Japan On High Alert After North Korea Attacks South

Loading

North Korea attacks South Korea and now Japan is on high alert:

North Korea’s artillery attack on a South Korean island put the Japanese government on high alert, with Prime Minister Naoto Kan ordering his cabinet members to step up information-gathering and prepare for emergencies.

China sends two ships to patrol islands in the East China Sea that are also claimed by Japan, the latest sign of heightened tension between the two nations.

After Mr. Kan gathered his key cabinet ministers for an emergency meeting late Tuesday, Tokyo issued a statement that harshly condemned Pyongyang for its attacks on civilian targets and expressed strong support for South Korea.

Time has more:

At about 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday in Korea, North Korea commenced a fusillade of artillery fire across the disputed maritime border between North and South, attacking an island in what the Koreas call the West Sea. For just over an hour, the North bombarded Yeonpyeong Island, killing two South Korean marines, injuring 16 more marines and injuring at least three civilians. More than 50 homes caught fire because of the bombardment, and residents of the sparsely populated island scrambled for safety in a bomb shelter. The South responded by scrambling F-16s — which did not cross into North Korean airspace, the South Korean Joint Chiefs said — and returning artillery fire, to unknown effect.

The assault — the second in the area in the past year — came in the midst of a nine-day live-fire exercise conducted by South Korean forces in the waters near the so-called Northern Limit Line, the U.N.-mandated maritime border that Pyongyang does not recognize. Late Tuesday, the North explicitly blamed these exercises for its attack: “Despite our repeated warnings, South Korea provoked us by firing artillery shells into our territory,” said a statement from Pyongyang that was carried on the Korean Central News Agency, the North’s primary external propaganda arm. “Our revolutionary forces countered with stern military actions. It is our traditional military countermeasure to punish perpetrator’s fire with a thunderbolt of fire.” The South, for the record, said the exercises were conducted on its side of the so-called NLL.

But the timing, with U.S. special envoy Stephen Bosworth in the region, was probably not coincidental. The skirmish comes less than two weeks after North Korea allowed a prominent American nuclear scientist to see a brand-new facility for the production of highly enriched uranium — one of the two possible source materials for producing a nuclear bomb. Siegfried Hecker, former director of Los Alamos National Labs in the U.S., described the facility, which sits next to the North’s plutonium reactor in Yongbyon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang, as “stunning.” Though the North told Hecker during his 3½-hr. visit that the centrifuges in use there were intended to enrich uranium only to produce electricity, the revelation heightened fears that Pyongyang seeks to develop nuclear weapons with highly enriched uranium.

Heightened fears? Gimme a break. Of course it’s to develop even more nuke’s. The new leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, decided it was the best time to flex his muscles and he did just that.

According to the article the US has no plans to re-engage with the fruitless six-party talks with North Korea, which is good. They wouldn’t do any good with a regime such as North Korea’s. But what could work is a strategy laid out by Charles Krauthammer:

I think we have to completely redirect the policy. It’s not to aim at the leadership in [North] Korea. It’s to aim at the leadership in China. We heard earlier in the show that the Pentagon is considering a request by the South Koreans for tactical American nuclear weapons … We ought to go one step beyond that, to offer South Korea its own nuclear program and to encourage the Japanese to arm themselves if they need to. The way to say it is: All our [Six-Party] negotiations including China — with China — have not succeeded. You’re going to have to arm yourselves and develop a deterrent.

That will get the attention of the Chinese. Up until now the Chinese have played a double game. They have no interest in helping us on the [North Korea] issue. They like having it as a thorn in our side. It’s distracting us as China expands its influence in all of Asia.

What we ought to say is: What they’re worried about is a Japan with nukes or a South Korea with nukes. Let them [the Chinese] imagine that will be the outcome of this double game — and they will begin to act. They control what happens in Pyongyang. All the fuel, all the food comes through China and they could turn it off.

