user

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/15/1058034977622.html

Australian could face a nuclear attack from North Korea if it got
involved in an international force to stop ships carrying weapons
of mass destruction, an unofficial spokesman for the North Korean
government has warned.

Australia has agreed to take part in maritime exercises which may
lead to the establishment of an international operation to stop
the weapons trade by counties such as North Korea.

Kim Myong-Chol from the Centre for Korean-American Peace last night
said if North Korean ships were stopped at sea, North Korea could
turn its nuclear arsenal on Australia.

Mr Myong-Chol said North Korea had reprocessed 8000 nuclear fuel
rods at the Yongbyon nuclear facility, and had nuclear missiles
pointed at the United States.

He said North Korea also had missiles capable of hitting Australia.

"If Australia become part of American manipulation against North
Korea, North Korea reserve the right to strike back on Australia,"
Mr Myong-Chol told ABC TV's Lateline program.

"That is official North Korean position.

"If Australia become part of American operation, North Korean response
is to attack Australia."

Mr Myong-Chol said North Korea had the ability to strike Australia
at any time.

He said North Korea had been monitored Australian involvement in
talks to set up the force in Brisbane last week.

"North Korea is carefully monitoring all Australian behaviour, so
Australia must be careful in its behaviour to North Korea," Mr
Myong-Chol said.

He warned prime minister John Howard, who will visit South Korea
this week, to be careful in his talks with Asian leaders.

"The North Korean message is to be careful in talking," Mr
Myong-Chol said.

"Otherwise, harm to Australia."

rick

Which Australian? I sure hope it's not Crocodile Dundee or Kangaroo Jack,
those guys are pretty cool. But seriously, I would assume that any attack
against our friends down under would be responded to by the U.S. as an
attack directly on the U.S. Thoughts?

Rick

user

My immediate thought was "Hey, these here guys seem like a *real* threat."
Not to mention the fact that it was quoted that NK has "missiles aimed at
America."

rick

<Nospamyouspammingbasturdsr.youells@worldnet.att.n et> wrote:


Missiles that would land in the Pacific ocean about 200 miles from NK so I'm
not sure they pose a *real* threat. They are acting completely irrational
out of desperation thereby leading themselves into a most humiliating
conflict and sure defeat. It's their choice but it's probably long overdue.

Rick

pawn

I would assume your government will treat this as a direct threat to the
U.S. itself. Pretty damn frightening comments too.

edgecrusher

Seeing as the Aussies saw action in Iraq and are allies with both out countries, I would assume both the US and UK would see this as
a direct attack on them and respond accordingly. Its a pretty scary thought about what could happen.

I just hope its a lot of hot air from NK but in my mind they are the biggest threat against world peace.

--

Steve

"They say a glass of wine makes you live longer but there's a drawback with that, the French drink it""

Guvnor.

user

Would you agree that a country that actually *possesses* nuclear missiles
AND gives lip service to *using* them presents more of a threat than a
country that doesn't possess them at all?

rick

I agree that N.K. needs to be dealt with.

Rick

rick

BTW, what the hell is an "unofficial spokeman". Weren't Jesse Jackson and
Jimmy Carter both "unofficial Spokeman" for the United States at some points
in time? Because of this wording the statement has very little significance
to me.

Rick

user

"How slippery of you, Agent Starling."

But I do agree.