blog how to, blog trick, blog tips, tutorial blog, blog hack
.:[Double Click To][Close]:.

HEADLINE NEWS

Popular Posts

Showing posts with label NEW YORK news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NEW YORK news. Show all posts

U.S. often weighed N. Korea atomic attack

FILE - In this Jan. 18, 1951 file photo provided by the U.S. Air Force, B-29 planes of the U.S. Far East Air Forces drop high-demolition bombs on Chin AP – FILE - In this Jan. 18, 1951 file photo provided by the U.S. Air Force, B-29 planes of the U.S. Far East …
  • GOP: Obama broke promises on jobs, the economy Play Video Barack Obama Video:GOP: Obama broke promises on jobs, the economy AP
  • Obama hits GOP plan to cut education spending Play Video Barack Obama Video:Obama hits GOP plan to cut education spending AP
  • NJ Gov. to reconsider tunnel cancellation Play Video Barack Obama Video:NJ Gov. to reconsider tunnel cancellation AP

NEW YORK – From the 1950s' Pentagon to today's Obama administration, the United States has repeatedly pondered, planned and threatened use of nuclear weapons against North Korea, according to declassified and other U.S. government documents released in this 60th-anniversary year of the Korean War.

Air Force bombers flew nuclear rehearsal runs over North Korea's capital during the war. The U.S. military services later vied for the lead role in any "atomic delivery" over North Korea. In the late 1960s, nuclear-armed U.S. warplanes stood by in South Korea on 15-minute alert to strike the north.

Just this past April, issuing a U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "all options are on the table" for dealing with Pyongyang — meaning U.S. nuclear strikes were not ruled out.

The stream of new revelations about U.S. nuclear planning further fills in a picture of what North Korea calls "the increasing nuclear threat of the U.S.," which it cites as the reason it developed its own atom-bomb program — as a deterrent.

"This is the lesson we have drawn," North Korea's vice foreign minister, Pak Kil Yon, told the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 29.

The new information is contained in Korean War documents released by the CIA to mark this June's anniversary of the start of the conflict; another declassified package obtained by Washington's private National Security Archive research group under the Freedom of Information Act; and additional documents, also once top-secret and found at the U.S. National Archives, provided to The Associated Press by intelligence historian and author Matthew Aid.

Expert observers are speculating that North Korea, which conducted nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, may soon stage another. Pyongyang's program "has now reached an extremely dangerous level," Kim Tae-hyo, a South Korean government security adviser, said in comments published Wednesday in Seoul.

In a report on global nuclear threats, analysts at Washington's Stimson Center identify six overt warnings by high-ranking American officials since 1976 that the U.S. would resort to nuclear weapons against North Korea if warranted. But U.S. threats go back more than a half-century, to long before North Korea split its first atom.

In mid-August 1950, just seven weeks after North Korea invaded South Korea and five years after two U.S. atomic bombs killed at least 220,000 Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. nuclear weapons were first assigned to the new war theater, according to a declassified Army planning document obtained by the AP.

Retreating U.S. and South Korean troops were then desperately clinging to a last-ditch salient in Korea's southeast, from which they soon broke out in a counteroffensive that took them into North Korea.

That November, after Chinese troops joined in defending North Korea, then-President Harry Truman rattled the nuclear saber at a Washington news conference, saying, "There has always been active consideration of its use."

Regional U.S. commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur, in interviews published posthumously, said he had a plan at the time to drop 30 to 50 atom bombs across the northern neck of the Korean peninsula, to block further Chinese intervention.

Based on previously declassified documents, however, historians believe the U.S. came closest to unleashing its atomic arsenal against North Korea in April 1951, on the eve of an expected Chinese offensive.

With Truman's signoff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered A-bomb retaliation if large numbers of fresh Chinese troops entered the fight. In the end, the U.S. military repelled the Chinese push and the weapons were never used. But Pentagon planners retained the option.

In September and October 1951, Air Force B-29 bombers conducted simulated atomic-bombing runs against Pyongyang, dropping dummy weapons on the North Korean capital, according to a newly obtained Army planning document corroborating earlier disclosures.

