangerously low on epithets and histrionic adjectives. Please help avert war with our North Korean Threat Generator™.

    Topics: 
    World Affairs

    Comments

    Will Un be just as crazy as Il?


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 11:03am

    I wonder if Un will even be able to hold on to power.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 11:27am

    As Col. Jacobs said the other day "Sink it!"


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 2:13pm

    Not a chance. Leaving aside the unnecessary provocation and international condemnation, we want evidence of illegal trade for PR reasons and to justify a blockade.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 2:16pm

    I'm currently 17 years young, I'm enlisting into the U.S. Marines towards then end of this year when I get off of my probation and get my schooling done, this makes me wish that I could enlist NOW!

    North Korea wants war with the most powerful nation in the world, this is why I will be enlisting, to protect anyone in harms way of this beautiful and bold country.


    by Jarhead (not verified) on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 5:24pm

    My young friend, while war is sometimes necessary, it is nonetheless one of the greatest evils in the world. We should engage in it only when there is no alternative. I wish for the regime in North Korea to fall, but I dearly hope that it never comes to war, and while I honor your willingness to serve, I hope that neither you nor any other young men or women ever go to war again in the Koreas or anywhere else in the world.

    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 5:39pm

    Your a very good young man it's people like you that makes this country to you good luck and thank you!


    by Matt (not verified) on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 8:09pm

    This is in response to your claim that North Korea has no Navy, You are either misinformed or an idiot. This information is from 2003, so the Navy has grown considerably since that time. 
    North Korea has two fleets - the West Fleet and the East Fleet. The West Fleet has 6 squadrons of 320 ships and the East Fleet has 10 squadron of 460 ships. The navy has a total manpower of 46,000. North Korean ships are sheltered from US attacks in about 20 bunkers of 200-900 m longs and 14-22 m wide. North Korean ships are small and agile, designed for coastal defense. North Korean ships carry 46km range ship-to-ship missiles and 22-channel multiple rocket launchers.
     
    The main enemy of the North Korean navy will be US carrier task forces. The Russian navy has developed a tactic to deal with US carriers task forces: massive simultaneous missile attacks. In addition, Russia has developed the anti-carrier missile, "jun-gal", that can destroy a carrier. China has developed similar tactics for destroying US carriers. On April 1, 2003, North Korea test-fired a high-speed ground-to-ship missile of 60km range. A US carrier task force of Nimitz class has 6,000 men, 70 planes, and a price tag of 4.5 billion dollars. Destroying even a single career task force will be traumatic.
     
    A carrier is protected by a shield of 6 Aegis destroyers and nuclear attack submarines. An Aegis destroyer has an AN/SPY-1 high-capacity radar system that can track more than 100 targets at the same time. An Aegis can fire about 20 anti-missile missiles at the same time. Thus, a career force can track a total of 600 targets at a time and fire 120 anti-missile missiles at the same time. The anti-missile missiles have about 50% success under ideal conditions. In actual battle situations, the hit rate will be much lower and the best estimate is that the Aegis shield can intercept at most 55 incoming missiles. Therefore, a volley of about 60 missiles and rockets will penetrate the Aegis shield and hit the career.
     
    North Korea acquired OSA and KOMAR high-speed missile boats in 1968, and began to build its own missile boats in 1981. It has more than 50 missile boats, each equipped with 4 missiles of 46km range and multiple rocket launchers. In addition, North Korea has about 300 speed boats, 200 torpedo boats and 170 other gunboats. In case of war, North Korea's small crafts and submarines will swarm around US career task forces and destroy them.
     
    North Korea has 35 submarines and 65 submersibles. These crafts are equipped with torpedoes and will be used to attack US careers. They will also lay mines and block enemy harbors. North Korea has a large supply of mines. North Korean submarines are small but they are equipped with 8km rocket launchers and 70km anti-ship missiles, and they could do some serious damage to US careers..

    by Joe California (not verified) on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 6:05pm

    I'll take option 1, misinformed, though others may beg to differ. Thank you for the detailed correction, notwithstanding the opening barrage. Nonetheless, my point was not that N Korea can't inflict damage--such a war would be tragic for millions--but that it cannot win. More specifically, the regime will not survive a war. Insofar as the regime values survival, war is not in its interest. They are playing chicken against a Mack truck while driving a mini. Despite the manic honking they will swerve as long as they have a way to survive.

