[ad_1]
The question was raised that a national media report that Bobwoodward, deputy editor of the Washington Post wrote in his new book ‘Rage’, that ‘the United States considered the use of 80 nuclear weapons in North Korea’ ‘was mistranslated. The translation is noted as the US response to North Korean use of 80 nuclear weapons, not the US.
On the morning of the 15th, the Blue House said that there was a bad translation and there was some commotion, how to correct this answer.
El Chosun Ilbo, on the cover of article 14, “Review of the use of 80 American nuclear weapons when the ICBM was fired in North Korea in 2017,” said: “In 2017, when tensions between the United States and Korea increased North, the United States revised Operation Plan 5027 with the intention of changing the North Korean regime. This reportedly includes the possibility of using 80 nuclear weapons, “he wrote.” This is the first time that the use of 80 weapons has been known to nuclear power plants is included in the ROK-US coalition plan in preparation for an all-out war between the two Koreas. ” Introducing the content of the book, the newspaper said: “At that time, the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, carefully reviewed and studied Operational Plan 5027 for regime change in North Korea. In response, a plan to use 80 nuclear weapons was also included. “
The JoongAng Ilbo reported on the same date, “Reviewing ‘Job 5027’ using 80 US nuclear weapons,” “Let’s launch ICBMs in North Korea in 2017,” “At that time, the United States revised the plan. 5027 with the intent to change the regime, and North Korea attacked the United States. The reaction that the United States responded with 80 nuclear weapons was reportedly included. ”On the same date, Dong-A Ilbo also said in the headline “Review of the Use of 80 US Nuclear Weapons in 2017 That Launched North Korea’s ICBM”, “At the time, US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, carefully reviewed plan 5027. The book reported that the US countermeasures against the problem included the use of 80 nuclear weapons. “
Yonhap News also said in the article “United States, North Korea ICBM-class firing, taking into account the distance Kim Jong-un is at,” the United States Nebraska Strategic Command carefully studied and reviewed the 5027 plan to regime change in North Korea. It is a response from the United States at that time, and it is amplified that it includes the possibility of using 80 nuclear weapons ”. In addition, most of the media interpreted and reported it as a review of the possibility of attacking 80 nuclear weapons by the United States.
However, on the morning of the 14th, in the article “United States, North Korea Hwaseong-14 firing Kim Jong-un’s position and launching a missile response,” Woodward said: “The United States’ response to an attack that it may involve the use of 80 nuclear weapons “(the US response to an attack that could include the use of 80 nuclear weapons), he wrote. “Experts estimate that North Korea has up to 80 nuclear weapons.” Unlike previous articles, it was not interpreted as a US attack, but rather as a US response to North Korea’s attacks on 80 nuclear weapons.
The Hankyoreh reported on page 10 of the article on page 10 of the 15th, “ Will the United States review North Korea’s attacks with 80 nuclear weapons? In the controversy over the “mistranslation” in Woodward’s original text, he noted that “this appears to be misinformation resulting from a translation error.”
In doing so, the original text of the problem was presented.
“The Strategic Command in Omaha had carefully reviewed and studied OPLAN 5027 for regime change in North Korea— America’s response to an attack that could include the use of 80 nuclear weapons.“
The Hankyoreh argued that “in context, it should be understood to mean that the United States has reviewed how the United States will respond to the possibility of attacking with 80 nuclear weapons, but it was reported in reverse.” A Foreign Ministry official also said: “The report appears to have originated from a bad translation,” the newspaper reported.
In fact, the sentence in question is written in the same text in Bobwoodward’s original new book (document file) obtained by Media Today. Even if translated literally in context, this part (the United States’ response to an attack that could include the use of 80 nuclear weapons)of It seems natural to interpret this as “the United States’ response to an attack that may involve the use of 80 nuclear weapons (from North Korea).”
In response, the Blue House said it was a translation error and said to check it immediately afterwards. A Blue House official said at a pending briefing in Cheongwadae Chunchugwan on the morning of the 15th, “The report of ‘reviewing 80 North Korean strikes with US nuclear weapons” actually misinterpreted the original text written as “The reaction of the United States. to North Korean attacks on 80 nuclear weapons ”. “What is the interpretation of the Blue House?” “I know it is partially mistranslated. I know that a full translation will be available today or tomorrow. “
Then when another reporter asked if it was the Cheong Wa Dae’s position that today’s Hankyoreh reported was a bad translation, the official said, “If it is related to the translation, I think I should check it after it comes out” and “I know which is partially mistranslated. ” In response to this journalist’s question, ‘Is there a bad translation?’, The Blue House official said: “Yes. I know there were some translation problems. “
After that, in less than 10 minutes, an official from the Blue House spokesman’s office reviewed the Blue House reporters’ post on the SNS messenger group, “At the 11:25 am briefing today, the ‘I know this is a bad translation’ is ‘Please check if the full text is published’. “We ask for your patience.”
Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry also announced that nuclear weapons are not included in the project. In a briefing on the morning of the 15th, Moon Hong-sik, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense, responded, “Yes, I hope you understand” to a questionnaire asking whether the media reported that we know there is no Nuclear weapons on the ground are correct.
Copyright © Media Today, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.
[ad_2]
