President Donald Trump's tweets are adding fuel to a "vicious cycle" of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea's vice foreign minister told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Friday. The official added that if the U.S. shows any sign of "reckless" military aggression, Pyongyang is ready to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own. Vice Minister Han Song Ryol said Pyongyang has determined the Trump administration is "more vicious and more aggressive" than that of Barack Obama.

He added that North Korea will keep building up its nuclear arsenal in "quality and quantity" and said Pyongyang is ready to go to war if that's what Trump wants. Tensions between Pyongyang and Washington go back to President Harry Truman and the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty. But the heat has been rising rapidly since Trump took office in January.

This year's joint war games between the U.S. and South Korean militaries are the biggest so far — the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier has been diverted back to the waters off Korea after heading for Australia, and U.S. satellite imagery suggests the North could conduct another underground nuclear test at any time.

Pyongyang recently tested a ballistic missile and claims it is close to perfecting an intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear warhead that could attack the U.S. mainland. Many experts believe that at its current pace of testing, North Korea could reach that potentially game-changing milestone within a few years — under Trump's watch as president.

Despite reports that Washington is considering military action if the North goes ahead with another nuclear test, Han did not rule out the possibility of a test in the near future. "That is something that our headquarters decides," he said during the 40-minute interview in Pyongyang, which is now gearing up for a major holiday — and possibly a big military parade — on Saturday. "At a time and at a place where the headquarters deems necessary, it will take place." The North conducted two such tests last year alone. The first was of what it claims to have been a hydrogen bomb and the second was its most powerful ever.

Expectations are high the North may put its newest missiles on display during Saturday's parade. The annual U.S.-South Korea military exercises have consistently infuriated the North, which views them as rehearsals for an invasion. Washington and Seoul deny that, but reports that exercises have included "decapitation strikes" aimed at the North's leadership have fanned Pyongyang's anger. Han said Trump's tweets have also added fuel to the flames.

Trump posted a tweet Tuesday in which he said the North is "looking for trouble" and reiterated his call for more pressure from Beijing, North Korea's economic lifeline, to clamp down on trade and strengthen its enforcement of U.N. sanctions to persuade Pyongyang to denuclearize. Trump has threatened that if Beijing isn't willing to do more to squeeze the North, the U.S. might take the matter into its own hands.

"Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words," Han said. "It's not the DPRK but the U.S. and Trump that makes trouble." North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Han said the sanctions approach is misguided and cited the opening ceremony of a sprawling new high-rise residential area in Pyongyang on Thursday as evidence that sanctions have failed to ruin the country's economy.

Leader Kim Jong Un presided over the ceremony before about 100,000 residents and a large contingent of foreign journalists who have been allowed in to cover the holiday. Han dismissed the suggestion Trump made last year during his presidential campaign that he was willing to meet Kim Jong Un, possibly over hamburgers. "I think that was nothing more than lip service during the campaign to make himself more popular," Han said. "Now we are comparing Trump's policy toward the DPRK with the former administration's and we have concluded that it's becoming more vicious and more aggressive." Han said North Korea changed its military strategy two years ago, when the reports of "decapitation strike" training began to really get attention, to stress pre-emptive actions. "We've got a powerful nuclear deterrent already in our hands, and we certainly will not keep our arms crossed in the face of a U.S. pre-emptive strike," he said.

"Whatever comes from the U.S., we will cope with it. We are fully prepared to handle it." How much such comments are bluster, or how realistic they are, is hard to gauge. Later Friday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said all sides must stop provoking and threatening and start taking a flexible approach to resuming dialogue.

He said China is willing to support any such effort. "Once a war really happens, the result will be nothing but multiple-loss. No one can become a winner," Wang said. "No matter who it is, if it wants to make war or trouble on the Korean Peninsula, it must take the historical responsibility and pay the due price." South Korea's Foreign Ministry said Han's remarks on the North's readiness to conduct a nuclear test and even go to war reveal the "true colors of North Korea's government that is bellicose and a breaker of regulations."

The ministry issued a statement saying North Korea will face strong punishment it will find hard to withstand if it makes a significant provocation, such as another nuclear test or an ICBM launch.

Military experts generally agree a shooting war with North Korea would likely be far more costly than something along the lines of the recent targeted strike Trump ordered against a Syrian air base believed to be linked to a chemical weapons attack by the regime of Bashir Assad. That attack alarmed the North and was condemned as "unpardonable" by Pyongyang, which counts Syria as an ally.

Even without nuclear weapons, the North could cause severe damage with its conventional artillery batteries aimed at the South Korean capital of Seoul.

Read more at http://www.reporterslab.com/n-korean-official-ready-for-war-if-trump-wants-it/ .

Lalasticlala

I hope these world leaders are trading cautiously sha

..

Trump may act crazy but he sure does know NOT to mess with North Korea.... As CNN brilliantly wrote yesterday: Trump vs. Kim: A fight the US President can't win

Just like with extremists, you can never win against an opponent who is willing to DIE for his cause.