By early 1953, the U.S., frustrated by stalled armistice talks, pondered launching a new offensive against the north Koreans and Chinese. The Pentagon's Air Staff recommended using A-bombs to achieve victory "in the shortest space of time," according to a Feb. 20, 1953, memo from the Air Force director of plans, Maj. Gen. Robert Lee.

Added a top-secret CIA Special Estimate, "The Communists would recognize the employment of these weapons as indicative of Western determination to carry the Korean war to a successful conclusion."

Then, in a series of memos in May, June and July 1953, Air Force generals reported progress in planning an "atomic offensive" to "destroy effective Communist military power in Korea" if the armistice talks broke down completely.

On July 27, 1953, an armistice was signed. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower would later credit the nuclear threat — conveyed through back channels to Beijing — for pressuring the Chinese into an agreement.

Even without nuclear weapons, three years of U.S. conventional bombing had devastated North Korea, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The nuclear planning didn't stop with the fighting. On Aug. 20, 1953, declassified documents show, the Strategic Air Command sent Air Force headquarters a plan for "an air atomic offensive against China, Manchuria and North Korea" if the communists resumed hostilities. "OpPlan 8-53" called for use of "large numbers of atomic weapons."

The post-armistice respite, meanwhile, stirred up inter-service rivalries.

Air Force commanders asked for more nuclear-capable F-84G warplanes in the Korea theater "to offset the Navy's greater and more immediate atomic delivery capability," the declassified documents show. But one colonel warned against arousing "the Army-Navy suspicion that the Air Force is trying to steal the atomic bomb act" in Korea planning.

By the late 1950s, all the services shared in an "era of relative atomic plenty," as an Air Force memo called it. The number of nuclear warheads in South Korea and nearby Okinawa — in artillery shells, short-range missiles, gravity bombs and other weapons — peaked at about 2,600 in 1967, civilian researchers would later determine.

In 1969, after the North Koreans shot down a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the Sea of Japan, then-President Richard Nixon's lieutenants had these nuclear tools at hand for laying out retaliatory options.

"USAF tactical fighters armed with nuclear weapons are on 15-minute alert in ROK (Republic of Korea) to strike airfields in North Korea," said the contingency plan Defense Secretary Melvin Laird sent to White House national security chief Henry Kissinger, according to a document obtained by the National Security Archive.

In the end, Nixon decided against military retaliation. The Pentagon had noted that the reaction of China and the Soviet Union, both nuclear-armed, was unpredictable.

In 1975, in response to a perceived North Korean threat of renewed war, President Gerald Ford's defense secretary, James Schlesinger, openly confirmed the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea for the first time, and warned North Korea, "I do not think it would be wise to test (U.S.) reactions."

President Jimmy Carter's administration later scaled back the Korea-based arsenal, and its complete withdrawal was announced in 1991, although the North Koreans at times accuse the U.S. of maintaining a secret nuclear stockpile in the south.

Korea specialists generally accept Pyongyang's stated rationale that it sought its own bomb for defensive reasons — "as a response to the U.S. deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea," says author Selig Harrison.

Yoshiki Mine of Japan's Canon Institute for Global Studies, who as a diplomat dealt with both disarmament and North Korea, said the northern regime feels its existence as a nation is threatened.

The U.S. nuclear option "does give the North Koreans an excuse to develop, acquire and own nuclear weapons," Mine told the AP. "They have indicated many times that as long as this basic security is not secured, they would not abandon nuclear weapons."

Read Full

Robert De Niro, Edward Norton on their 'Stone' work

NEW YORK: As they sit next to each other in a Toronto hotel, Robert De Niro and Edward Norton make an odd pair. A few hours before the premiere of their movie "Stone" at the recent Toronto International Film Festival, Norton sports a dress shirt and slacks, De Niro a blazer paired with cargo shorts and open-toed sandals, like a news anchor whose business attire ends at the waist. Norton is voluble, a self-styled intellectual ready to clarify his answers with citations from De Tocqueville, where De Niro's conversation is riddled with gray areas and no-go zones.
Although De Niro is notoriously reluctant to do interviews, and often tight-lipped when he does, he's relatively loose in Norton's company. At times, their exchanges are playfully barbed, as when Norton addresses the subject of his own reputation for sharing his opinion on set.