He is so right on target here. Negotiations with NK will produce absolutely nothing except getting our chain yanked. Make their benefactors worry and results may come about quite quickly.

Of course there is one thorn in this plan.

Obama, being a weak liberal, wouldn’t even consider a plan like this. The man was made to have his chain yanked.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Pretender in Chief will fall back on his Jimmy Carter doctorine and do absolutely nothing but make speeches and blow a lot of wind. Just like Clinton when the Balkans was awash in blood he will simply say that it will cause more problems if America gets involved and NK knows this. SK needs to take out the Nuclear site and retaliate with more force than they are attacked with. After all the war had never officailly ended, it is simply at a stelemate.

Let’s see. In less than 2 years, two enemy countries now have or will soon have nukes! The current administration is concerned with a new treaty with an old enemy that has had nukes for decades and has signed past agreements. Maybe if we dally for another 2 years, most of South America and the middle-east will have nukes, too. Mutually assured destruction strategy only works with countries that does not want to be destroyed.

Forecast for the White House: Outrage, followed by lesser outrage, followed by demand for high level talks and jawboning.

Forecast for Pyongyang: Widely scattered laughter

“We heard earlier in the show that the Pentagon is considering a request by the South Koreans for tactical American nuclear weapons … We ought to go one step beyond that, to offer South Korea its own nuclear program and to encourage the Japanese to arm themselves if they need to.”

Charles Krauthammer is way off base on this one, in my humble opinion.

Regarding North Korea, such a provocative move at this point would be exceedingly dangerous. North Korea is on the verge of regime change, quite possibly within the coming year. Its internal politics could become extremely unstable when that occurs. They’ve got paranoid old guard lunatics who might make a power grab, at least some level of nuclear capability, and an enormous ground army. Wisdom dictates that we wait and watch closely.

Japan could put together nuclear warheads and a delivery system in fairly short order. Encouraging that makes about as much sense as providing South Korea with a nuclear capability. It would just raise the level of paranoia within an already-paranoid regime, and move the world one step closer to disaster.

Well, Greg, you have a though provoking post.

I can see both side of the argument. I am concerned about a strictly interventionist approach. Talking to NK has simply shown to be like dealing with a belligerent teenager. It doesn’t matter what they say, they will do what they want to do.

A regime change is really good cover for behind the scenes change, helping with other political forces to help new change. Of course, the problem with that is, you never know what you are going to get.

The well armed neighbor approach does force China’s hand on trying to manage their sphere of influence.

In reality, I wonder what the populace of NK really thinks about the world. If they are poor peasants, they may know no better and may not know what a freer world is like. If they are given encouragement, it might cause natural revolution. Then again, that’s a longer term solution.

Nothing will come of this. Remember Obama is a fellow traveler. Wouldn’t have this problem if Truman hadn’t let his ego get in the way during Korean War. Politicians sometimes need to listen to their generals.

I wonder if the Japanese citizens who wanted all US troops to leave the area still want them to.

I am not one to endorse the idea of a nuclear emboldened South Korea or Japan, especially with China on a hair trigger already due to this event. As it stands, yes we should pressure People’s Republic of China to deal with the North Korean Government themselves by economical measures such as slapping an embargo on all Chinese imports within the United States (this will be tough to contend with at the civilian side short term wise but would ultimately spur internal national production of needed goods within the US which in turn decreases unemployement) and shut off all future borrowings from the Chinese Government and halt currency exhanges as their current economical model is dependent on the US’s ammount of consumer purchases of chinese made goods along with how much the Federal Government has to borrow for bloated liberal social programs. The actions of the North Koreans have neither been endorsed nor shunned by action by the Chinese government since the 1953 armistice and it is about time they as a Nation have to contend with the rogue nation themselves. The Chiense can not maintain social stablity within their own Nation’s population if economical ties with a trade partner, if not the most important one, disconnects all ties.

