North Korea threatens to attack U.S. may be unrealistic, but Seoul is vulnerable. The West must be careful in its response
latest threatsNorth Korean missiles raining in the United States, with maps showing the flight paths across the Pacific, and firm orders leader Kim Jong-un during a meeting at midnight, increases more strongly the issue of the threat of increasingly feverish last month already raised. Namely taken seriously? No do they mean? Is a Korean reality Armageddon?
My only answer would be the word. A joker in the defense of South Korea Ministry joked earlier this month that "barking dogs do not bite." Like a generalization that seems doubtful, but you see his point of view. Prefer North Korea surprise attacks, and in March 2010 torpedo that sank the South Korean navy ship Cheonan: 46 killed. Do not give notice of an ambush.
Some threats may be excluded Pyongyang. There is no evidence that one of its missiles can go beyond 4000 miles, or who have mastered mounting a nuclear warhead on them. Even if they could - but I repeat, can not - such an attack would be intercepted. California, and
a fortiori
New York and Washington, you can rest easy.
However, complacency is harder. South Korea took the dog barking at their doors 60 years ago, and have grown indifferent. However, 2010 was a nasty pinch - two, in fact, the North also fatally bombed a South Island later this year. There may be more bites. And do not forget the terrible old South Korean War from 1950 to 1953, when the North invaded really - by land, mainly - and about 2 million people died, even in the days of low-tech
If the United States unmenaced in reality, it is by no means applies to South Korea or Japan. Both are within range of North Korean missiles hundreds of short and medium range. South of the capital Seoul - including satellite towns is home to 20 million people - is only 25 miles south of the border, ironically named Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Just north of the DMZ miles kPa (KPA) heavy artillery, some with chemical peels. These can cause carnage in gleaming skyscrapers of Seoul, even during an initial attack.
The main risk is doubled and bound. The cycle of provocation and reaction - which is dependent on where you are - could spiral out of control. Latest North Korean threat was motivated by sending American bombers test sessions across the peninsula - itself a reaction to the rhetoric of anger Pyongyang. The United States can not respond in a certain way, however, if climbing is growing.
The other danger is the miscalculation. Something could swell by accident, or on the sides may misinterpret a movement of the other. In this case, the risk is very real climbing.
- Politics and
- context matters too. Hardline South Korea, while President Lee Myung-bak, much flak at home for not retaliating for 2010 and bombing runs. His successor, Park Geun-hye, in office since barely a month, in search of "trustpolitik" with the North - whose ferocity is now all the more disconcerting. Why not Kim Jong-un give peace a chance?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(102)
-
▼
March
(23)
- The best of all possible worlds? | Michael Cohen
- Irate teachers threaten 'civil disobedience'
- AP PHOTOS: Images from the Hindu festival of Holi
- America needs social justice, not another dumb 'co...
- At Easter, the tortured face of God teaches us to ...
- Could a Korean Armageddon really happen? | Aidan F...
- Copyright wars are damaging the health of the inte...
- Ind. school voucher ruling could influence others
- A new model for charity funding
- Easter holiday events for all the family
- Space tourism: the annoying details
- Israelis get kosher cigarettes for Passover
- Long lasting change is about good governance and n...
- Press regulation deal hailed by Labour after last-...
- Daniel Taylor on Rio's England return
- Capitalism efficient? We can do so much better | R...
- Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg: 'I want women to be pa...
- Russell Brand: My life without drugs
- Anti-fracking protesters set up drilling rig in Ge...
- What next for careers education in schools?
- Our brains, and how they're not as simple as we think
- Prof Brian Cox: physicist or priest? | Eliane Glaser
- History teaching? Karl Marx would agree with Micha...
-
▼
March
(23)
0 comments:
Post a Comment