Former CIA Director Says North Korea Can Kill Up to 90% of Americans

It seems the drums of a preemptive strike on North Korea are growing louder.  Here is the latest expert to weigh in:

The United States should be prepared to launch preemptive strikes on North Korea, including a nuclear attack if necessary, before the communist nation uses its nuclear bombs that could “kill 90 percent of Americans,” a former CIA chief said Wednesday.

James Woolsey, who served as CIA director from 1993-95, made the case in an op-ed piece in the Hill newspaper, arguing that the U.S. is erroneously underestimating Pyongyang’s capabilities to deliver nuclear weapons by missile, freighter and even satellite.

“Why do the press and public officials ignore or under-report these facts? Perhaps no administration wants to acknowledge that North Korea is an existential threat on their watch,” Woolsey said in the article, titled “How North Korea could kill 90 percent of Americans.”

“Whatever the motives for obfuscating the North Korean nuclear threat, the need to protect the American people is immediate and urgent. The U.S. must be prepared to preempt North Korea by any means necessary, including nuclear weapons,” he said.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Flyingingsword
Flyingingsword
9 years ago

That seems a bit of a over dramatic statement…

setnaffa
setnaffa
Reply to  Flyingingsword
9 years ago

Woolsey might be in need of different meds…

JoeC
JoeC
Reply to  Flyingingsword
9 years ago

At first I thought the article was an April Fools prank, but the Woolsey article is a couple days old and his EMP Commission source article has been out there for a while.

Still, it does seem like extreme over-exaggeration to believe a few satellite based EMP busts could wipe out 90% of Americans.

Even if it were true, how many would believe it? We are at peak skepticism now. The last time they made the case for preemptive war we were told ‘there would only be a 45 minute warning to the biological or chemical attacks’ and ‘the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud.’ What little remained in the well of trust with statements from government officials had been poisoned for good in the last few months.

I hope we come to our senses and go back to the Constitution where it explicitly requires that only Congress has the power to declare war. Everything we are told needs to be properly vetted and no one person should have their finger on the nuclear trigger.

Smokes
Smokes
Reply to  JoeC
9 years ago

“come to our senses and go back to the Constitution”

Back? You are aware that having a Congressional declaration prior to use of military force has almost never been the case right? I’m not just talking Afghanistan and Iraq, I mean ever.

The US has only been at peace for about 20 years of its entire existence and even with all the junk listed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
Congress has only declared war 11 separate times for the following 5 conflicts: War of 1812, Mex-Amer War, Span-Amer War, WW1, and WW2.

So regardless of how we’d like it to be, it ain’t been, and probably never will be with our governmental construct.

liz
liz
Reply to  Smokes
9 years ago

Congress still authorizes the use of military force (well…except for Clinton in Kosovo). When is the last time anyone used the word “war” in any serious piece of legislation? The UN, too, uses the term “military force”.
Just on a practical level, a formal declaration of war made sense in the era of the pony express, or even of the telegraph. One would declare war knowing full well the enemy could not react instantly, as communications, mobilization and transport meant war preparation took days, if not weeks or months. One side would quietly ‘prepare’ then declare war and not lose any advantage by honouring the code.

Now the ‘declaration of war’ would not even finish having been uttered before missiles would be flying. In practice, it is just not viable anymore. In the day of instant communications, ‘declaring war’ is a luxury only for the overwhelmingly powerful, and even then they risk the lives of their soldiers by taking it.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg…Congress has far more power over the purse-strings when a nation has not declared war. The military force authorization can be revisited and challenged. Ever read the text of our WWII Declaration? Imagine the following today, in the age of nukes:

“JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”

Denny
Denny
Reply to  JoeC
9 years ago

US and North Korea are technically still at war.

liz
liz
Reply to  Denny
9 years ago

Also undeclared. QED.

7
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x