North Korea says Kim Jong Un supervised missile tests
The report came a day after South Korea's military detected multiple launches from North Korea's eastern coast and assessed the tests could be related to the country's weapons exports to Russia during its war in Ukraine.
The North has continued to blame its rivals for escalating tensions through their joint military exercises.
North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Thursday's tests involved a mobile ballistic missile system modelled after Russia's Iskander, as well as 600-millimetre multiple rocket launchers which South Korean officials classify as ballistic due to their self-propulsion and guided flight.
Both are part of a growing line-up of weapons systems the North says could be armed with 'tactical' nuclear weapons for battlefield use.
KCNA said the tests were intended to train military units operating missile and rocket systems to more effectively execute attacks under the North's nuclear weapons control system and ensure a swift response to a nuclear crisis.
The agency criticised the US and its 'vassal states' for expanding joint military exercises on and around the Korean Peninsula, which the North claims are preparations for nuclear war, and said Thursday's launches demonstrated the 'rapid counteraction posture' of its forces.
Mr Kim stressed the need to strengthen the role of his nuclear forces in both deterring and fighting war and called for continued efforts to improve combat readiness and precision strike capabilities, KCNA said.
Kim Inae, spokesperson for South Korea's Unification Ministry which handles inter-Korean affairs, described the latest launches as a 'clear act of provocation' in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and a serious threat to peace and stability in the region.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said multiple missiles of various types were launched from the area around the eastern port city of Wonsan on Thursday, with the farthest travelling about 497 miles.
Lee Sung Joon, spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs, said in a briefing the North Korean launches were possibly intended to test the performance of weapons it plans to export, as the country continues to send military equipment and troops to fuel Russia's warfighting against Ukraine.
Japanese defence minister Gen Nakatani told reporters that none of the North Korean missiles reached Japan's exclusive economic zone and there was no damage to vessels or aircraft in the area.
It was the North's first known ballistic activity since March 10, when it fired several ballistic missiles hours after US and South Korean troops began an annual combined military exercise, and the country's sixth launch event of the year.
Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have escalated in recent months as the North Korean leader continues to accelerate the development of his nuclear and missile programme and supply weapons and troops to support Russia's war against Ukraine.
Thursday's launch came a day after North Korean state media said Mr Kim urged munition workers to boost the production of artillery shells amid his deepening alignment with Moscow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump makes huge World War I blunder in fiery speech as LA riots rage
Donald Trump made a huge blunder about World War I in a fiery speech at Fort Bragg, as the U.S. continues to be rocked by riots over the President's mass deportation order US President Donald Trump delivered a speech at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, as unrest continued in Los Angeles between protesters and ICE officials over his far-reaching deportation order. Fort Bragg, situated near Fayetteville, North Carolina, is home to the military's Special Operations Command, which includes elite units such as the Green Berets and Rangers. During his address, Trump made a significant historical blunder, claiming that many countries had recently commemorated the end of World War I, while the US did not participate in the celebrations, despite asserting "we're the ones who won the war." "Without us," Trump said, "You'd all be speaking German right now." "Maybe a little Japanese thrown in. But we won the war," he added. "We're gonna celebrate on Saturday." However, Trump's claim that citizens would have been speaking Japanese is inaccurate, as Japan was an ally of the US, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Italy against the Axis powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire, reports the Mirror US. It appears the President was actually referencing WW2, which was commemorated recently during VE celebrations. The end of WW1 is traditionally commemorated on "Armistice Day" on November 11 each year. The event at Fort Bragg was also attended by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and included both active service members and their families. The speech comes ahead of the 250th anniversary of the army and coincidentally, Trump's 79th birthday, which will be marked with a parade in Washington, D.C. The city is bracing for a massive turnout at the parade this Saturday, with officials already setting up 18 miles of "anti-scale fencing" and deploying drones, despite the usual no-fly zone rules. City representatives have told The Associated Press they're expecting an "preparing for an enormous turnout." Secret Service's Matt McCool from the Washington Field Office is preparing for "hundreds of thousands" to line the streets, while military sources estimate around 200,000 will join the celebrations. "We have a ton of magnetometers," McCool said. "If a million people show up, then we're going to have some lines." To manage the expected crowds, 175 magnetometers will be in place at security checkpoints throughout the day and for the evening parade. Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith has warned of "major impacts to traffic" and advises attendees to consider using the Metro instead of driving. "This is a significant event with a large footprint," she stressed. "We're relying on the public to be an extra set of ears and eyes for us." The event has hit the headlines as a National Special Security Event, with security measures on par with presidential inaugurations or state funerals. This elite status is reserved for high-profile functions drawing sizeable gatherings and the likelihood of significant protests, triggering an increased security collaboration between local officials, the FBI, Capitol Police, and the National Guard, all led by the watchful Secret Service. Officials are also on high alert for possible immigration-related protests, mirroring those in Los Angeles, potentially hitting D. C. 's streets. "We're paying attention, obviously, to what is happening there. We'll be ready," affirmed McCool, underlining the extensive preparations in place to manage any civil unrest.
