US Warns North Korea on Nuclear Test ["It can have a future or it can have these weapons,"]

Voice of America ^ | 04OCT06 | Stephanie Ho

[familyop]

Ho report - Download 243k
Listen to Ho report

The top U.S. diplomat in the six nation talks on the North Korean nuclear program says the United States and its allies will not accept a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Christopher Hill (file photo)

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill had a blunt warning for North Korea.

"It can have a future or it can have these weapons," said Chris Hill. "It cannot have both."

His comments came in response to Pyongyang's announcement Tuesday that it intends to conduct a nuclear test. Hill said the United States has been in close consultations with the four other countries involved in the six party talks - South Korea, China, Japan and Russia - and, in his words, "would have no choice but to act resolutely."

"I'm not prepared at this point to say what we're going to do," he said. "But I am prepared to say we are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea. We are not going to accept it."

Hill said the United States has received no response to a message passed to Pyongyang Tuesday through the North Korean mission to the United Nations. He said Washington is very concerned and believes a North Korean nuclear test would be, in his words, "a bad mistake."

"So, if what they have in mind is the notion that by somehow exploding this thing, they've created a fait accompli and we're just going to have to come to terms with a nuclear North Korea, they've got to think again," noted Christopher Hill. "We're not coming to terms with a nuclear North Korea."

The U.S. diplomat spoke at the inauguration of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. Hill is a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, and he was joined by five other former U.S. envoys to Seoul.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials have detected what they are describing as unusual activity at potential North Korean nuclear test sites, although they have not been able to determine the nature of the activity.

North Korea gave no date for a prospective nuclear test, but has said it is necessary to counter perceived U.S. hostility. The United States has said it will not attack Pyongyang, and says there are significant economic and diplomatic benefits, if North Korea gives up its nuclear ambitions.

[familyop]

It's posted, so that you can see the rest of the quotes.

[The_Reader_David]

"It can have a future or it can have these weapons," is about as close to "are you feeling lucky, punk?" as one gets in diplomat-speak.

I wish we'd take the same line vis-a-vis Iran.

[EQAndyBuzz]

If you have 1.2 million troops within a twenty mile area, is there anyway outside of tactical nukes that you can destroy an army in very quick fashion?

[webboy45]

The trouble with Iran is that the Euroweenies won't support us because they get oil from Iran.

[Steel Wolf]

If you have 1.2 million troops within a twenty mile area, is there anyway outside of tactical nukes that you can destroy an army in very quick fashion?

Without going into too much detail, there are three main avenues of approach that the KPA would take south. We can render those unusable with nuclear weapons, and procede to tear apart their artillery emplacements from the air. It wouldn't be pretty, by any means, but it would block their advance, and strip away their ability to his Seoul.

Failing that, you have to defend South Korea the old fashioned way, and that's a WWI style meatgrinder. Even with close to a million troops on the border, there's far too many targets for our air power to hit right off the bat. The hills there are so steep and trecherous that it's a nightmare to fight across, and both armies are pretty much on each other's laps as it is. Casualties within the first month or two would be on a scale of Rwanda. The North doesn't have the logistical ability to support a long fight, but they can put much of South Korea into ruins.

[Steel Wolf]

"It can have a future or it can have these weapons," said Chris Hill. "It cannot have both."

"I'm not prepared at this point to say what we're going to do," he said. "But I am prepared to say we are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea. We are not going to accept it."

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "Of course you realize, this means WAR!"

[EQAndyBuzz]

That was my thought. The South would have to play defense and while the NK army will run out of provisions and their logistics will be hurt from day one, can the South survive the opening salvo?

Thing is, if the NK get a nuke, it will probably be tactical in nature and would be able to hit Seoul in a minute or two.

[Steel Wolf]

Thing is, if the NK get a nuke, it will probably be tactical in nature and would be able to hit Seoul in a minute or two.

Nuclear weapons change the entire equation.

The South Koreans have a very tough and effective military. That said, a well laid nuclear strike, even a modest one consisting of less than 10 targets, coupled with the DPRKs other WMDs, their persistant and non-persistant chemical agents, etc, would reduce that military to the effectiveness of a boy scout troop within an hour.

We would be forced to either allow South Korea to fall, or to hit the North back with nuclear weapons. Our response, while not annihilating, would be several times that of the North. The loss of human life, infrastructure damage, and environmental damage on the entire Korean peninsula would be obscene, and even rescue efforts would be next to impossible. Disease and starvation would rapidly set in, as well.

