Gates Warns North Korea That US Will Respond Quickly

SINGAPORE — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned North Korea on Saturday that the United States would respond quickly if moves by the communist government threaten America or its Asian allies.

"We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region _ or on us," Gates told an annual international meeting of defense and security officials from Asia and the Pacific Rim.

Gates called North Korea's nuclear program a "harbinger of a dark future" but said he does not consider it a direct military threat to the United States "at this point."

He also compared North Korea's nuclear program to Iran's, but noted that North Korea's program is farther along. Gates called for "genuinely tough sanctions" against both countries "that bring home real pain for their failure to adhere to international norms."

Gates offered no specifics on how the U.S. might respond to North Korea, militarily or otherwise, and has said there are no current plans to deploy more U.S. forces to the region.

Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said this week that the U.S. would need about 90 days to get more troops to the region if called up.

An estimated 28,000 U.S. troops already are stationed in South Korea, part of about 250,000 soldiers in the U.S. Pacific Command.

Gates' speech delivered his harshest words to date to North Korea since Pyongyang detonated an underground nuclear device Monday, followed by several short-range missile launches over the last few days.

Story continues below

advertisement

"The choice to continue as a destitute, international pariah, or chart a new course, is North Korea's alone to make," Gates said. "The world is waiting."

The Pentagon chief focused most of his comments on U.S. priorities like high-seas piracy and the war in Afghanistan. Despite his warning, he appeared to take care in the half-hour speech to avoid ratcheting up the rhetoric in the weeklong war of words between North Korea and nations alarmed by its show of weaponry.

The U.N. Security Council is considering tough sanctions to punish North Korea for its nuclear test. In turn, North Korean leaders said they would respond in "self-defense" to the as-of-yet unspecified sanctions but did not say how.

Western security experts suggest that Washington's best strategy may be to resist getting egged into action by North Korea's talk.

"North Korea is talking war but planning how to best avoid it while maintaining the maximum international turmoil," David Fulghum, senior military editor of Aviation Week, said in a statement. "The rationale, believe U.S. analysts and military officials, is that constant provocation of the West is the only road to relevance."

Gates' also spoke broadly about bolstering diplomatic relations with China and cited common challenges the two sometimes-adversaries face: counterterrorism, piracy, energy security and disaster relief. "It is essential for the United States and China to find opportunities to cooperate wherever possible," he said.

He praised South Korea and Japan for becoming "economic powerhouses" that need little U.S. military assistance. Gates was to meet later Saturday with the two nations' top defense officials in talks likely to focus on North Korea.

And Gates urged nations to remain involved in the war in Afghanistan, saying that extremists nestled in the rocky Afghanistan-Pakistan border are probably to blame for much of the terror threats throughout the rest of Asia.

"I know some in Asia have concluded that Afghanistan does not represent a strategic threat for their countries," he said. "But the threat from failed or failing states is international in scope. ... Failure in a place like Afghanistan would have international reverberations _ and, undoubtedly, many of them would be felt in this part of the world."

In talking about the Obama administration's commitment to the region, Gates appeared to voice a veiled general apology for previous U.S. military decisions, but he avoided detailing them.

"In our efforts to protect our own freedom _ and that of others _ we have from time to time made mistakes, including at times being arrogant in dealing with others," he said. "But we always correct course. Our willingness to do so is one of our enduring strengths."

Comments

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

No doubt this situation will escalate to North Koea shooting down many US military satellites passing overhead. China loves having an untouchable surrogate doing what they command.


Meanwhile Obama insists that GM shut down factories here and import cars from China instead. Obama insists "free trade" is fair and balanced the same as Fox

[GreatNews27]

Ha! With what? Our Republican guard? Sorry, they're all busy on the Sunday talk shows. Besides, none of them has EVER had any combat training.

[NPA]

Let's try ignoring NK. Am sure the North Koreans are aware of America's nuclear arsenal. It would take NK 100 years to match America's capabilities.

[tippydog11]

oil oil oil who threaten who on that one? And for what?

[yakaria]

Regarding Afghanistan, Most if not all blame lies with Bush & Co. We should never have gone into Iraq. We should've stayed in Afghanistan and dealt with the Taliban before they had time to rearm and resurface. Iraq was just a distraction from the bigger problem of finding and killing Bin Laden. However, killing Bin Laden would be a symbolic victory. The "War on Terror" will not end because there will always be hatred of the United States. But now Obama has at least got us back on track by getting out of Iraq, in the future, and refocusing our forces in Afghanistan.

