Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Who Threatens Who? U.S. Nukes Target North Korea.

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3033
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Nov 2004, 20:06
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 Nov 2010, 06:25
http://kasamaproject.org/2010/11/24/who ... rth-korea/

Quote:
Daily the U.S. media pounds the notion of a “threat” from North Korea (the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea — DPRK). But such discussion is wrenched from its whole historic and strategic framework:

* The U.S. has leveled nuclear threat against North Korea every day since the end of World War 2.
* The U.S. actually dropped nuclear bombs nearby (on the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and quickly used that horrific event to threaten everyone — in that region and the larger world.
* During the Korean War (after 1950) the U.S. military commander MacArthur advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the Korean and Chinese forces seeking to drive the U.S. occupiers out of the Korean peninsula.
* In the following decades of U.S. occupation in South Korea, the country was packed with U.S. nukes (including at times nuclear land mines).
* Now, U.S. nukes remotely target North Korea from the surrounding waters and from other U.S. nuclear launching facilities.

Who is the threat? Who is the occupier? Who is seeking to dominate whole regions of the world?

The hypocrisy of the U.S. seeking to dictate how others may defend themselves is mindboggling. Lipservice is given to “reduction” of U.S. arsenals — while those targeted (like Iran or DPRK) are treated as criminals for seeking deterrence.

The following article (written in 2005) documents some of this history. It appeared on the Anti-Imperialist News Service site.
U. S. Nuclear Deployment and Threats Against Korea

Early Threats and Deployment

It is well-known that during the Korean war, the U.S. came very close to dropping nuclear weapons. In 1950, Truman stated in a press conference that the use of the atom bomb was “under active consideration,” and General MacArthur formally requested to use atomic weapons that year, outlining a list of targets. MacArthur later stated “I would have dropped between thirty and fifty atomic bombs . . . Strung across the neck of Manchuria.” He said he wanted to “spread behind us – from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea – a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . Which has an active life of between sixty and 120 years.” So too, many other U.S. military and civilian officials called for dropping the bomb on North Korea.

The direct deployment of nuclear weapons in the region was augmented when Truman authorized the transfer of 9 nuclear bombs to Guam on April 6, 1951. In 1956, a wide variety of nuclear weapons were deployed to Guam, Okinawa, and Hawaii.

In August, 1957, the Eisenhower administration approved National Security Council resolution NSC 5702/2, which included a provision for the deployment of nuclear weapons in South Korea. That same year, Eisenhower deployed 280mm nuclear artillery and “Honest John” nuclear rockets to South Korea. Nuclear-armed Matador missiles were sent to South Korea the following year.

At the end of the Eisenhower administration, U.S. nuclear deployments on shore in the Pacific – in Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, Korea, and Taiwan – totaled approximately 1,700 weapons. There were about a dozen weapons on Taiwan, 60 in the Philippines, 225 on Guam, and 600 in Korea. Nearly 800 weapons were located at Kadena airbase, Okinawa, Japan.

By 1967, the total number of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in the Pacific theater reached 3,200, with about 2,600 of them in South Korea and Okinawa. ( The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 55, No. 6, November/December 1999).

Although in the 1960s and 1970s, Pacific on-shore deployments of nuclear weapons began to decrease, South Korea remained an important forward base for U.S. nuclear weapons. Over 1,000 U.S. nuclear weapons were based in South Korea and many more were aboard U.S. ships and submarines making port calls.

In 1985, the 125th South Korean National Assembly reported that 1,720 U. S. nuclear weapons had been deployed in South Korea. These included nuclear bombs and shells, nuclear warheads on missiles, neutron bombs and shells, nuclear land-mines and so-called backpack nukes.

The Continuing Threat

In 1991, the U.S. officially declared the withdrawal of all remaining land-based tactical nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea.

Even if one were to believe the U.S. statement, this would still not remove the threat from land-based nukes deployed nearby or from nuclear-armed submarines and ships which continually prowl the Pacific.