I am afraid arming the Japanese, a long standing cultural enemy of China, and South Korea with nuclear weapons or a weapons program. That is asking for a nuclear first strike from the Chinese themselves, especialy given what they did during the Korean War in response to American actions in that fight and the long standing hostilities between Japan and China. As it stands now, China has put in place a raw earths and fuels embargo on Japan and have started to halt exports of electronics and other luxury goods to the Japanese market due to not too recent political spats between the two. Arming the Japanese with a nuclear weapon’s program would be challeneged by the Chinese at the UN level and a National threat by the assumption that these weapons are arming a new Japanese Military power which would be viewed a violation of a treaty signed between Japan and United States of America after the end of World War II.

Alergic:

The Pretender in Chief will fall back on his Jimmy Carter doctorine and do absolutely nothing but make speeches and blow a lot of wind.

Hey, I have an idea … He should invade Thailand or somethime …

Snerd

McMinuteman …

Wouldn’t have this problem if Truman hadn’t let his ego get in the way during Korean War. Politicians sometimes need to listen to their generals.

Well there’s no telling what the further prosecution of the Korean war would have done. Did Truman’s position give leverage to the factions in Russia who argued for a less militaristic co-existence with the US, and therefore gravitas to them as a counter force within the USSR and as a consequence, no nuclear war?

I am always fascinated by Americans who despite the USA spending 50 times what next most militarized nation does, but gets all paranoid about looking weak. It’s like the biggest guy on Muscle Beach, responding to every perceived slight ’cause he’s got a small ‘thingie’ … It would look pretty ridiculous, wouldn’t it … !?

Snerd

Snerd, Size has nothing to do with being weak or strong. Sometimes the appearance of weakness makes a large enemy weak. Our failure to use the strength of our military power when it should be used is one of the reasons for 9/11. We did nothing when our embassies were bombed. What did we really do when the Cole was bombed? Bin Ladin was very surprised with the reaction of Bush after 8 years of Clinton doing little but bombing the Chinese Embassy and an asprin factory. Asymetrical warefare uses a lot of psychological components. Our Political Correctness when dealing with these countries that support terrorism takes away much of the advantage our size and technology gives us.

Greg, your position is just like the one leftists had under Reagan. They were afraid Reagan’s efforts to protect America were provoking the Russians. I love the lack of logic. “That crazy guy with the gun who has already attacked his neighbors might get nervous if we give guns to his neighbors to protect themselves.” The liberal preemptive surrender response strikes again. You would rather gamble with the lives of innocents, hoping that the lunatic doesn’t slaughter them. I am all for giving them the means to defend themselves.

What is really interesting is that on the one hand you call them paranoid, which is indicitive of irrational behavior. Yet you still think they will react rationally to non-aggression or talk. Frankly, I’m not sure you understand them at all. As it is, you don’t even understand yourself.

Not long ago I had a friend that was being stalked by a deranged ex-employee. I didn’t try to talk to him, I simply spent some time at my friend’s house with a shotgun and a few pistols until things were straightened out. If he had seen that as a provocation, it couldn’t be helped. I sure as hell wasn’t going to do nothing and risk my friend being murdered because the stalker might get upset at my armed presence.

@ Hard Right, #12:

If you’re willing to give up an extension of any of the expiring tax cuts, maybe we can manage one more foreign war before we go bankrupt. I doubt that China would extend us additional credit to finance an invasion of North Korea.

Randy …
You present a logically constructed (R) position, security through strength. However, I feel the argument is flawed.

What has the Middle East up in ‘arms’ is not ‘Our freedoms’, it’s our Middle East policies which center around supporting undemocratic regimes that allow western corporations to exploit oil reserves. The money flows to those autocratic regimes to keep them in power, rather than to the populas. That’s radicalizes those populations

Their experience of the USA military and democracy is more rooted in Iran and the 1953 CIA overthrow of a democratically elected government and the imposition of the brutal Shah of Iran and the subsequent compliant oil flow to the west (USA and GB, esp.). The natural consequence was the Ayatollah and a radicalized Iran. Iraq for all intents and purposes is an occupation until the US leaves, entirely. Same for the narco-state Afghanistan. US military presence there simply makes the al Qaeda argument for attacking the US. It also supports Iran’s history with the US and therefore their desire for nukes. It also means we are going to be endlessly bogged down in Guerrilla warfare that also uses Terrorist techniques.