[Logout]

Refocusing the forces in Afghanistan? NO NO NO! Its refocusing the forces in PAKISTAN!

Read my Lipes.. Its PAKISTAN that is the epicenter of Terr0rism Sheeple!

[yakaria]

Why should we invade another country? Especially one that is our "ally". The US is not popular in Pakistan. Invading another muslim country is just putting more fuel on Al-Qaeda's fire. Al-Qaeda's reasoning for 9/11 was that the US still had forces in Saudi Arabia. And guess what happened afterwards we moved our forces out of Saudi Arabia. The answer doesn't lie in fighting a new war it lies in fighting and ending the war that we are in. Pakistan seems to be doing quite well against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Any more US involvement would complicate further the volatile conflict.

[Logout]

Using Pakistan as the par for the course, NKorea has not violated anything, NKorea is country with virtue and values.

[CigarGod]

Quote from Kim, prior to embarking on N. weapon development:

"We will not stand idly by as the USA builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region or on us,"

Okay, I just changed NK to USA...and gave myself a cigar.

[Nomccain]

IMO, our ability to cajole and intimidate countries like NK and Iran are over. The entier world knows that we are stretched to our limit in Iraq and Afghanistan both militarily and economically. To open a war on a third front would be suicide for this country. Never in our history have we fought 3 wars at the same time and there's a good reason for that. It's time that other countries to PRETEND to be our allies took a more forceful role in dealing with countries like Iran and North Korea and it's also time we demanded it. THe UN is a toothless organization with no international respect or fear. They're useless to the United States and if their stance on world politics doesn't change, we should withdraw our membership and dues. Instead we need to court those countries who have a huge stake in what's going on in both NK and Iran rather than depend on any action from those countries who are not threatened and think they have no reason to protest their actions.

[leonel]

THE WAY TO TREAT NORTH KOREA AND FUTURE COUNTRIES OR GROUPS WHO THREATEN THE WORLD IS AS HOSTAGE SITUATIONS.

The risk is seen as a general threat to the entire world. They feel cornered and threatened, whether realistically or not. N. Korea does not see it as they having taken hostages, but that is the effect on the world. Usually requires negotiation until disarmed and give up.

If N. Korea, through its present leader, feels that it has been threatened too much, or just feels a pariah (as it should), then it will not likely give in. If it is sanctioned and isolated more, it will feel it is correct in feeling threatened. If it is a matter of just the leader being close to death, it could become unpredictable. If he wishes to leave the country to be run by a successor, then he may want to stretch out the standoff. His successor is likely to be more pliable.

Unless the US threats are ultimatums leading to military action, they could be counter-productive. If N. Korea can deal with both threats and offers to negotiate, they may work. China, Japan and S. Korea are likely to want to take the slow approach-- they could play "the good cop" and the US "the bad cop." State of mind of N. Korea leader and time are two big factors.

These are just general suggestions, it takes being closer to the facts to make better ones.

[leonel]

There seems to be a belief that both terrorist groups and national governments want nuclear weapons:

"as guarantees against extinction. The argument that no state (or group) possessing nuclear weapons will ever be wiped off the map has even been used by some national governments. In sum, secular terrorists see nuclear weapons in much the same way national governments do: possession is useful; use is to be avoided."

Page 97, WILL TERRORISTS GO NUCLEAR?, 2008, Brian Michael Jenkins.

A good guess is that Kim Jong-il wants to leave his successor a government that is safe from takeover. His "Last Will and Testament."

[CAP6]

The North Korean regime is unpredictable and does possess the capabilities to do great harm to not only South Korea, but to other countries in the region as well with respect to her inventory of short and medium range missiles. With approximately 70% of her conventional forces poised in a "forward leaning" posture within 100 miles of the DMZ, NK could quickly overwhelm defensive forces south of the border, with devastating consequences to people and infrastructure. However, NK's ability to wage sustained combat are limited and she will face devastating retaliation for any attack on SK. At the end of the day, NK will lose the fight, a fact Kim Jong Ill is well aware of. Therefore, I don't believe NK will launch a massive conventional invasion of SK when it is fully aware such an attack would be the end game for the NK regime. Beginning in the early 1990's, NK re-equipped, and forward deployed the majority of its ground forces. The army places great emphasis on special operations and has the 2nd largest special operations forces in the world. If NK intends to act offensively against SK, it will may choose a limited approach by employing these special operations units to wreak havoc on SK's infrastructure as opposed to the "end game" approach. But then, with respect to Kim Jong Ill's unpredictability, I could be wrong.