MrBrownJay1:
Trump may act crazy but he sure does know NOT to mess with North Korea.... As CNN brilliantly wrote yesterday: Trump vs. Kim: A fight the US President can't win

Just like with extremists, you can never win against an opponent who is willing to DIE for his cause.

Only i true terrorist supports N.korea no one wins becos both maybe destroyed.

Ikio:
Only i true terrorist supports N.korea no one wins becos both maybe destroyed.

I will never support a country that has turned this world into the mess we are in today... Simply because of their greed for control of oil rich country in the middle east.

So, you can go and foolishly believe that any of these fake wars are about democracy, while millions of people are dying, even today in Sudan/Congo etc, but none of these countries gives a damn because they have no oil

MrBrownJay1:


I will never support a country that has turned this world into the mess we are in today... Simply because of their greed for control of oil rich country in the middle east.

So, you can go and foolishly believe that any of these fake wars are about democracy, while millions of people are dying, even today in Sudan/Congo etc, but none of these countries gives a damn because they have no oil

WW1,WW2 and other great wars should tell u d world was already a mess they just tried to help.Come when british was the world power did they fight to protect you, U.S remains the first sane world power.

USA is yet to learn from the Korean war. Trump is very stupid if he thinks North Korea will attack Japan or South Korea if North Korea gets attacked. North Korea will attack USA in USA


Less than 100 days and all Trump wants is war and war. What kinda man is that?

Ikio:
WW1,WW2 and other great wars should tell u d world was already a mess they just tried to help.Come when british was the world power did they fight to protect you, U.S remains the first sane world power.

Just because they make foolish people believe that ww1/ww2 are the only wars that happened, doesn't mean you should also follow this foolish way of thinking.
There has been countless of useless wars/invasion, killing million of innocent people, just because of the foolishness of these countries who think they can control the world.

Try to help?! What kind of help is that?! And what king of country doesn't realize for more than 60yrs that they have failed, thus changed their policies?! The US and its allies are directly responsible for all the wars, due to their greed for oil.

MrBrownJay1:


Just because they make foolish people believe that ww1/ww2 are the only wars that happened, doesn't mean you should also follow this foolish way of thinking.
There has been countless of useless wars/invasion, killing million of innocent people, just because of the foolishness of these countries who think they can control the world.

Try to help?! What kind of help is that?! And what king of country doesn't realize for more than 60yrs that they have failed, thus changed their policies?! The US and its allies are directly responsible for all the wars, due to their greed for oil.

You are right - the US has been involved in every major conflict since the end of WWII.

What you - and many others- refuse to acknowledge however is that the world has actually experienced some stability post WWII, mostly due to the world order that was put in place by the United States.

This world order prioritises cooperation through multilateral trade. By lowering trade barriers, countries have an economic incentive to ensure that sources of hostilities are properly managed - and economics, rather than ideology, dominate bilateral relationships. For example, the establishment of the European Union, saw to it that the probability of European countries going to war against each other is effectively close to zero.

That is not to say there haven't been hostilities - the notion of a wholly peaceful world, is itself a mythological nonsense. National interest - a loosely defined term for the quest for economic, military or resource domination - makes a wholly peaceful world impossible. You may call it greed, but that is life. People/countries act in their own interest at the expense of others - even if millions of "innocent people" die in the process.

Finally - History has shown that an isolationist US policy is far more likely to lead to war than ensure peace. It would be very naive, for example to think that lack of US presence in the middle east, Europe or south china sea would bring about peace. It would simply lead to other actors filling the void to pursue their own national interest at the expense of others.

bookface:


What you - and many others- refuse to acknowledge however is that the world has actually experienced some stability post WWII, mostly due to the world order that was put in place by the United States.

Stability for the few elite, and misery for the rest.... Yep, you may called that a good thing, but I don't as I focus at the little people, not the elephant in this issue.

That is not to say there haven't been hostilities - the notion of a wholly peaceful world, is itself a mythological nonsense. National interest - a loosely defined term for the quest for economic, military or resource domination - makes a wholly peaceful world impossible. You may call it greed, but that is life. People/countries act in their own interest at the expense of others - even if millions of "innocent people" die in the process.

If you believe the above then NEVER look down on the actions of the few who do not want to be controlled/robbed of their natural resources by these hypocrite states.

Finally - History has shown that an isolationist US policy is far more likely to lead to war than ensure peace. It would be very naive, for example to think that lack of US presence in the middle east, Europe or south china sea would bring about peace. It would simply lead to other actors filling the void to pursue their own national interest at the expense of others.

Again, let us all thank Russia who brings some kind of stability to this nonsense intent of world domination by the US.
Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba etc are the real champion state of this world, who won't bow down to the US.

bookface:



You are right - the US has been involved in every major conflict since the end of WWII.

What you - and many others- refuse to acknowledge however is that the world has actually experienced some stability post WWII, mostly due to the world order that was put in place by the United States.

This world order prioritises cooperation through multilateral trade. By lowering trade barriers, countries have an economic incentive to ensure that sources of hostilities are properly managed - and economics, rather than ideology, dominate bilateral relationships. For example, the establishment of the European Union, saw to it that the probability of European countries going to war against each other is effectively close to zero.