For example, the U.S. has deployed nearly half of its nuclear warheads (approximately 10,000) and the majority of its strategic forces in the Asia-Pacific region around the Korean Peninsula. It has 560 military bases and facilities, at least 1,000 warplanes and bombers, and over 200 warships including 6 aircraft carriers and 34 nuclear submarines carrying over 5,000 nuclear weapons in the region. It is well-known that U.S. submarines carry nuclear-armed Tomahawk missiles and these and other nuclear-armed ships of the U.S. 7th Fleet frequently dock in South Korean and Japanese ports. U.S. B-52 and B1 bombers based in nearby Guam are also always on 24-hour alert and only hours away from Korea.

As recently as March, 2005, the U.S. nuclear submarine “Los Angeles” was sighted and photographed at Jinhae Port, in South Korea. In addition, a south Korean investigative reporter, Lee Si-woo, has uncovered public documents indicating the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea at its naval base at Jinhae, South Korea. Included in the documents are photos of U.S. submarines surfacing near Kahduk island on January 28, 2003 and in previous years. Based on these and other documents, it is widely believed that the U.S. military has been keeping nuclear weapons at Ohsan and Gunsan airbases in South Korea in addition to the Jinhae navy base.

U. S. nuclear-armed submarines also play a key role during U.S.-Korean joint military exercises, named “Foal Eagle”, “Keen Edge”, and others that are frequently held on and around the Korean peninsula.

Today, official U.S. policy calls for a first-strike, “preemptive” nuclear attack against the DPRK. This is spelled out in the Nuclear Posture Review and the National Security Strategy of the U.S.A., approved by Bush in 2002. In fact, last year, a newly declassified government document exposed that since 1998, the U.S. has had an active contingency plan to drop as many as 30 nuclear warhead on Korea. A senior U.S. official said that the goal of the plan is to “abolish North Korea as a functioning state, end the rule of its leader, Kim Jong Il, and reorganize the country under South Korean control.” (quoted from globalsecurity.com).

As part of this plan, known as “scenario 5027,” 24 F15-E bombers flew simulation missions at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina dropping mock nuclear bombs on a firing range in Florida between January and June 1998.

Another of the Pentagon’s operational plans, labeled “scenario 5026,” identifies 756 targets that could be taken out by B-2 stealth bombers and F-117 stealth fighters in order to disable Pyongyang.
I post Here
Image
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 25 Nov 2010, 22:29
Quote:
Who is the threat? Who is the occupier? Who is seeking to dominate whole regions of the world?

While its more than easy to cry America like oh so many of us generally do the only people to blame on occupation here are the DPRK and the ROK. As for a question of regional domination on any level that is China and the USA using the Korean people as simple pawns and stepping stones for their own personal gain.
Quote:
are treated as criminals for seeking deterrence.

Shooting artillery, setting off a nuke without warning, and walking out of talks like a little baby is not deterrence.
Quote:
Even if one were to believe the U.S. statement, this would still not remove the threat from land-based nukes deployed nearby or from nuclear-armed submarines and ships which continually prowl the Pacific.

Thats not on land, the point is moot. Yes America is not helping the situation one bit, but neither is the DPRK. To even suggest that this is all one sided imperialist action is asinine. Where does the technology used to exacerbate the nuclear question in the DPRK come from, who continues to walk away from any talks until they get token aid? Props to Kasma for their research on the matter though.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3033
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Nov 2004, 20:06
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 Nov 2010, 23:10
Quote:
Shooting artillery,

Irrelevant.

Quote:
setting off a nuke without warning,

The DPRK was one of the first countries in history to give a notice ahead of nuclear testing.

Quote:
and walking out of talks like a little baby is not deterrence.

Where?
I post Here
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 26 Nov 2010, 09:02
question; if war would occur in a short-term period would US even be able to contribute troops considering they are overstretched already and their economy isnt doing all that good?
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4779
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2010, 07:43
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 27 Nov 2010, 17:39
The US has about 30,000 soldiers in South Korea, and the South Koreans do have their own military. I guess it would be possible if it's a short-term, limited war.
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 27 Nov 2010, 17:47
You can't have a short-term, limited war against the DPRK. Their entire population is going to fight till the last man. This would be a second Vietnam - though, a nuclear one that could rapidly escalate and become really dangerous.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.