North Korea warns of "armed force conflict" after nuclear-powered U.S. submarine docks in South Korea
North Korea on Tuesday accused the United States of a "hostile military act" after a US Navy submarine docked in arch rival South Korea to replenish supplies.
"We express grave concern over the U.S. dangerous hostile military act that can lead the acute military confrontation in the region around the Korean peninsula to an actual armed force conflict," a defense ministry spokesperson said in a statement carried by state news agency KCNA.
They warned the United States to "stop provocations stirring up the instability any longer," accusing it of ignoring North Korea's security concerns.
Yonhap news agency reported that the USS Alexandria, a nuclear-powered submarine, arrived at Busan naval base in South Korea on Monday. The last U.S. submarine to visit Busan was the USS Vermont on Sept. 23, according to Stars and Stripes.
According to the U.S. Navy, the USS Alexandria is a 360-foot fast-attack submarine equipped with Tomahawk missiles and MK48 torpedoes.
"Our armed forces are strictly watching the frequent appearance of the U.S. strategic means on the Korean peninsula and are ready for using any means to defend the security and interests of the state and the regional peace," the defense ministry spokesperson said.
They noted the importance of developing the North's self-defense capabilities and referenced leader Kim Jong Un's vow in January that his country's nuclear program would continue "indefinitely."
Largely cut off from the world diplomatically and economically, and under a bevy of sanctions, North Korea's nuclear weapons program has been a major thorn in the side of the United States for years.
Last month, North Korea said it tested a new hypersonic intermediate-range missile designed to strike remote targets in the Pacific. The day before that,
South Korea's military said it detected North Korea launching a missile that flew 685 miles before landing in waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan.
President Donald Trump, who had a rare series of meetings with Kim during his first term, has said he will reach out to the North Korean leader again, calling Kim a "smart guy."
A summit between the two in Hanoi collapsed in 2019 over talks on sanctions relief and what Pyongyang would be willing to give up in return.
Marco Rubio called it a "rogue state" in a radio interview.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Miliband has got his nuclear plans wrong. Here's what we should do
Yesterday, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband announced a new 'golden age' of nuclear energy. But with the wrong technology, unfit regulation and no real delivery plan, his golden age already looks tarnished. He's pinning his hopes on an already out-dated large-scale nuclear technology that has been plagued by construction problems in Finland, France and the UK and whose developer EDF is already moving on to a newer version. And while his commitment to small modular reactors (SMRs) is commendable, they are at best a decade away with no examples in existence in the West. While it is tempting to think you could simply hoist a submarine reactor onto a dock and call it a power station, this is unrealistic. Military reactors are designed for stealth, speed and war, not for civilian safety, grid connectivity or cost-efficiency. So Rolls Royce has had to develop an entirely new concept. In fact the current market leaders in Western SMR-design are GE-Hitachi whose small boiling water reactors recently began construction in Canada. However, given the imminent retirement of all but one of our existing large nuclear reactors, bigger is better for the nuclear ambition, and in this, Miliband's plan is woefully inadequate. Luckily, there is a solution ready and waiting: the Korean APR1400 design which has been successfully completed in both South Korea and UAE with eight units now in operation, built in an average of 8.5 years, at an average cost of $5-6 billion. Far cheaper than the £40 billion some analysts expect Sizewell C to cost. Around £6 billion is thought to have been spent already. The Korean design has been approved by both US and European regulators and should be a no-brainer for the UK: build what works. But to do this we need to take an axe to our overgrown thicket of nuclear regulation. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) bizarrely reports to the Department for Work and Pensions, not the Energy Secretary, and sits beyond any meaningful strategic oversight. This well-intentioned separation has resulted in a regulatory regime akin to requiring 57 seat belts in your car – technically thorough, but practically unhinged. One requirement is that each new reactor design must expose workers to even less radiation than its predecessor. That might sound like progress, until you realise that radiation levels inside a modern nuclear plant are already so low they're hard to detect at all. The plant manager at one of our old Advanced Gas Cooled reactors (AGRs) once told me that the only time his radiation detector registered anything other than zero was when he left it on his desk and the sun shone on it. Nuclear workers are typically exposed to more radiation on the street than inside the plant. At this point, further exposure reductions offer no safety benefit. They just add cost, complexity and delay. The environmental regulators are as bad. The Sizewell C design is exactly the same as Hinkley Point C and the site is almost identical to Sizewell A and B. So why on earth were 40,000 pages of environmental statements required? This regulatory excess is expensive and draws out the process of approving new reactors beyond what is remotely