Thursday, August 31, 2017

U.S. And South Korean Defense Chiefs Talk Of Redeploying U.S. Nuclear Weapons To South Korea

Korea Times: Allies discuss redeployment of nuclear weapons

Defense chiefs of South Korea and the United States discussed the possible redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in the South to counter North Korea's nuclear capability, government sources said Thursday.

Defense Minister Song Young-moo raised this topic during a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., Wednesday.

These weapons were removed from South Korea in 1991 by the George Bush administration after the two Koreas signed a joint declaration on the denuclearization of the peninsula.

The defense chiefs also discussed ways to build up Seoul's military power.

Read more ....

Update #1: Defense Chief Raises Redeployment of U.S. Nukes in S.Korea -- The Chosun Ilbo
Update #2: Korea-U.S. defense chiefs discuss possible deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea -- Arirang

WNU editor: This idea did not last long .... S. Korea dismisses speculation over possible redeployment of U.S. tactical nukes (Yonhap News)


Unknown said...

You do not need to nuke North Korea, if they send the balloon up.

Just throw a little farther.

Unknown said...

So after 1991 , when the USSR fell and before North Korea exploded a bomb, if everything is true that the Left alleges, why did not the U.S. go into North Korea?

According to Leftists canon lore if a 'bad' country has no nuke, the U.S. attacks it.

So why no attack in 1991 thru 1995?

fred said...

You go

Anonymous said...

Probably because the US was besy with iraq
The nork made sure to remember the iraq lesson ( even if you coperate , US will still attack you even if it has to lie )

Unknown said...

"Probably because the US was besy with iraq "

Did you mean "busy" instead of "besy" [sic]"?

The "E" key is nowhere near the "U" key on a QWERTY keyboard. What type of Keyboard are you using, a foreign one? And from which country are you posting?

1) The US was not busy with Iraq in the early 1990s, say from 1992 to 1994. It was so unbusy that it continued to decrease its military.

Here is a sterling example of Iraqi cooperation:

"The ten crates of missile parts were stashed in a basement of the Baghdad headquarters of Saddam's own Ba'ath party. If we could achieve surprise and surround the site before the Iraqis could evacuate the crates" - Ritter

The nork made sure to remember the iraq lesson ( even if you coperate , US will still attack you even if it has to lie )

2) Iraq did not cooperate with the UN inspectors. Cooperation is not holding up inspectors for hours or days.

Unknown said...


I might well have to go.

And I would go not matter my chances. I am unlike you.

Going is bad. Not going is worse.

Do you get a temporary reprieve by loading a cattle car or do you fight in the ghetto?

My opinion is that you would do the former. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

fred said...

I thought new editorial policy would delete your silly and juvenile snark
Gladly go? Sign up asap

War News Updates Editor said...

The media focus is on North Korea vs. the U.S.. But this is really a regional problem and issue, and the U.S. is playing only one part. Where the focus should be is on South Korea and China. These are the two countries that are most impacted by what North Korea is doing, and for now the decision appears to be made that there will be some sanctions and stern words but nothing major will change. What will change it is a North Korean nuclear test (it's sixth). My gut is telling me that this is the Rubicon river that North Korea is facing right now, and for now they appear to be reluctant to cross it.

fred said...

You ought not guess anything about me since your biases are so transparent

Unknown said...

Mr. Lapides,

There is no snark in suspecting someone of leaning to collaboration.

Collaboration is quite common. Despite revisionism to the contrary, there was more collaboration in France during WW2 than resistance.

It would have been worse for Britain to avoid going to war over Poland than to go to war.
Britain was unprepared for war. Yet delaying inevitable war would not have made the balance of power more favorable. NAZI Germany turned ever country it took over into arsenals producing war material. Czechoslovakia's fall gave the NAZI 30 or 40 divisions worth or material as well the Skoda works. Delay often makes things worse.

People are scared so they collaborate.

Maybe they never had any stuffing in them anyway.

War News Updates Editor said...

There are no collaborators here .... just people with different points of view.