    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 6:34pm

    haha, you just said such a war would be tragic for millions--yet you don't feel the need to take threats seriously? Do you listen to yourself, or do you just spout theories?

    I realize that was unfairly rude, but come on! "Wipe out the aggressors" did not have to mean that they would wipe out the US as a whole. All they really have to do is put another hole in our already sinking ship. Minor damage will be enough to cripple the Titanic that America currently is.

    And I'm sure that they did not just mean the US.


    by Ariellia (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 9:44am

    Reading is fundamental. Here's what Genghis said:

    While we should take the risk of an attack seriously, we should not take the threats at face value.

    I.e., he can't actually do what he's threatening to do. If you're going to try to reparse his words to make black equal to white, then perhaps he can "shine his shoes". As for putting "another hole in our already sinking ship", you seem to have a really thwarted view of the current state of the US. We're stronger than we've been in years, and are only getting stronger. Sure, the economy could be better, but we're rallying behind each other, our allies like us again, and we have a President who understands diplomacy. Things are looking up.


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 10:18am

    Stronger than ever? Are you serious? We are weaker than ever. How in the world do you think we are stronger than ever?

    Allies behind us? Such as...? Name the countries that will stand with us and fight with us in a war. England? Whoopdeedoo.... I feel safer already.

    As for the person below who thinks that Obama is "cleaning up the crap" -- uhh, I'd really like to know how you figure that, too. He's only thrown us into insurmountable deficit, using the stimulus to boost corrupt corporates (and a few corporates), most of which won't survive the first round of the stimulus anyway. He allocated money for "jobs" by creating jobs that have a longevity of about 6 months. Oh, and the people? The people get a few extra bucks in their paychecks each month, but that really doesnt even out, because with the higher cost of products and the incredible tax hikes, we're paying out more than we're getting with our petty "stimulus tax break." Let's not go to gas prices. He's getting ready to "overhaul" our health care system, effectively shutting down employer based coverage and private insurance. He offers a Clunker Law that applies only if your new vehicle gets better gas mileage than your current one, which, I hate to tell ya, most of em get worse mileage, unless it's a hybrid. My 2002 gets far more MPG than what's been hitting the market in the last several years. His government green plan is costing companies more money to provide eco-products. We won't get into the cost for this energy plan of his. OH, AND his HIT plan? Billions upon billions of dollars for a plan that wouldn't even take full root until he's out of office, effectively leaving someone else to clean it up.  Now, shall we move on to his disgusting hypocrisy (morals), or..... well, no, I think that would get ugly.

     


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 10:55am

    I forgot to mention how he's moving everything under the government's thumb/control. I mean, who takes control away from a major corporate industry (tobacco) and gives it to the f*&&ing government? And lol, this coming from a Democrat? As if big brother isn't bad enough already. You can't choose to do something detrimental to your own health anymore... let big bro decide for you.

    Free will, gone. Money, gone. Health, gone. Home, gone. America and all that it stood for, gone. Power is all that matters now.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:01am

    Oh, gee, I didn't realize everything was that dire. Thanks for letting me know. I'll go back home now and climb under the covers.

    We're stronger than ever because Obama won't lead us into an unjust war. If a genuine reason arises for us to go to war, you can count on all of our allies, and probably even some of our less-than-allies (e.g., China or Russia) helping out.

    I'm talking about on the international front, since that seemed to be the topic here.

    However, if you want to talk about the economy, find one of the other posts where it's relevant. There's already a lot to discuss here, and it doesn't make sense to bring in the nanny boogeyman.

    Boo!


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:09am

    Still waiting to hear who these supposed allies are.

    I like how you just skimmed right over that one. Can't back it up? :)


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:15am

    What part of "all our allies" did you not understand? Here is a partial list of who I'm thinking of: England, Canada, Australia, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Turkey, South Korea, Poland, Israel. I'm sure there are several others that I've left off that list.

    Of course, I'm expecting you to ridicule our friends.


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:20am

    I have no desire to ridicule whatsoever.

    But here you go: England, yes. Canada will not fight with us. France, Spain, Poland, will not fight with us. I don't know about the others, either. Show me something that shows that those countries are standing behind us and are happy with us.

    Very few countries have any patience for the US right now. And a great deal of the countries in the world are subtly blaming the US for the global economy.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:22am

    They won't fight with us in a war that was started for poor reasons.