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump warns that military parade protesters will face 'very heavy force'
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump warned Tuesday that anyone who protests at the U.S. military parade here on Saturday will be met with "very heavy force." Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that they're going to be "celebrating big on Saturday," referring to the parade that will wind its way through downtown Washington, D.C. "If there's any protester that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force," Trump said. "I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force." The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The president also addressed the protests of the administration's immigration raids in Los Angeles."These are paid insurrectionists," he said about the demonstrators. The military parade Saturday will mark the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army and is expected to feature tanks and hundreds of other military vehicles and aircraft. It's estimated to cost about $45 million, including as much as $16 million to repair D.C. streets afterward, U.S. military officials said last month. Saturday is also Trump's 79th birthday. "We're going to have a fantastic June 14 parade, Flag Day. It's going to be an amazing day. We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change," Trump said Tuesday. Trump said that other countries celebrate the end of World War II and that the U.S. was the only country that did not. "And we're the one that won the war," said Trump, who added that if it weren't for the U.S., Americans would be speaking German or Japanese. "We won the war, and we're the only country that didn't celebrate it, and we're going to be celebrating big on Saturday," he said. Officials are expecting hundreds of thousands of attendees, Matt McCool, the U.S. Secret Service agent in charge of the Washington field office, said Monday. McCool said they plan to deploy "thousands of agents, officers and specialists from across the country." People attending the parade or a related festival will be required to go through checkpoints with magnetometers. Asked about any changes to security planning in light of the L.A. protests, McCool said, "We plan for those things ahead of time' 'We were paying attention, obviously, to what is happening there, and we'll be ready for that if it were to occur here,' he said, though he added, 'We have no intelligence of that happening here, but if it does, we have the resources to handle it." U.S. Park Police had several protest permits pending on Monday, but officials 'don't have any significant concerns," said McCool, who added that they're tracking 'about nine First Amendment activity demonstrations.' The anti-Trump group No Kings is expecting more than 1,800 rallies nationwide Saturday that organizers said were planned as "a peaceful stand against authoritarian overreach and the gross abuse of power this Administration has shown." With Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to respond to the L.A. demonstrations, the group said in a statement: "This military escalation only confirms what we've known: this government wants to rule by force, not serve the people. From major cities to small towns, we'll rise together and say: we reject political violence. We reject fear as governance. We reject the myth that only some deserve freedom."
