North Korea has threatened the South with 'final destruction' during a debate at the UN Conference on Disarmament on Tuesday following an underground nuclear test, Reuters reports.

The North has warned that it could take "second and third steps" after a nuclear test conducted on February 12.

"As the saying goes, a new born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea's erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction," North Korean diplomat Jon Yong-ryong was cited by Reuters.

The North Korean diplomat has stressed that Pyongyang had recently taken a "resolute step for self-defence" that Jon described as "strong counter-actions to a foreign aggressor."

"If the US takes a hostile approach toward the DPRK to the last, rendering the situation complicated, it (North Korea) will be left with no option but to take the second and third stronger steps in succession," he said.

North Korea’s statement has been met with criticism from other states.

US Disarmament Ambassador Laura Kennedy called the language of the statement “incredibly inconsistent with the goals and objectives.”

"I also was particularly struck by the phrase 'heralding the destruction of the Republic of Korea' and find that language incredibly inconsistent with the goals and objectives that this body is intended to pursue," Kennedy said.

Britain’s Ambassador Joanne Adamson also described the statement "completely inappropriate" saying that the discussion with North Korea was heading in the wrong direction.

“It cannot be allowed that we have expressions which refer to the possible destruction of UN member states," Adamson said.

Last week UNSC held an emergency meeting called by South Korea and issued strong condemnations of the North Korean nuclear test, calling it “grave violation of Security Council resolutions."

The council said it would take "significant action," saying that members of the Security Council would begin work immediately on appropriate measures in a resolution.

Russia will oppose new economic sanctions on North Korea, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov stated Tuesday.

"We are against measures that would affect normal trade and economic relations with North Korea. We understand our Chinese colleagues have similar views," he said at a news conference.

Gatilov at the same time stressed that “measures of pressure on North Korea” should be first of all focused at limiting nuclear proliferation of “nuclear arms and rocket launches."

Russia again!... Same position it took on syria and now syria's totally devastated.

I just pity the innocent citizens that will be caught-up in this imbroglio.

I see dead people

I see nothing wrong with NK exploring nuclear energy. She is a sovereign state and needs to defend her sovereignty especially since she is surrounded by enemy state with nuclear armed allies. The best thing for NK to do is go ahead and develop and master nuclear weaponry. That is the only way to win friendship of your enemies.

sheyie2007: I see dead people

lolzzz

Billyonaire: I see nothing wrong with NK exploring nuclear energy. She is a sovereign state and needs to defend her sovereignty especially since she is surrounded by enemy state with nuclear armed allies. The best thing for NK to do is go ahead and develop and master nuclear weaponry. That is the only way to win friendship of your enemies.

bro, i agree that as a sovereign nation, North Korea should have the right to develop her nuclear programme. But if u leave a mad man with corpse of his late mother, u may come back to find him having a barbecue party o! That's the conundrum of nuclear matter and sovereignty. Moreover, there's a nuclear proliferation treaty in place, but what i cant tell is if NK is signatory to that - even if they are, they can always rescind.

On issue of having enemies with nuclear power allies, thats a weak excuse except if NK actually plan attacking the enemies and their allies with some type of non-conventional weapon, thats when that can come into factor. This is because the regulation is that you cant launch nuclear attack if you have not been attacked in kind, or if its a last measure to self defence. If you do, other nuclear powers have the obligation to hit back at you for being a loose canon. Mutaually Assured Destruction (MAD) goes into gear.

honestly i dont want NK to have it because of their antecedents and current hostile posture. China's blind support for her makes matter worse because she's d buffer between China's East and America's West. But I dont think she can carry through her threat on attacking South Korea, she knows the consequence will be too much to bear. America will literally level her once more.

homerac7:

lolzzz



bro, i agree that as a sovereign nation, North Korea should have the right to develop her nuclear programme. But if u leave a mad man with corpse of his late mother, u may come back to find him having a barbecue party o! That's the conundrum of nuclear matter and sovereignty. Moreover, there's a nuclear proliferation treaty in place, but what i cant tell is if NK is signatory to that - even if they are, they can always rescind.