    If, however, there was actually a good reason to go to war, I'm quite confident that they'd all be with us. Can I prove it? Of course not.

    As for my comments about you ridiculing our friends, I suspose this statement is why I anticipated it: "England? Whoopdeedoo"

    (All of this is assuming that I've been talking to the same Anonymous.)


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:28am

    Yes, but that wasn't really meant to insult England... just that... you know, with their size, I'd have a hard time feeling as though we were any better off than we would be if they didn't.

    No, I suppose that no one can prove anything. Kind of makes all arguments seem pointless if you think about it. Time will reveal all things.... it'd be nice if you were right, actually. I just worry not; I think they've all been verbal about not backing a US-led war.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 11:38am

    "...with their size, I'd have a hard time feeling as though we were any better off than we would be if they didnt."

    I wonder if continential Europe felt the same way during WWII? When England, with their size, was pretty much the only country who wasn't invaded or didn't capitulate. Oh, and their cities were destroyed by bombing, their men were killed by fighting, and they were in it almost from beginning to end.

    I'm sorry to be rude, anonymous, but you appear to be a little lacking in political and military history. Maybe you could do a little reading and make a better argument.


    by Orlando on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:29pm

    Forgot about Russia...not exactly capitulators there either.


    by Orlando on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:32pm

    Actually, Nebton, you can prove it. Canada declined an invitation to join the attack on Iraq, but did send troops into Afghanistan. They are fighting there now (except for the 120 or so who have already been killed) and are committed to stay for another couple of years. Just war versus unjust war.


    by acanuck on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:22pm

    Personally, none of you are qualified to say who will or will not fight with us. That being said, its probably best to just not assume.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 2:11am

    Hey Neb, you forgot Palau.


    by Orlando on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:23pm

    Alas and alack. I hope they will forgive me.


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:28pm

    Are you serious?

     

    One US sub will wipe north korea of the face of the earth in about 90 seconds.

     

    A quote to that fish head....

     

    Be careful what you ask for.....


    by Boston (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:43am

    A row boat with a missile hooked up to it is still just a row boat. There is much more to "having" a navy and that being an effective navy.

    The tomahawk has an anti-ship variant, and the operational range is 2500km. Compared to the 60km on the missile you listed, I imagine our ships will be ok. lol

    This isn't even factoring in the fact that NKorea has an extremely out-dated airforce consisting mainly of Mig-15's and 19's.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 2:34am

    "...the 1,000-fold threat is a bluff..."

    It's not even a good bluff. The guy's got as much credibility as Dr. Evil. In fact, maybe we should enlist Austin Powers as the new ambassador to North Korea. He's about as delusional as Kim Jong Il and they would probably get along swimmingly.


    by Orlando on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 6:43pm

    Sorry to take your snark seriously, but delusion is what we have most to fear in a confrontation. The only way that N Korea would go to war with us would be if the decision makers actually believed that they would win. So let's hope that they're not completely nuts.

    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 6:59pm

    They've been starving their own population for more years then I've been alive. You think they're not nuts? China needs to step in. It's the only way to a rational solution.


    by Orlando on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 7:18pm

    sure...let the US give a solid reason to China, Russia, Japan N' many others to jump in the game...WW3.

    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 8:19am

    Huh? China needs to step in because China is the only country that North Korea will even kinda listen to. China's increased diplomatic involvement would hopefully work to avoid military conflict. It's not in China's best interest to have to pick sides here, and I'm pretty sure they're rational enough to know it.


    by Orlando on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 9:23am

    Aren't you kind of forgetting the fact that North Korea is not the only country in the world that is pissed off at the US right now? Let alone the fact that we're--hah--basically out of allies, we have a completely useless President, and we're economically in tatters.... you've also got Iran pissed off at us, and they're certainly big enough and nuclear-capable to do damage to us. Russia's on the fence, and I wouldn't put it past them to decide to fall off on the wayside of it.

    Whether or not the war cry from N. Korea is a bluff is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, you don't blame games with threats. You don't wait for someone to attack, and THEN decide to stand up and be Commander in Chief, instead of Commander in Peace. It's not WORTH the facade of peace if we have to lose American lives first to prove that we're dedicated to the cause.

    War is inevitable; conflict is inevitable. As much as I would LOVE world peace, it's just not going to happen. Obama would rather make a run for glory than accept that he has a country to protect.