Consequently the current practice of security through the practice of military strength, is making us more unsafe. Moreover, which JC of Staff pointed out that debt was either a big or the biggest threat to our security … Debt largely created by tax cut amidst 2 wars, wars with no real end in sight, despite Obama’s claims to the contrary.

The other half of the problem is Israel. The only rational position is a two state solution. The radicals on either side however, can thwart the outbreak of peace with a single rocket or air strike. Despite Carter’s attempts, the US hasn’t really ‘fought for peace’ in Palestine and Israel. However, when your economy is based on one that spends 40-50 times what the rest of the world does on military armaments, peace is not going to be allowed to breakout.

Security through militarism is a Sumo Wrestler in a long distance race …

Snerd

Hard Right …

The liberal preemptive surrender response strikes again. You would rather gamble with the lives of innocents, hoping that the lunatic doesn’t slaughter them. I am all for giving them the means to defend themselves.

Your defense of your friend is admirable, as was your response to a madman. However, as an argument when extended to international affairs, it is problematic.

It is premised on the opponent being a ‘madman’, and madmen don’t have rationally reasons for being willing to loose their lives. Freedom fighters on the other hand ….

And if freedom fighters are what they believe they are, then Intelligence Agencies would want a more sophisticated assessment and approach. For example, if your friend’s stalker was having his house raided by thugs in his own neighborhood, who owed their protection to your friend, would this stalker-action be as mad? (I am not saying this is true in your friends case, of course)

The points I am trying to make are:
* assuming an opponent is a madman only leaves one option. If they happen to believe they are a freedom fighter (and others in the neighborhood come to believe the same), the action you take to suppress it, only causes it to grow. If you suppress it, then occupation becomes the cost of ‘victory’
* I suspect that like Israel, North Korea is, or will soon become the Chinese pit bull. If so, then China is the issue here. The problem there is that they are the folks who financed “W”z wars + tax cuts, the subsequent TARP, etc. Consequently US militarism weakens the USA and strengthens China, as well as multinational corporations in the USA, who fund US elections, whose elected officials get us into wars … etc.

Cowboy diplomacy is great, but out on the range, in John Wayne movies …. or still in Texas and Arizona, apparently …

Snerd

As usual you dodge the facts. Greg, I’m on to you. You’re a phony. You PRETEND to be a moderate, but it’s clear you’re a moonbat here to lie and promote your far left agenda.
You want to aggravate and agitate. Spare me your doom and gloom bullsh*t. You want innocents to die in order to satisfy your narcississm.

So, when will you give proof that we Conservatives want to keep the economy bad? Back up what you say…for once.

Snerd, when was the last time you were in the middle-east? You carry the same tune that so many on the left whistle. The issues in the middle-east and Islamic terrorism is not about poverty, past wrongs, oil or anything except that the west and Israel are not Moslem. Oh, they bring up past situations as excuses and the left buys in to them, but that is also part of their strategy. No Arab outside of Israel wants a two state solution. They want all Jews to perish. Actually, they want all non-believers to perish and have a long range plan to try to make that happen.

Spend a few years in conversation with folks in the Middle-east and then let’s revisit this conversation! You are sorely lacking in first hand experience.

While all of us are debating the appropriate approach to diffuse the impending confrontation/
disaster between North and South Korea, our POTUS is busy playing basketball with his
buddies; and becoming injured on top of it! This isn’t even good P.R…. at least he could
stage a meeting with his National Security Advisors. It reminds me of the Gulf Oil Spill all over again. Where is our POTUS when there is a pending emergency?!