On issue of having enemies with nuclear power allies, thats a weak excuse except if NK actually plan attacking the enemies and their allies with some type of non-conventional weapon, thats when that can come into factor. This is because the regulation is that you cant launch nuclear attack if you have not been attacked in kind, or if its a last measure to self defence. If you do, other nuclear powers have the obligation to hit back at you for being a loose canon. Mutaually Assured Destruction (MAD) goes into gear.

honestly i dont want NK to have it because of their antecedents and current hostile posture. China's blind support for her makes matter worse because she's d buffer between China's East and America's West. But I dont think she can carry through her threat on attacking South Korea, she knows the consequence will be too much to bear. America will literally level her once more.

In the end, its not what we want, its what's best for NK's survival as a nation and as a people. If Saddam and Ghaddafi had Nuclear weapons, theyy would have been alive today. The only language of friendship that the West understands is nuclear-powered military capabilities, and NK understands it.

Billyonaire:

In the end, its not what we want, its what's best for NK's survival as a nation and as a people. If Saddam and Ghaddafi had Nuclear weapons, theyy would have been alive today. The only language of friendship that the West understands is nuclear-powered military capabilities, and NK understands it.

bros, madness get scale o! ....police get rank...and nuclear possession get quantities. Even almighty Russia bowed in the height of their power when push came to shoves during the Cuban crisis.

My point is that possessing few nuclear bombs although makes you a nuclear power, but a mere small boy who's a legitimate nuclear target by the big sharks like US, Russia, France and UK. If you dont have it, you have far less probability of being attacked with one even in conventional war with any of the nuclear powers.

homerac7:

bros, madness get scale o! ....police get rank...and nuclear possession get quantities. Even almighty Russia bowed in the height of their power when push came to shoves during the Cuban crisis.

My point is that possessing few nuclear bombs although makes you a nuclear power, but a mere small boy who's a legitimate nuclear target by the big sharks like US, Russia, France and UK. If you dont have it, you have far less probability of being attacked with one even in conventional war with any of the nuclear powers.

Well, ownership of nuclear capabilities promotes you to the league of big boys automatically, we are not talking about victory here, in nuclear war, there is no victory. We are talking about equality of might and pride.

Billyonaire: Well, ownership of nuclear capabilities promotes you to the league of big boys automatically, we are not talking about victory here, in nuclear war, there is no victory. We are talking about equality of might and pride.

big boy...yes, you become big boy....but there are bigger boys. with a medium size nuclear bomb, a small city like Ado Ekiti can be flattened by about 80%. although the economic and strategic importance of the city is considered. Then the nuclear fallout affecting about the area of Ekiti, Kogi, Ondo, Osun States. Most of the new entrants into nuclear club only possess handful of such weapons, their power is not in number of the weapons they possess but in the unwanted destructive nature of the weapons themselves. Now imagine let's say India vs Russia, India probably have just enough nukes for Russia's major cities but Russia has enough nukes for all towns located on India's map. India may just be able to deploy from limited locations and intervals, while Russia has capacity to respond immediately you launch from multiple platforms and rapid rate. Now do you say they are mates despite being co-members of nuclear big boys club? Thats what i am trying to point out. Being just nuclear armed only heightens potential threat one is exposed to, and not exactly reverse. The ones who really enjoy the advantage are the ones who maintain massive arsenal stockpile, not the wanna-be-s.

on separate note, do you know that US went to Iraq with nuclear bomb sitting in one of the support ships to USS Enterprise? Iraq was not a nuclear nation but US was anticipating if an uncoventional warfare to evolve with Saddam using his nerve gas, they will nuke the place.