"I battle sometimes," Norton allows. "Sometimes, I'm probably a little bit compulsive."

De Niro smiles, his eyes softening. "They had a couple of two-hour conversations while I was waiting," De Niro says of his co-star and director John Curran.

Norton shoots back, quickly enough to suggest they've kidded on the subject many times before. "Sometimes we'd have a two-hour conversation because Bob would be on the phone, and we'd have nothing to do but talk about where to put the camera."

In "Stone," which opens Friday and reunites Norton with his "The Painted Veil" director, De Niro plays a prison counselor assigned to interview Norton's convict and determine whether he's ready to be paroled, meaning that he accepts responsibility and feels remorse for his crime. The natural thing, the expected thing, would be for Norton to claim he's learned the error of his ways, whether or not he truly has, but instead their sessions are verbal sparring matches, confrontations with the sustained intensity of a stage play.

Although he affects an air of moral rectitude, De Niro's character is at least as compromised as Norton's felon. In the film's opening sequence, where a young De Niro is played by "Dollhouse's" Enver Gjokaj, he responds to his wife's threat to leave him by holding their daughter out a second-story window. The tension is amplified by the furious buzzing of a bee along the sill, an introduction to a movie in which sound plays a key role.

The score by Jon Brion, who added the anxious drums to "Punch Drunk Love," is enhanced by ambient rumbles contributed by " Radiohead's" Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood (the latter also contributed the screeching glissandi to "There Will Be Blood") and ominous sound design by veteran Skip Lievsay, who worked on "No Country for Old Men's" unsettling soundscape. Late in the game, Norton's character claims to have experienced a religious conversion courtesy of an invented religion called Zokangor, in which the spirit enters the body through sound. It's easy enough to imagine, since by that point the movie's aggressive sonics have all but drilled holes in your skull.

"Stone" marks the first time Norton and De Niro have collaborated since 2001's "The Score," but they kept in touch between the two films, and in a more serious moment, it's clear that De Niro prizes his younger colleague's polymath talents.

"One thing with Ed that I've liked when we've worked together, he always has a lot of ideas," De Niro says. "He'll rewrite stuff and that's always great because he's very much committed to the project and involved. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it easier for me in some ways."

"For me, the second time around with anybody is better," Norton says. "Even if you already know somebody, everybody's got a different rhythm, the way they work. When you go through that once with someone, it's just easier to go, 'Yeah, I know how we roll.' You get an unconscious shorthand going. I felt that definitely, even in some ways more, with John. Bob's worked with many directors multiple times, and to be honest, I've always looked at that relationship from afar and thought how nice that would be, given how much work it is each time you start on a film with someone you've never worked with. I really liked doing it a second time with John, because I know everything about how this guy works. There's so much less debate."

That's not to say the production was free of disagreement. Although he was intrigued by his character, De Niro harbored unanswered questions about him that he is still unsure the film answers. (At the time, he had yet to see the final cut.) "It was like a puzzle," he says. "I wasn't sure about certain things because I didn't know whether it was clear enough, whether it was visceral enough. I didn't know whether an audience could feel why just because of that beginning scene. It was all for me very muted and subtle in a certain way, which is what it was. It's OK. It's just I thought because it's like a morality tale that it had to have a real biblical payoff. But it was a director's choice, and in a certain way Ed's choice."

Although Norton is credited only as an actor, he describes being involved from pre-production through scoring sessions, enough to take an evident sense of ownership in the final product. He doesn't interrupt as De Niro voices his reservations, but he coughs sharply during one of the elder actor's pointed critiques, the rest of the time staring out the window and brushing his fingers over his eyebrows. Once De Niro has finished, he jumps into the fray.

"I find myself less and less interested in movies that just tie it up and deliver it to you and let you cruise out going, 'Oh, they wanted you to take away this message,'" Norton says. "I don't think that actually engages people's brains that much. When I think about movies that stuck with me, I like the ones that leave a lot of questions in your mind. I like leaving the questions open."
Read Full