Thursday, March 7, 2013

North Korea Statement About First Strike Nuclear Attack

Headlines report that North Korea has vowed to launch a first strike against the United States. 

If one goes by the headlines, it would seem that a nuclear strike delivered against Americans is

going to happen.  Will it?  No one knows the future, and as readers here know well, I do not believe

that humans can gain information outside the laws of nature, and those who claim 'psychic' ability, 

have a success rate far below the odds of winning a national lottery; therefore, we seek information 

through the engagement of our senses.  In Statement Analysis we listen to the words of those who 

have threatened us.  

 Here is

 the North Korean statement: 

"Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will

 be exercising our right to pre-emptive  nuclear attack against the 

headquarters of the aggressor in order to 

protect our supreme interest."

What does the statement tell us?  Is it a strong and reliable threat?

"Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will

 be exercising our right to pre-emptive  nuclear attack against the 

headquarters of the aggressor in order to 

protect our supreme interest."

1.  Note the contingency of the first strike with the word "since"; giving us the reason why, at the start of 

the statement. 

Where a statement begins is always important.  Here the speaker, representing North Korea, begins 

the statement explaining why North Korea will do something, making it very sensitive to the speaker. 

This is similar to saying "because", as giving reason for something, rather than a direct statement. 

2.  Note that the claim is the United States is "about" to "ignite" a nuclear war and not "start" a war, nor 

a direct statement about the use of nuclear weapons.

3.  Note the response to this:  "exercising"

North Korea will be "exercising" its "right", and not that they will "strike" or "fire" or any active word 

indicating aggression. 

This is distancing language and will not likely cause America to go into a high "Def-con" like status

against North Korea.  Although a response is likely, the threat made is not a strong or credible 



_kim_ber_ly_ said...

Thank you Peter! My husband was very worried about this when he first read these headlines. As usual, your statement analysis illuminates; and in this case, helps with some reassurance.

Hobnob said...

off topic

The detective originally leading the Oscar Pistorius murder investigation has resigned from the police force, it has been announced.

South African police brigadier Neville Malila said detective Hilton Botha had voluntarily applied to leave the service.

The news comes after Botha made several procedural errors in his role as the lead investigator after athlete Pistorius shot and killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on February 14.

It later emerged that the officer faced attempted murder charges for a case in which he fired on a vehicle in an attempt to make it stop.

His superiors then removed him from the case against Pistorius, the double-amputee athlete who competed at the London Olympics and Paralympics.

Mr Malila said: "He handed in his resignation yesterday and it was accepted with immediate effect. We are not going into the details."

Warrant officer Botha, the first officer on the scene after Ms Steenkamp's shooting, had 24 years experience as a detective.

He is accused of firing on a minibus taxi full of passengers in 2011 while pursuing a man accused of murdering a woman and disposing of her dismembered body down a drain, local media said.

The charges were withdrawn but reinstated on February 4, 10 days before Ms Steenkamp was shot.

The episode has embarrassed the South African police who regularly come under fire for failing to reduce one of the highest crimes rates in the world and dispel perceptions of a force that is poorly trained.

Last week, eight policemen were arrested for tying a Mozambican taxi driver to the back of a vehicle and dragging him to the station.

The man later died, and video of his treatment was uploaded to websites and shocked audiences around the world.

john said...

Were has the FBI 911 analysis gone.?

Anonymous said...

Hi I was wondering how the translator comes into play? Presumably this statement came out in their native language and was translated into English, eg subject to the word choice of the translator? How does this get accounted for in SA?

Peter Hyatt said...

Analysis is best done in the original language, so what we say is this:

We are analyzing THIS statement, as is, with the caveat.

I have done analysis on the German war crimes trials from 1948 Nuremberg and it is important to note which prisoners spoke English and which we must rely upon the translators.

Overall, though, as we step back from the statement, we can understand it in general terms.

R.L. Haley said...

Thanks Peter Now I get the statement,I just panicked when I read it, instead of analyzing it first