Senior North Korean Defector Tells Lester Holt: "World Should Be Ready."
Source: NBC News
SEOUL, South Korea A senior North Korean defector has told NBC News that the country's "desperate" dictator is prepared to use nuclear weapons to strike the United States and its allies.
Thae Yong Ho is the most high profile North Korean defector in two decades, meaning he is able to give a rare insight into the secretive, authoritarian regime.
According to Thae, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is "desperate in maintaining his rule by relying on his [development of] nuclear weapons and ICBM." He was using an acronym for intercontinental ballistic missiles a long range rocket that in theory would be capable of hitting the U.S.
"Once he sees that there is any kind of sign of a tank or an imminent threat from America, then he would use his nuclear weapons with ICBM," he added in an exclusive interview on Sunday. Thae was living in London and serving as North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom when he and his family defected to South Korea and were announced to the world in August.
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korean-defector-tells-lester-holt-world-should-be-ready-n741901?cid=eml_nbn_20170403
dalton99a
(81,708 posts)most likely devastating to Seoul
underpants
(183,047 posts)FYI
StevieM
(10,500 posts)They are in Pyeongchang, South Korea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Winter_Olympics
underpants
(183,047 posts)I meant Pyeongchang. Thanks for catching that.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)A huge problem for our country if Seoul is attacked.
kimbutgar
(21,285 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)A war president that might get Hawaii or the west coast nuked? Not so much.
NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)As long as the nukes don't hit Dumnfuckistan, Bible Belt USA, they will back him.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)Don't remember where I read that, but it seemed to make a lot of sense. Easier target for unreliable guidance system -- he might know that.
iluvtennis
(19,912 posts)...instead of the rhetoric, Dumpty should be employing his "I'm the greatest deal maker" to be having diplomatic talks with Kim Jong Un.
I worked on the launch software for ICBMs - we don't want ICBM nukes used as this earth can be destroyed.
Now that we have idiots like Dumpty and Jong Un in control of nukes, we all need to be afraid, very afraid.
cstanleytech
(26,364 posts)N. Korean leadership has been belligerent and would probably still be so even if Hillary had won.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)The 70yr old CHILD that occupies the White House now will take all of NK belligerent behavior as a personal attack on him! Hillary would never act so irrational. IMHO. Hillary would not back down or get pushed around but she would clearly understand who NK is & how they act unlike the man/CHILD TRUMP.
regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)...there are ways of handling nuts with nukes like Kim. Obama and even Dubya knew that -- ignore the provocations, try to work out deals that benefited us while making Great Leader be able to pretend he won, and call in the Chinese to help keep him in line if all else fails. The problem now is that we've got a leader who, in crucial aspects, resembles Kim -- one that might be ready to risk the death of millions just to prove that his, uh, hands are larger.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and in danger of losing power.
The same is likely true of North Korea.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)I would feel so much safer with Hillary in there, but it is not to be. I can only hope the crazy Congress loves the country enough to help protect us from Trump.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)incurious, lazy ignoramus with a "Dirty Harry" complex with his little hands on the nuclear trigger.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)I am so glad that we have a madman in the Oval office right now, aren't you?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)War with Iran is basically off the table today. They HATE that.
packman
(16,296 posts)And they will get louder as the Trump administration implodes - War is always good for the corrupt and evil
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)'The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.' Hermann Göring
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)Trump is largely viewed as incompetent and unstable, and the disastrous War in Iraq (that pushed those same patriotic buttons) is still fresh on everyone's minds. If Shitbag goes to war, there will be rioting on the streets, on the WH lawn.
Vinca
(50,334 posts)I'd rather have Crazy Kim and his band of thugs taken out than risk hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in a nuclear strike . . . and that's exactly what may happen with Trump itching to prove his manhood.
IronLionZion
(45,667 posts)The CIA would find a way to do it if they really wanted to and make it look like local rebels did it.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)but they have done it anyway. In the 1970s, the Church Committee investigated Assassination Plots by the US government. There is a government publication on it. Many were toward Fidel Castro. You can see how that worked out.
IronLionZion
(45,667 posts)killing members of their family
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya
It's happened other times since then. The ambiguity of air strikes might give them some cover in some operations where we can pretend they weren't targeting the leader. But when America wants someone dead badly enough, he tends to end up dead sooner or later.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)Why the Bush administration didn't just take out Saddam rather than destroying the whole country. The entire justification for the war was about him.
IronLionZion
(45,667 posts)Clinton and Obama launched targeted strikes. Bush's people liked large ground wars with lots of troops and heavy bombers for some reason.
I worry about what Trump and Bannon are planning for us.
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)to solidify his power by appealing to a militaristic patriotism.
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)Ligyron
(7,645 posts)We launch them damn near every day now, sometimes twice on Sunday.
IronLionZion
(45,667 posts)back to when killing people was a rare occurrence and wars were defensive
ozone82
(91 posts)And can be cancelled by any sitting president:
[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11905|
regnaD kciN
(26,045 posts)...Kim and his gang have the support of China. If we take action against him, we put our ties with a much, much bigger threat to the U.S. at risk.
Vinca
(50,334 posts)that killed him and a thousand innocent civilians. I suspect the Fool-In-Chief will opt for the latter. He's not big on sanctions and diplomacy and all that other stuff that requires an iota of knowledge and expertise.