    I don't condone war or hate. A part of me wouldn't even want wipe out a dangerous country, simply because it's a matter of human lives. At the same time, I'm not going to let my desire for peace become more important than my love for and protection of my children and my country. Fuck 'em, annihilate them.

     

    And oh yeah, IMPEACH OBAMA..... before we're all dead/homeless/sick.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 9:24am

    should've said play games* - not blame games.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 9:30am

    I wonder what blog site posted a link to your entry here to attract such a variety of … newcomers.

    Note to any other … newcomers: Genghis is an artist, and snark is his canvas. All of regulars get this, so when you start being overly critical of the details in his snark (unless you're being snarky yourself) you're going to cause the rest of us to roll our eyes. It's fine to correct the details, but to call him an idiot, etc., is to completely call your own self out. Just sayin'…


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 10:06am

    His blog is linked on Google News under the Korea topic.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 10:31am

    Thanks. That explains the wide variety.


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 10:41am

    It got like 1700 hits. But my fiendish plan to knock Orlando off the top 10 ten list seems likely to fail.

    PS I resent the implication that I'm snarky.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 10:48am

    I realize that your resentment is snarky, but after posting that I re-read what you wrote and I found that it's snarkiness was not as strong as is usual. I can understand why strangers to this blog might have been inclined to take your comments (e.g., "no real navy") as more definitive than they were probably intended to be. (Although, in comparison to our own, I still think that statement isn't too far off the mark.)

    None of that excuses the rudeness, however.


    by Nebton on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 10:53am

    Jeezley Buckets, looks like Genghis threw a weenie-roast in here.

    by quinn esq on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:01pm

    Dang Geng, you are my Snark Hero.  Don't tell me you resent it.  Can't you just picture yourself with a flowing cape and tight tee shirt with a big S on it?

    (I'll let someone else from around here talk about the attire below your belt.)


    by Bluesplashy on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 4:20pm

    IF YOUR HOMETOWN BECAME THE TARGET FOR AN APPROACHING NUCLEAR

    MISSILE,You would most likely have no advance warning of it's arrival. Your government

    will not panic it's people who they cannot save anyway. No "special news bulletins" will

    interupt your television show. The Emergancy Broadcast System will not air on radio.

    No air raid sireins will sound off. No hysterical neighbors running around in the streets.

    No one will be running each other over frantically trying to get as far away from town as

    possible. When the initial flash hits, this life is over in a billionth of a second. And if you

    are not a born again christian, you will instantly feel the scortching of Hell, and wondering

    what happened and how you got there so quickly, while back on Earth, the thurmosphere

    explosion is still scortching away the bare ground where your hometown was only 

    seconds before. And in Hell,"AN EYE FOR AN EYE" will do you no good. However, those

    of us who are going to Heaven will have no need of, or can care less about taking an eye

    for an eye.      


    by Harry (not verified) on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 4:15pm

    This is perhaps the coolest comment in the history of dagblog. Have fun in Heaven, Harry. Please give my regards to the Big Guy. If He asks why I couldn't make it, you can direct Him to this post: http://dagblog.com/potpourri/how-i-lost-my-religion. Of course, as a Jew, I suppose that I wouldn't have made the cut anyway.

    PS Please don't tell Him about The Heretic's Bible. He might be annoyed that I called his Holiness a lazy, lying, sadistic, self-righteous ass with a dominance fetish. Or something like that.

    PPS On second thought, go ahead. Once you're in for eternal torture, what else can He possibly do?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 4:41pm

    I live in Indiana, so I'm good. Thanks for the warning though.


    by Orlando on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 6:21pm

    A senior South Korean government official said the no-sail ban is believed connected to North Korean plans to fire short- or mid-range missiles. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy. onhap reported that the North may fire a Scud missile with a range of up to 310 miles (500 kilometers) or a short-range ground-to-ship missile with a range of 100 miles (160 kilometers) during the no-sail period. U.S. defense and counterproliferation officials in Washington said they also expected the North to launch short- to medium-range missiles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. South Korea will expedite the kurta introduction of high-tech unmanned aerial surveillance systems and “bunker-buster” bombs in response to North Korea’s provocations, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper said, citing lawmakers


    by jiterz1 (not verified) on Sat, 08/07/2010 - 2:52pm