[CynicalSynapse]

North Korea is being aggressively beligerant this time around and needs to be taken down a notch or two for the bully it is. Iran is another repressive regime that's a nuclear wannabe. Neither has any interest or concern for regional stability. Both wouldn't hesitate to sell or give nuclear technology to anyone willing to buy it or advance their radical, militant agendas.

Seems to me the two remaining rogue states of the axis of evil are spinning out of control.

[CJWebber]

Yes, you Americans better do something about it. Hurry up.

[Rule Of Law]

I can only assume from your response that your country has no Military Industrial Complex to feed. Are you taking immigrants.

[Rule Of Law]

As Michel Chossudovsky points out in "The Anglo-American War of Terror: An Overview":

"One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to fabricate an enemy. As anti-war sentiment grows, and the political legitimacy the Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive outside enemy must be dispelled.

"Propaganda purports not only to drown the truth but also to kill the evidence on how this outside enemy... was fabricated and transformed into Enemy Number One. The entire National Security doctrine centers on the existence of an outside enemy which is threatening the Homeland."

Think of this every time one of these incidents becomes a common cause in the MSM. And then ask yourself, what benefit does my constant state of fear provide to the government? I think we all know the answer.

[vinny]

Don't be a twerp. NKorea just lit up Hiroshima-sized nuclear bomb.

[Rule Of Law]

You prove my point.

[Logout]

Here are the Facts.

1. Arsheholes like Sen John Kerry would give $30 Billion to Pakistan, the biggest proliferator of n00ks at the same time its armed forces is fully entrenched with J!hadies!

2. These arsholes would tell us that Pakistan is ok, but N.Korea is not!

3. Europe, Japan and the US are trying to see how Pakistan cannot fail and should help them but North Korea can fail and that China should not help them

4. Arsholes left would criticize GOP for not standng up to China..while Pelosi is in China sucking Chinese Sausage!

[ipv4]

You are so clue less on so many levels. Hence the sad state of affairs of the GOP.

While the real threat (Nkorea) was challenging us we decided to attack a country that was NEVER a threat to us with no NUCLEAR capabilities. And now we are bogged down in this country for years to come while at the same time letting Afghanistan grow out of control.

Your lord and savior George Bush fked up this country more then any president in the history of the country. Yes, this man will go down in infamy.

[Logout]

I am not GOP and I apposed the Iraq war from day 1.

[SammyD]

Apparently NK is rolling out the big one now so you're threat is on the way.

[eagledavey]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but NK already has nukes.

[CAP6]

Proliferation of the nuclear material is the largest threat in the near term. NK does have a few nuclear weapons, some say less than six. NK's current dilemma is how to deliver those weapons offensively. Reportedly, NK has not overcome the miniaturization challenges to fit a nuclear warhead onto a missile, although it is striving hard to do so as evidenced by their recent TD2 missile tests, each having reportedly failed during stage boost phase. Delivery by aircraft is possible but may pose a logistical challenge for NK considering the limited offensive capabilities of their aging air force. Add to that the fact that aircraft are much easier to sh00t down than missiles, NK cannot have any degree of comfort it can successfully deliver a nuke to a target, at least in the short term. On the other hand, Seoul and Japan are probably feeling a bit squeemish about now.

[Hallucinocynic]

Seoul has been feeling squeamish for the past 60 years. Three generations of South Koreans have grown inured to the threats of Kim and his father.

North Korea has a huge standing force...which is one way to keep people employed...and if they have developed a small nuclear arsenal then they must be feared.

South Korea, OTOH, has one of the best intelligence combines in the world and their army, man for man, is probably the best in the world. They help provide a deterrence to NPRK's potential distribution of nuclear devices and delivery systems. Were Kim to totally lose it and launch any missiles the ROK air force would respond well before any other outside country - including China - could react. They are even more hypersensitive than Israel is about its potential military rivals and are trained to immediately react...

...which is another reason for the US to be concerned. Those of us in the UNC always felt that we weren't on the DMZ to keep North Koreans from coming south, but to keep South Koreans from attacking north.