Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NORTH KOREA HAS declared it was in a “state of war” with South Korea and warned Seoul and Washington that any provocation would swiftly escalate into an all-out nuclear conflict.
The United States said it took the announcement “seriously”, but noted it followed a familiar pattern, while South Korea largely dismissed it as an old threat dressed in new clothing.
It was the latest in a string of dire-sounding pronouncements from Pyongyang that have been matched by tough warnings from Seoul and Washington, fuelling international concern that the situation might spiral out of control.
“As of now, inter-Korea relations enter a state of war and all matters between the two Koreas will be handled according to wartime protocol,” the North said in a government statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency.
“The long-standing situation of the Korean peninsula being neither at peace nor at war is finally over,” the statement said, adding that any US or South Korean provocation would trigger a “a nuclear war”.
The two Koreas have technically remained at war for the past six decades because the 1950-53 Korean War concluded with an armistice rather than a peace treaty.
The North had announced earlier this month that it was ripping up the armistice and other bilateral peace pacts signed with Seoul in protest against South Korea-US joint military exercises.
The White House labelled the latest statement from Pyongyang as “unconstructive” and, while taking it “seriously”, sought to place the immediate threat level in context.
“North Korea has a long history of bellicose rhetoric and threats and today’s announcement follows that familiar pattern,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden.
In Seoul, the Unification Ministry insisted the war threat was “not really new”. The Defence Ministry vowed to “retaliate thoroughly” to any provocation, but added that no notable troop movement had been observed along the border.
As with past crises, Pyongyang did not allow the tensions to impact the Kaesong industrial complex, a joint South-North venture that provides the regime with crucial hard currency.
“The border crossing to Kaesong is functioning normally,” said Unification Ministry spokeswoman Park Soo-Jin.
Most observers still believe this will remain a verbal rather than a physical battle.
“The North Koreans in recent weeks have turned rhetoric into performance art,” said Gordon Flake, a Korea specialist and executive director of the Mansfield Foundation in Washington.
“When they have already declared the armistice null and void, I do not think a declaration of war breaks new ground,” Flake said.
But he added that the situation had now become so volatile that any slight miscalculation carried the potential for rapid escalation.
“The danger is, when the North Koreans have threatened a nuclear attack on Washington, they may not know a limit on how much they can get away with,” said Flake.
Both China and Russia called for calm Friday, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voicing particular concern.
“We can simply see the situation getting out of control, it would spiral down into a vicious circle,” Lavrov told reporters.
His warning came after North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un ordered missile units to prepare to strike US mainland and military bases, after US stealth bombers flew over South Korea.
The high-stakes standoff has its roots in North Korea’s successful long-range rocket launch in December and the third nuclear test it carried out in February.
Both events drew UN sanctions that incensed Pyongyang, which then switched the focus of its anger to the annual joint South Korea-US military drills.
As tensions escalated, Washington has maintained a notably assertive stance, publicising its use of nuclear-capable B-52s and B-2 stealth bombers in the war games.
The long-distance deployment of both sets of aircraft out of bases in Guam and the US mainland were intended as a clear signal of US commitment to defending South Korea against any act of aggression.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The cases mix up the cost of designing the logo and mark with the cost of implementing it. The BP rebrand was so expensive because of how much signage had to be changed all over the world.
If it is done on a gradual basis (as Irish Rail are doing for example) it costs very little. You just renew signage with the new mark as the old signage wears out.
Quite often these rebrands are supposed to be internally symbolic. They mark a major change in an organisation’s development. The costs of these changes of direction are usually confounded with the rebranding.
Imagine being payed 1.4million by the BBC and having the audacity to produce that. By no means a bad logo but sure someone at the BBC could have rustled that up themselves
According to this, I’m actually worth about €78 million.
Catch you drips later.
10 and 11 were ripped off
“Hey we have millions here to spend on a new logo”
“Hang on a second and let me open Microsoft Word”
I think the last couple are misleading. They are not the cost of the logo but of rebranding. That includes changing every petrol station and van/tanker logos in BPs case. British airways changed all their tail fins some years ago and I think it was 100 million. Then they changed them back as so many People complained.
Accenture? Ass-enter more like….
Ha! Classic!
Every time i see the olympics logo it just looks like lisa Simpson going down on bart, how was this not noticed before it was released?
BBC. 1.4 million. Seriously?
Accenture IT consultants in my opinion are the biggest chancers and spoofers in the business.
Red sells…
The Google, Coca Cola, Twitter logos have been redesigned multiple times. The designers who did that work were paid.
Most of the large amounts were for more than just a logo design and many of the low amounts are highly questionable. If windows logos were designed internally the staff’s wages are still an expense that has to be accounted for.
have your say