homerac7:

big boy...yes, you become big boy....but there are bigger boys. with a medium size nuclear bomb, a small city like Ado Ekiti can be flattened by about 80%. although the economic and strategic importance of the city is considered. Then the nuclear fallout affecting about the area of Ekiti, Kogi, Ondo, Osun States. Most of the new entrants into nuclear club only possess handful of such weapons, their power is not in number of the weapons they possess but in the unwanted destructive nature of the weapons themselves. Now imagine let's say India vs Russia, India probably have just enough nukes for Russia's major cities but Russia has enough nukes for all towns located on India's map. India may just be able to deploy from limited locations and intervals, while Russia has capacity to respond immediately you launch from multiple platforms and rapid rate. Now do you say they are mates despite being co-members of nuclear big boys club? Thats what i am trying to point out. Being just nuclear armed only heightens potential threat one is exposed to, and not exactly reverse. The ones who really enjoy the advantage are the ones who maintain massive arsenal stockpile, not the wanna-be-s.

on separate note, do you know that US went to Iraq with nuclear bomb sitting in one of the support ships to USS Enterprise? Iraq was not a nuclear nation but US was anticipating if an uncoventional warfare to evolve with Saddam using his nerve gas, they will nuke the place.

On this note, is it not safe for North Korean to have some nuclear weapons, just incase USA wanna repeat the Iraq antics ? We are saying the same thing here, so I believe that if USA is sincere about anti-nuclear proliferation, every country should destroy their nuclear weapons, but as far as USA, Russia, India, Pakistan, France, etc has weapons and ban other nations from not having, then its not going to work. Its either they all destroy theirs or we all have to get armed. I am not biased, not all. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Nuclear bombs get level. But one nuke can mean being bullied or not being bullied. The world either becomes genuinely nuke free or everybody should stock pile on nukes. Welcome to Armageddon

^^

I understand this point, but I also understand why the permanent members of the UNSC would never be comfortable with 'rogue' states possessing nuclear weapons. The truth is that I can trust the strong institutional systems of, say, the US, France, or even India to prevent arbitrary deployment of nuclear weapons. However, I certainly cannot trust dictatorial, one-man regimes such as exists in North Korea to handle their nuclear weapons with maturity and restraint. . .neither can I trust fanatically Islamic states like Iran with nuclear capabilities. Whilst Western countries can exercise restraint with their nuclear weapons - even in the face of provocation, these 'rogue' states can launch nuclear attacks at the slighest whim of their (typically) maniacal leaders.

pro01: ^^

I understand this point, but I also understand why the permanent members of the UNSC would never be comfortable with 'rogue' states possessing nuclear weapons. The truth is that I can trust the strong institutional systems of, say, the US, France, or even India to prevent arbitrary deployment of nuclear weapons. However, I certainly cannot trust dictatorial, one-man regimes such as exists in North Korea to handle their nuclear weapons with maturity and restraint. . .neither can I trust fanatically Islamic states like Iran with nuclear capabilities. Whilst Western countries can exercise restraint with their nuclear weapons - even in the face of provocation, these 'rogue' states can launch nuclear attacks at the slighest whim of their (typically) maniacal leaders.

Define rogue state. Any nation that does not agree with the west, they term rogue state. Those nations are not made up of buffoons. They know the consequences of arbitrary deployment of those nukes. The risk of reckless deployment is the same in the west, as with any other country. I personally think they are the ones we should watch for reckless deployment of these nukes. America is the first to use it, who told you they won't use it again. Don't you find it a bit unsettling, that only one race of people want to dictate to others on who has the right to own nukes.

North korea should focus on feeding its people and letting out the 3 million plus concentration camp inmates. Bunch of gangsters in power

enyice: Russia again!... Same position it took on syria and now syria's totally devastated.

I just pity the innocent citizens that will be caught-up in this imbroglio.

Syria is under an attack coming from the same jihadists who destroyed Libya and ended up hanging the american ambassador in Benghazi ,Libya. The US learned no lesson from that.