Rhyl Journal
a day ago
- Rhyl Journal
Liz Saville Roberts MP on why she backs assisted dying bill
MPs voted 330 in favour, to 275 against, during the second reading of the bill in Parliament in November – the Report stage of the bill will resume on Friday (June 13). Labour's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill would make assisted dying legal for terminally ill adults who are expected to die within six months, and who have the mental capacity to make the choice to end their life. It is a Private Member's Bill tabled by Kim Leadbeater MP. Reporter Matthew Chandler spent half an hour talking to Mrs Saville Roberts about the bill. MC: You voted in favour of the bill in November. Are you still in favour of it now? LSR: I feel more strongly in favour of it now, because I've heard so much evidence from families who desperately felt their loved ones suffered from the lack of this facility in two ways: people suffered unduly at the end of their lives, and they lost their autonomy. [It's about] the sheer degree of suffering, and the sense that many people feel they should have the right to decide what happens to them at the end of their lives. MC: You were part of the bill committee. Why? LSR: It was Kim (Leadbeater)'s decision as to who the members were; she chose a mixture of those for and against the bill. I have spoken to Kim about some really striking issues with how this is going be brought into effect in Wales, because public health is devolved in Wales, so whenever we're taking about the NHS in the bill, that refers to England only as it stands. We're going to have to be really alert to avoid unintended consequences if we're going to recognise the way health is operated differently between England and Wales. MC: You have commended Kim Leadbeater for doing everything possible to strengthen scrutiny withing the constraints of the bill. Do you think ruling out using the judiciary, and instead proposing a three-member panel is strengthening scrutiny? LSR: There is the judiciary there. Previously, it was a High Court judge alone, but we received evidence that there are different professional interpretations of the word 'capacity'. It will mean different things to different clinicians. The point of having a High Court judge there would be to make sure the law is being followed to the letter. A High Court judge is not an expert on capacity. So, what is being brought in now is to have a senior judiciary figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist, and that brings to bear different definitions and considerations of capacity. I think that's an immense improvement. We have to be as sure as possible that we have considered all options, and I really think that having these different profession definitions and considerations as to what capacity means improves the bill considerably. MC: But does it not concern you that the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians have both said the bill is not fit for purpose? LSR: They are fair to raise concerns, but the British Medical Association has moved their point of view considerably since 2015, and there will always be professional bodies bringing forward concerns whenever you bring a change in the law. To me, the tension here lies between: do you grant the individual the right to something which I think the public now expect us to do? Then, as legislators, we have to do our best to make sure this is as secure against abuse and misuse and unintended consequences as possible. This is quite difficult through a Private Member's Bill, because it hasn't had the time that a government has to carry out impact assessments before they even the draft the bill. But we have been discussing this for over 10 years. There have been iterations of this bill. It hasn't come out of nowhere. MC: I appreciate it hasn't come out of nowhere, but there has been no royal commission on it, and the time for debate was minimal (the full text of the bill, as presented for second reading, was published on November 11; MPs then voted on it on November 29). LSR: That's because the government hasn't taken this on. If they had, it wouldn't have to go through the time of a Private Member's Bill, which means it has to be finished in the Commons before we rise for recess, and it has to go through the Lords before the King's speech, which will almost certainly be in the second half of October. There is very good precedent for that to happen through Private Member's Bills. Difficult, big societal decisions, such as legalising homosexuality and abortion, have been made through Private Member's Bills, and it allows the government and opposition parties to give their members a free whip. So, with any piece of legislation, there is a tension on time. MC: What would you say, then, to (former Archbishop of Westminster) Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who wrote in April: 'It is a sad reflection on Parliament's priorities that the Commons spent far more time debating the ban on fox hunting than it is spending debating bringing in assisted suicide' - is that fair? LSR: I think it says something about society that whenever anything in relation to fox hunting has come across the desk to me, the amount of correspondence about that is way higher than it will be over children in Gaza. Again, the tension here for legislating in real time is - do you continue to make the perfect be the enemy of the good? Or, do you build in the means to change, so that legislation can be adapted as we go ahead? If this passes in Westminster, it then has an expectation that it's implemented within four years. MC: In 2010, two cases of assisted dying in Holland involved psychiatric suffering. In 2023, there were 138. Also in 2023, MPs in Canada wanted to introduce assisted dying suicide for children without parental consent. This is quite a common theme of other countries' initial scope for assisted dying widening as time passes. How can you guard against that 'slippery slope' in the UK? LSR: I can't tell future parliamentarians what to do, that's the nature of democracy, all I can do is describe what we've done in this bill as it stands. In this bill, mental illness alone doesn't qualify as a terminal illness and somebody has to have a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months (at most) in order