That is not to say there haven't been hostilities - the notion of a wholly peaceful world, is itself a mythological nonsense. National interest - a loosely defined term for the quest for economic, military or resource domination - makes a wholly peaceful world impossible. You may call it greed, but that is life. People/countries act in their own interest at the expense of others - even if millions of "innocent people" die in the process.

Finally - History has shown that an isolationist US policy is far more likely to lead to war than ensure peace. It would be very naive, for example to think that lack of US presence in the middle east, Europe or south china sea would bring about peace. It would simply lead to other actors filling the void to pursue their own national interest at the expense of others.

I like your analogy...you must specialize in int'l relations?


i like your last paragraph, an isolationist U.S policy cannot ensure peace...Many people fail to remember how the soviet Union tried to make the whole world communist...That is just how life is: the strong will always dominate the weak; but in the case of U.S we have a nation that while also advancing their national interest cares enough to safeguard the human life all over

Thanks to the outcome of the Cold war, individual political and economic freedom are still guaranteed and I believe with U.s not defunct, human dignity is ensured

MrBrownJay1:


Stability for the few elite, and misery for the rest.... Yep, you may called that a good thing, but I don't as I focus at the little people, not the elephant in this issue.

I am not talking about benefits that accrue to the "elite". I am talking about the stability from a decline in the probability of a major geopolitical war. This is primarily due to the decline in Statism and the embrace of multilateral trade. The simple fact is, countries are unlikely to go to war if their economic interest are intertwined. Everyone has benefited from this relative stability.

There's no denying that there are geopolitical flash points and little people suffer from misery. Go back through the last century and you would realize that this is simply not going to change - even though the players might change.

If you believe the above then NEVER look down on the actions of the few who do not want to be controlled/robbed of their natural resources by these hypocrite states.

Feel free to be emotional in your judgement on what is moral or not - It wouldn't really change reality. Economic/military/resource dominance is not really an emotional issue. When countries find something to be in their national interest, they fight for it, even if it is at the expense of other countries.

Nigeria did it with Biafra
UK --> Flaklands war with Argentina
Russia -->> Gerogia and Crimea
China --->> South China sea

There are no emotions between states, only National interest.

Again, let us all thank Russia who brings some kind of stability to this nonsense intent of world domination by the US.
Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba etc are the real champion state of this world, who won't bow down to the US.

What stability does Russia bring into the equation?

Isn't Russia pursuing military domination in the Baltics?

You think China actually owns South China sea? Aren't they simply pursuing Islands that are in their own national interest at the expense of Philippines and co?

And you talk about "bowing" to the US, can you point out what those countries - besides China- have to show for it in terms of economic prosperity in the last 50 years?

Venezuela has the largest oil reserve in the world - yet they are so broke that the country ran short of toilet papers.

Even China's economic growth only happened through accession into the WTO and its trade with the United States.

If you look at a list of countries by gdp per capita (a measure of economic prosperity) , the top 50 have close economic ties with the United States. Do you seriously want your country to be more like Cuba (that doesn't bow to the US) or more like Japan (that bows to the US)?

History has shown over and over and over again that it is better to have a beneficial relationship with the USA than to simply antagonise it, just so you can look like a champ on the world stage.

[quote author=bookface post=55591854]


I am not talking about benefits that accrue to the "elite". I am talking about the stability from a decline in the probability of a major geopolitical war. This is primarily due to the decline in Statism and the embrace of multilateral trade. The simple fact is, countries are unlikely to go to war if their economic interest are intertwined. Everyone has benefited from this relative stability.

There's no denying that there are geopolitical flash points and little people suffer from misery. Go back through the last century and you would realize that this is simply not going to change - even though the players might change.





Feel free to be emotional in your judgement on what is moral or not - It wouldn't really change reality. Economic/military/resource dominance is not really an emotional issue. When countries find something to be in their national interest, they fight for it, even if it is at the expense of other countries.

Nigeria did it with Biafra
UK --> Flaklands war with Argentina
Russia -->> Gerogia and Crimea
China --->> South China sea

There are no emotions between states, only National interest.




What stability does Russia bring into the equation?

Isn't Russia pursuing military domination in the Baltics?

You think China actually owns South China sea? Aren't they simply pursuing Islands that are in their own national interest at the expense of Philippines and co?

And you talk about "bowing" to the US, can you point out what those countries - besides China- have to show for it in terms of economic prosperity in the last 50 years?

Venezuela has the largest oil reserve in the world - yet they are so broke that the country ran short of toilet papers.

Even China's economic growth only happened through accession into the WTO and its trade with the United States.

If you look at a list of countries by gdp per capita (a measure of economic prosperity) , the top 50 have close economic ties with the United States. Do you seriously want your country to be more like Cuba (that doesn't bow to the US) or more like Japan (that bows to the US)?

History has shown over and over and over again that it is better to have a beneficial relationship with the USA than to simply antagonise it, just so you can look like a champ on the world stage.

I lyk u points.
If only our leadas reason lyk dis hmmmmm