Dibiachukwu:
Define rogue state. Any nation that does not agree with the west, they term rogue state. Those nations are not made up of buffoons. They know the consequences of arbitrary deployment of those nukes. The risk of reckless deployment is the same in the west, as with any other country. I personally think they are the ones we should watch for reckless deployment of these nukes. America is the first to use it, who told you they won't use it again. Don't you find it a bit unsettling, that only one race of people want to dictate to others on who has the right to own nukes.

Glad to see Nigerians like you who can actually think for themselves.

The North Koreans would be mad to drop their nuclear arms. That is the trump card that had protected them from being attacked and destroyed by the world's bully and mass murderers. Iraq and Libya would never have been attacked and destroyed if they were nuclear armed states. A situation where you have nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea by the United States and yet they expect the North to dismantle theirs is hypocrisy of the highest order. Its like someone pointing a dagger at your throat and telling you to drop your own dagger pointed at him. Is that rational? That is why you wont hear war drums over North Korea as your are hearing over Iran. There is a nuclear deterrent and the West understand that clearly. A big lesson to Iran!

Dibiachukwu:
Define rogue state. Any nation that does not agree with the west, they term rogue state. Those nations are not made up of buffoons. They know the consequences of arbitrary deployment of those nukes. The risk of reckless deployment is the same in the west, as with any other country. I personally think they are the ones we should watch for reckless deployment of these nukes. America is the first to use it, who told you they won't use it again. Don't you find it a bit unsettling, that only one race of people want to dictate to others on who has the right to own nukes.

kalokalo: The North Koreans would be mad to drop their nuclear arms. That is the trump card that had protected them from being attacked and destroyed by the world's bully and mass murderers. Iraq and Libya would never have been attacked and destroyed if they were nuclear armed states. A situation where you have nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea by the United States and yet they expect the North to dismantle theirs is hypocrisy of the highest order. Its like someone pointing a dagger at your throat and telling you to drop your own dagger pointed at him. Is that rational? That is why you wont hear war drums over North Korea as your are hearing over Iran. There is a nuclear deterrent and the West understand that clearly. A big lesson to Iran!

Gbam!!!

I guess all that matters is that North Korea stand up to the US to satisfy our insecurities and that of the Kim family.

It does not matter one bit that famine is ever constant in North korea and it does not matter that people go from cradle to grave in North korea under constant fear of the Kim family and their cronies.

No, all that matters is that they stand up to the imperialist, neo-colonial,exploitative, manipulative, greedy, war-mongering, capitalist, enslaving, racist (I have run out of expletives. guess I didnt get to drink the koolaid like all y'all. oh well) Western coalition.

Yes, millions of people should stay enslaved to a tiny group of greedy people ( just like the Abachas planned for you people) as long as the rulers make the right noises.

Yes, lets do that.

^^^

What most rational thinkers dislike is the double standard and hypocrisy displayed by people like you.

North Korea is a sovereign country with right to self-determination. How the NKoreans choose to live their lives, or defend themselves against external threats is their 'cup of tea', and not anybody's goddamn business. Most of the worlds most brutal dictatorial regimes are enjoying the protection of media and governments in countries claiming to be the so-called champions of freedom and democracy, simply because those dictators (who are equally enslaving their own people)answer to them "yes sir", at all times. NK doesnt, and thats call dignity, sir.

Maple: ^^^

What most rational thinkers dislike is the double standard and hypocrisy displayed by people like you.

North Korea is a sovereign country with right to self-determination. How the NKoreans choose to live their lives, or defend themselves against external threats is their 'cup of tea', and not anybody's goddamn business. Most of the worlds most brutal dictatorial regimes are enjoying the protection of media and governments in countries claiming to be the so-called champions of freedom and democracy, simply because those dictators (who are equally enslaving their own people)answer to them "yes sir", at all times. NK doesnt, and thats call dignity, sir.

i wish i can make a total stand with this school of thought, but thought of nuclear warhead in hands of an irrational regime like North Korea gives me "hibis jibis", walahi!