to apply for the process, and you have to be over the age of 18. MC: But do you not worry that you might be opening the floodgates? LSR: I feel very strongly that the medical profession, since (the atrocities of) Harold Shipman, is so averse to being seen to be responsible for bringing about somebody's death prematurely, that people are suffering. And in a society where we value autonomy and individualism, an individual adult with full capacity, no evidence of coercion, and a terminal illness, should be empowered to decide how and when their life ends. Otherwise, I think the risk is that there is an imposition of the state in keeping people alive against their will and in great suffering. The fear of the slippery slope is telling that individual: 'You will die in agony.' It's up to the legislation to make sure the safeguards are in place to prevent it from widening. MC: What about members of staff who may be involved in the procedure of assisted dying, but who may face moral dilemmas themselves? LSR: They can opt out. It's like abortion. MC: What about the impact that it could have on the strain on the NHS? Do you not worry it could cause cuts to other NHS services if assisted dying becomes a bigger priority? LSR: The NHS is under immense, intolerable strain. Everything about the NHS gives me concern. We are an ageing society. We have the means to do medically that which we can't afford. At same time, to me, this comes down to a right of the individual. Either you acknowledge that the individual has a right to make these sorts of decision and enable it, or you don't. The evidence we heard from Australia, Canada and Holland is that the vast majority of people who take this route very much value their autonomy. It isn't, in the greatest number of cases, people for whom there is a question over capacity. You can't make a living will with this and say: 'If I get dementia, I want to go down the assisted dying route,' because the capacity will have gone. MC: Do you feel there has been parity in the time given for voices of both sides of the argument to be heard in the debate? LSR: Yes, because I've been on the bill committee. I have quite some sympathy for the MPs who weren't, but I think we should have sufficient time within the days that we have, which will only be Fridays, to do this. Of course, there is a parliamentary technique of talking something out. I think that's worth being alert to, as well. I think there is a general sense that parliamentarians would have failed as legislators if we can't bring something forward that is decent and humane. Every piece of legislation gets corrected and improved, because society moves on, as well. But I think we are expected now to pull together something that works, rather than find reasons not to make a difficult decision because it's easier to avoid it. We're passing on suffering to others if we do that. MC: Do you know of any disability rights groups in support of bill? LSR: I think there are great concerns among disability groups, because they're concerned that disabled people don't always have the respect they should have within society. Again, this is about protecting people and making sure there are sufficient safeguards in place. I come back to the fact that I believe this to be a fundamental right of the individual, and if they have capacity, then it is their right to make that decision. MC: So, you believe the bill is ethical? LSR: Yes. This has now passed the parliamentary stage in Scotland, the Isle of Man, and Jersey, with different parameters. It is enroute to coming in in different jurisdictions of the UK and the Crown Dependencies. MC: So, are you saying we're lagging behind? LSR: I think the citizens of the UK will expect a degree of consistency in what their rights are as individuals. Fundamentally, the question here is: is it right for me to tell the person next to me that because of my moral scruples, they have to suffer, possibly, a really hideous death? Or, is it their right to decide without me interfering? This is about the right of the individual, so that the option is there; rather than an almost religious attitude, whereby it is God who gives and God who takes away, which does seem to drive some opposing lobbying groups. MC: Are you religious? LSR: I was raised in the Church of England/Church in Wales. MC: Do you think the religious arguments against assisted dying are archaic, or outdated? LSR: I think in almost every other aspect of society, we grant the individual autonomy and then, at this last stage, we row back on that. Nobody is condoning the inadequacies of the NHS. Of course, we should be improving palliative care, of course we should be having a real debate that we are a desperately ageing society that hasn't trained enough doctors and nurses for decades. (But) widening the individual's rights doesn't mean we tolerate the intolerable. MC: Is legalising assisted dying more important than improving palliative care? LSR: They're equally important. Societally, we don't like talking about death. This has made us talk about death. It's probably a good thing that we're talking about it, because death is something that affects everybody. We will always get terminal illnesses. If a cancer is going to grow in your body until your body stops something working, that's not going to be pleasant. It's going to stop the function of your body, and it will be slow. But when does the point come when we realise, we are unethically imposing on somebody else how we perceive we would put ourselves in their position? MC: But don't you have to do that to an extent, because you're voting on it? LSR: Yes - that's why I'm in favour of it. I'm not making anybody ask the state to kill them, and I'm doing my best to put the conditions in place where nobody else will be able to coerce somebody to take this route. That is the worst scenario in this, and is fundamentally wrong. But I do think we need to question ourselves about whether I am imposing my perception of what quality of life is, to the point where I am saying: 'They can't decide their own fate'. It's not about imposing assisted dying on someone; it's about giving them the autonomy to choose it. Nobody should come at this lightly. Nothing gets more serious than this. You can read more of Mrs Saville Roberts' thoughts on the bill here.
