"To counter the enemy's intentional drive to push the situation to the brink of war, our revolutionary forces are making preparations to begin a sacred war at any moment necessary based on nuclear deterrent," North Korea's KCNA news agency quoted Minister of Armed Forces Kim Yong-chun telling a rally.
South Korea went ahead with some live-fire artillery and air exercises north of Seoul despite North Korea's warning not to carry them out.
It isn't the threat that interests me--that's routine. What I want to complain about is the word use. Perhaps it is a translation issue. But if it isn't, someone needs to sit down with the North Koreans and explain that you do not begin a war using your "sacred" (not that has to be a translation problem. Sacred? In a communist state?) nuclear "deterrent".
"Deterrent" is the problem word. Clearly, in this context, the North Koreans should have said "weapon." Yes, I know, they don't have their nuclear devices weaponized yet, so regardless of the word use the threat is empty right now. Still. Could the Chinese explain to the North Koreans that "deterrent" means something that "deters"--that is, stops someone else from doing something? After all, this would fit in well with North Korean claims that for the last 60 years or so, the US has been planning to unleash war on North Korea to destroy them and the only hope Pyongyang has of stopping us is by having nuclear weapons that can hit the South Koreans, Japanese, and us. You know, it would "deter" us from attacking them.
To get to the point, a nuclear "deterrent" is not meant to be used. It is meant to prevent war from escalating to a nuclear level. Further, it is meant to prevent war at a lower conventional level from escalating to regime destruction. That is, if we know North Korea values their continued reign of terror (and luxury goods--don't forget that) over their people, we won't risk occupying Pyongyang and hanging that twisted,maniac Kim Jong-Il and his equally sick spawn from a gallows erected in the central square.
That is the purpose of a nuclear "deterrent." And if gives neighbors a nice warm feeling that you won't go all North Korea on them and use them short of protecting the existence of your regime or replying to our use of nuclear weapons.
But if you start threatening the use of nukes even before you have them, it just might worry your neighbors (including China) enough for them to blast your little criminal enterprise with a UN seat before you actually get the means to carry out your repeated threats to use atomic weapons. Got it? It's not a difficult concept. Look into it.
Oh, and if it makes you feel better, once you have an actual nuclear deterrent, you can ramp up terrorism to levels you never dreamed you could get away with since our side's retaliation would have to consider your potential use of nukes in response to a conventional retaliation on North Korean targets. See? It may not be wise to use that nuclear "deterrent" you are building, but it does have advantages.
So there. My English as a second language class is concluded.