reasonable. Britain risks running out of electricity. We had a near miss blackout event in January that was likely a factor in the renewal of the controversial biomass subsidies. We are also likely to see further small extensions to our ageing AGRs which are nearing the ends of their lives. But with a third of our fleet of gas power stations dating back to the 1990s and expected to retire in the next five years, Britain can ill afford delays to new nuclear plants. Particularly not the sort of avoidable delays our overzealous regulators have created. If Miliband is serious both about his golden age of nuclear, and more particularly, keeping the lights on in a decarbonised world, he needs to be far more ambitious. A truly serious plan would involve a programme of 5-6 large-scale reactors, and since the Koreans have the best track record, we should sign them up. He needs to get tough on the regulators. Abolishing ONR altogether and creating a new regulator, as part of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, with staff who are experts in risk management as well as nuclear safety, and severely curtailing the power of environmental regulators. One of the biggest benefits of nuclear power is its high energy density: it uses very little land to create a lot of energy. That should be taken into account, with regulators forced to look at the national picture rather than taking a strictly site by site approach. And he needs to stop wasting time with incentives for investors. They are not interested in the risk of our shambolic regulatory landscape. He should face this reality, and commit public money for the construction of the first two new reactors, re-financing once construction is completed. This would be a profitable strategy: the Government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector, the Korean design (with suitable regulatory restraint) can be built faster than the Hinkley design, meaning lower financing costs, and nuclear reactors are very profitable to run so investors will be very interested once the risky construction phase is over. He could even offer shares to the public in a 21st Century version of 'Just tell Sid' which remains the most successful public share subscription in UK history, and would perfectly align with Chancellor Rachel Reeves' ambition for UK savers to deploy their capital in the interests of national infrastructure. We need more than romantic notions of golden ages if we're to keep the lights on. It's time for hard-headed decisions, and a concrete, realistic and funded plan for success. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. On Tuesday, Newsom filed an emergency motion in federal court to block the troops from assisting with immigration raids in Los Angeles. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. More than 100 people have been arrested over the past several days of protests. The vast majority of arrests were for failing to disperse, while a few others were for assault with a deadly weapon, looting, vandalism and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia significantly improved North Korea's shoddy KN-23 ballistic missiles, Ukraine's Budanov says
Russia helped significantly improve North Korea's KN-23 ballistic missiles, also known as Hwasong-11, after receiving the first inaccurate batch from Pyongyang, Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine's military intelligence (HUR) chief, said in an interview with The War Zone published on June 9. North Korea has supplied Russia with ammunition, ballistic missiles, and soldiers since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. KN-23 ballistic missiles initially flew with a deviation of a few kilometers and around half fired at Ukraine by Russia malfunctioned and exploded in mid-air, Reuters reported in May 2024, citing Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office. But now they are hitting their targets, Budanov said, without specifying what exactly was changed in the North Korean missiles. "The KN-23 missiles that were delivered in the very beginning, now it's an absolutely different missile in (terms) of their technical characteristics. The accuracy has increased many times," Budanov said. "This is the result of the common work of Russian and North Korean specialists. Also, there is the modernization of long-range air-to-air missiles, particular technologies on submarines, and unfortunately, ballistic missiles, which can carry nuclear payloads," he added. According to Budanov, Russia has also agreed to help North Korea begin domestic production of Shahed-type kamikaze drones. Pyongyang has ratcheted up its support for Russia following Russian President Vladimir Putin's signing of a mutual defense pact with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in June 2024. According to a May 29 report by the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT), Pyongyang shipped to Russia up to 9 million artillery shells and at least 100 ballistic missiles in 2024 alone. North Korea's involvement in the war expanded in fall 2024, when it deployed thousands of troops to Russia's western border to help fend off a large-scale Ukrainian incursion. The move followed the signing of a defense treaty between the two countries in June 2024, obligating both to provide military aid if either is attacked. North Korea acknowledged its role in the war only in April 2025. A month later, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un said the country's participation was part of a "sacred mission," aligning Pyongyang's narrative with Moscow's. Read also: Exclusive: Ukraine could face 500+ Russian drones a night as Kremlin builds new launch sites We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