IronLionZion
(45,667 posts)The US military is very experienced. China and North Korea are not. And Bannon wants to start some shit so bad, just to rally the patriotism angle and boost Dolt 45's poll numbers. They are into bold moves, not subtle diplomacy. Impulsive action, not thoughtful decisions.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)I have in-laws in Seoul, however, so this is not even remotely an academic question for me.
cstanleytech
(26,364 posts)One way to reduce his fear though might be to simply be to offer him the option of free passage to a neutral country, yes it would suck somewhat as I suspect he would escape varies criminal charges including some crimes against humanity but if it comes down to that vs taking his finger off the nuclear trigger I would take the deal.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Maybe he'll take the offer.
davekriss
(4,644 posts)Anyone who delights in executing relatives with anti-aircraft guns at close range does not view the world through the same sensible lenses that the rest of us do.
cstanleytech
(26,364 posts)PearliePoo2
(7,768 posts)Here's excerpts from a lengthy article analyzing how N.K. may respond to a strike and what their capabilities are:
"North Korea is powerless to prevent a U.S. strike on its nuclear program, but retaliation is well within its means. The significant military capability that North Korea has built up against South Korea is not advanced by Western standards, but there are practical ways Pyongyang could respond to aggression.
The North Korean military's most powerful tool is artillery. It cannot level Seoul as some reports have claimed, but it could do significant damage. Pyongyang risks deteriorating its forces by exposing them to return fire, however, which significantly restricts their use. Less conventional methods of retaliation, such as sabotage or cyber warfare, are less risky but also limit the shock that North Korea would desire."
"After a strike, North Korea's most immediate and expected method of retaliation would center around conventional artillery. Many of the North's indirect fire systems are already located on or near the border with South Korea. By virtue of proximity and simplicity, these systems have a lower preparatory and response times than air assets, larger ballistic missiles or naval assets. Nevertheless, there are several critical limitations to their effectiveness.
Tube and Rocket Artillery
The biggest anticipated cost of a North Korean artillery barrage in response to an attack would be the at least partial destruction of Seoul. But the volume of fire that the North can direct against the South Korean capital is limited by some important factors. Of the vast artillery force deployed by the North along the border, only a small portion Koksan 170-mm self-propelled guns, as well as 240-mm and 300-mm multiple launch rocket systems are capable of actually reaching Seoul. Broadly speaking, the bulk of Pyongyang's artillery can reach only into the northern border area of South Korea or the northern outskirts of Seoul."
more:https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-retaliate
secondwind
(16,903 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)IronLionZion
(45,667 posts)We are told simultaneously that they are a dangerous threat and their technology is laughably dysfunctional. I wouldn't be so sure about either one. They seem to operate in a different mentality than we do. If enough of their people starve, they might start some shit to hang onto power and keep people occupied. Plus they seem a bit paranoid and suicidal, which we have experience with in the Middle East. And they are also an excuse for the US to keep a large military presence in the area near China.
Trump and Bannon want to go to war with someone to justify their defense build up boost their poll numbers here. Many in the Trump administration enjoy killing innocent civilians in the Middle East and would like to carpet bomb Koreans to show the world the might of the alpha males after the weak and soft Obama years.
There are shitheads who told us the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts would be easy and quick. Those people should be punched in the face.
Javaman
(62,540 posts)Kenny Rogers - blaze of glory
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)in both nations, doesn't bode well for the future.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It feels like I've heard this song and dance before.
hunter
(38,353 posts)...apparently serves a new master.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)
Wait...or is that already Kim Jong-un's nickname?
LS_Editor
(893 posts)WoonTars
(694 posts)Not likely.
They won't do it for the same reason Iran would never attack Israel, swift, massive, and total destruction.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Would result in 9/10 Americans (and Canadians and Mexicans) dying.
I was an advocate of hardening our electrical grid back in the 1970s against this, along with a program to gradually harden key emergency vehicles and facilities; water systems; food distribution areas (e.g., Wal-Mart distribution systems); hospitals, police, fire, and utility vehicles; banks and banking computers; and finally consumer-level vehicles and certain key home systems -- e.g., HVAC, etc.
It was deemed far too unsexy of a project. No bridge for a politician to put his name on.
I think with rogue nations with limited nukes and our electronic world, it's a bigger need now than 1970.
Seriously consider talking to you Congressman. Trump and Congress plan a giant infrastructure bill. This needs to be part of it.
FrodosNewPet
(495 posts)My biggest fear for years has been an EMP, or even conventional high explosives, attack against our electrical infrastructure during a cold snap in the dead of winter.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)So they don't fear it.
An EMP is the most likely existential threat against the USA.
There are certainly several countries both capable (Iran and NKorea) and crazy enough to do it -- both of whom have stated they intend to do it.
ThatOtherPerson
(12 posts)It seems that Lester Holt should know that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The term is now commonly used to refer to initial letter-type abbreviations. Some purists don't like that, but language changes....
Initech
(100,150 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)but I worry for Japan and S. Korea.
EX500rider
(10,891 posts).....and miniaturized a warhead. But if Pakistan can do it I think N Korea can also.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)and second, reliable high performance intercontinental missiles to send them on. I doubt they have either.
But still, Trump is clearly the wrong person to be dealing with this.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)
The theory the writer had was that this would never happen. The Kims use this threat to get the West to give them aid. Food aid, mainly, as they cannot feed their population.
Everything they do is to keep the Kims in power, and that's all. They have no interest in actually attacking any other country.
The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia
by Andrei Lankov
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)like Saddam Hussein, they want to pretend they have WMD.
treestar
(82,383 posts)makes sense if you realize that the whole goal for the Kims is to stay in power. Seen through that lens, their actions make sense.