That's not all. If the North thought they were going down, and felt 'regime change' was inevitible, they may use their own Sampson option, and bring down Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing with them. All are easily within Nodong range.

That's a complete nightmare scenario, one that would shatter the economy of East Asia, and by extension, the world. Nuclear weapons mean that the DPRK can hold local hostages the way that their artillery currently holds Seoul. A nuclear armed North Korea really is in a position to cause carnage, and they know it.

[nicko]

agree with much of your observations...having been in a couple of sessions, albiet some years ago, it seemed a given that we would not fight for Seoul, which North Korea still claims as it's capital...the corps support elements of the division I was in would go wheels up immediately, to set up forward logistics for the division proper, with the intent to cut off the head of the government, so to speak, and then back track...similiar to our push into Bagdad- chem and bio were the greatest concerns- probably still are...camps like Stanley, Red Cloud, folks across the bridge...it'd be rough going for them...

[CBart95]

As clear as the "decree" appears, it is nonetheless, odd and,surprisingly vague.

This leads to oddball surmise as to what will happen to South Korea and other ramblings as to the "real meaning" of what we have just said...as may be observed in the off-signal surmise that has just followed.

Let's observe the range of stupefaction this room appears capable of as the day wears on...it should be curious.

[wolfcreek]

I would like to throw some special prayers out for our troops in Japan and SK and their friends and families. This situation could go bad very quickly.

[MrNatural]

We wouldn't be talking like this in public, in that part of the world, without previous consultations with other interested parties, right? I should think Tokyo and Beijing, in particular, will have to acquiesce to some extent to any action on our part. Not to mention Seoul.

What about Seoul? Is there sufficient political support for that government to sign off on pre-emptive action against the North? Do they even agree that it's necessary?

[Steel Wolf]

What about Seoul? Is there sufficient political support for that government to sign off on pre-emptive action against the North? Do they even agree that it's necessary?

Probably not, but what Seoul thinks is becoming largely irrelevant. The days when North Korea was a South Korean problem are pretty much at an end. Now they're a regional problem.

Since we are legally obligated to provide for the defense of Japan, nuclear weapons in DPRK hands make appeasment impossible. An actual atomic test will force us to act, or will force the Japanese to produce a deterrent, and fast. The remilitarization of Japan will have implications for the entire region, and even those who would normally oppose our adventuring in North Korea would see little option.

It's hard to see what else we can do, though. Even an iron clad embargo may lead to military conflict before long, and that's the only option we have left, next to the military one. It's not politically feasible for the Japanese government to sit by while the pipsqueak DPRK threatens them with nuclear weapons. They don't want war, but they want to pay tribute less, and being threatened with nukes is hitting a painful cultural wound.

[JamesP81]

This is a crappy situation. We're already overextended militarily. We don't have the industrial base avaiable to produce weapons or train draftees (should it come to that) in sufficient numbers to fight this war in conventional fashion. But from the words of the Ambassador, conventional might not even be on the table anymore.

[RightWhale]

It's a strange illogical thing to say. The twist that removes meaning is in the rephrasing from the old saw.

[RightWhale]

Nuclear weapons change the entire equation.

That they do. That they did when N Kor acquired them a decade ago.

[Pravious]

"U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill had a blunt warning for North Korea.
"It can have a future or it can have these weapons," said Chris Hill. "It cannot have both.""

How refreshing to read something from someone in the government who has... a set.

Better shut up, Chris, before the Left tries to crucify you for "warmongering," and Bush blinks, tries to recall who you are, and then disowns you.

[roaddog727]

"We're already overextended militarily. We don't have the industrial base avaiable to produce weapons or train draftees (should it come to that) in sufficient numbers to fight this war in conventional fashion."

So what.

Do you have the vaguest notion as to how many Divisions the ROK Army has? Somewhere around 100. 100 Divisions (ROK divisions are approx the size of a Separate US Brigade combat team)

That's ALOT of troops

[JamesP81]

I didn't know the SK army was that large. I was thinking it was something along the lines of a 150,000 man army. A US brigade is what, about 6,000 men? We're talking about a 600,000 man army. That's some pretty serious combat power.

I'm certain that we can allocate the air assets to assert air supremacy over North Korea. Might be a good first combat run for the new Raptors.

[BJClinton]

Quickly, no. But cut off foreign aid and the nation will collapse. It's hard to fight with empty stomachs and gas tanks.