North Korea Says It Has Conducted Nuclear Test

ScentCone writes "North Korea says that it has conducted its first nuclear weapons test and 'brought happiness to its people.' Japan and China earlier issued an unusual joint statement saying that such a test would be 'unacceptable.' As of 11:10PM EST, the USGS says that it has not detected any unusual seismic activity on the Korean peninsula in the last 48 hours." From the article: "The North said last week it would conduct a test, sparking regional concern and frantic diplomatic efforts aimed at dissuading Pyongyang from such a move. North Korea has long claimed to have nuclear weapons, but had never before performed a known test to prove its arsenal. The nuclear test was conducted at 10:36 a.m. (0136 GMT) in Hwaderi near Kilju city, Yonhap reported, citing defense officials." Update: 10/09 05:50 GMT by J : The U.S. Geological Survey reports a 4.2 magnitude quake; South Korean news is reporting a 3.58 magnitude event; the White House apparently confirms a nuclear test.

Comments

If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

It scares the hell out of me.

Re:If this is true

[dorfmann]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.

Not only that, the North Koreans have claimed to have nukes for ages now. This sort of publically-announced test is just an extremely expensive and technologically advanced version of chest-beating.

HOWEVER, assuming you are American, if you (and a significant majority of your countrymen) allow this to scare you and both 1) reelect jingoist pro-war politicians, and 2) support launching a 'pre-emptive' war against North Korea, things will become very dreadful indeed for the Korean peninsula.

As a wise man once said, 'the only thing to fear is fear itself'.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

We won't be launching any kind of war against North Korea, pre-emptive or otherwise. Like all bullies, Bush is, at heart, a pussy. If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?

If anyone has anything to worry about, it's... /spins the wheel /round and round she goes /round and round /click, click... /click ... Botswana. Yessirree, Bob, we've got to fight them there, in Botswana, so we don't have to fight them here! Yee. Haw.

Re:If this is true

[10e6Steve]

We are sitting at 7 minutes to midnight. Will the clock change?

Re:If this is true

[lordofthechia]

"Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have"

Nukes may be useless in that it's pointless to launch them (unless you do want to bring about the armageddon), but they do have a purpose. Being a nuclear power almost guarantees that your country won't get invaded. Nobody would risk you launching your nukes as a last ditch effort to "save" your country.

Reason it's called a peacetime weapon.

Re:If this is true

[WindBourne]

Just because you have nukes and rockets, does not mean that you can launch them. In fact, I seriously doubt that NK has that capability. As such, it is better for us to attack now as they can NOT use their bomb.

Re:If this is true

[stinerman]

Being a nuclear power almost guarantees that your country won't get invaded.

That isn't true under all circumstances. You'll still get invaded if you have no credible 2nd strike capability (ie. I'll nuke your nukes). You'll also get invaded if your enemies believe you aren't a rational actor.

The DPRK/Kim Jong-Il is neither of these.

Re:If this is true

[supabeast!]

"Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them."

That's not really true-nukes make a great deterrent against attacks and developing them has great propagandist value. Beyond that, you base your statement on the premise that the weapons are useless because launching one nuke leads to nuclear warfare, in which no one wins. The problem is that not all nations have leaders who are even remotely sane, and Kim Jong Il is probably the craziest world leader to come along, well, ever. As crazy as he was, at least Hitler's agenda didn't completely revolve around himself. But if Kim Jong Il is feeling wacky and just wants to nuke a neighbor for kicks, it's going to happen.

Re:If this is true

[lordofthechia]

I would venture they can launch a nuke on South Korea. I'm afraid if this is real this is what's gonna happen:

* US and other countries send Diplomats to get NK to disarm
* North Korea warns other countries to stay out of it's "affairs" or else.
* NK newest "internal affair" the re-unification of North and South Korea
* After an invasion of South Korea the US is left with an ugly choice, let SK fall or risk Nuclear retalliation against a 3rd neighboring coutnry from the NK.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (and god I hope I'm wrong) but with NK's history of covert aggression against the South, isn't this the most logical progression? Unless were lead to believe that Kim Jong-il has no ambitions beyond his borders. And according to this the north does have short and medium range missles...

Re:If this is true

[Flwyd]

Understanding the MADness of Mutually Assured Destruction requires a bit of mental gymnastics.

Thinking with MADness, it's in North Korea's interest to convince the world that it has nukes. Without nukes, they have no feasible deterrent against an army of superior strength (U.S., China, etc.).

When dealing with nuclear weapons, safe is better than sorry, so when someone announces "We have nuclear weapons," one should act as if they did. However, repeated claims without evidence can lead others to think the claimant is bluffing. The next step is therefore to perform a nuclear test, proving "Yes, I am a skunk, and yes, my glands are charged." It's no coincidence that India and Pakistan conducted their first nuclear tests within about a month of each other. It's a high stakes, high tech, high investment Mexican standoff.

So in one sense, "nukes are the most useless weapon" because they take an enormous amount of resources for a handfull of bombs the owners hope to never use. On the other hand, building a single nuclear bomb can be a lot more cost effective than establishing a large enough army to deter one's enemies.

It does not make me comfortable to know that people like Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush are in charge of weapons of mass destruction. As Robert McNamara revealed in The Fog of War, the fate of the world could rest on having inaccurate information.

The technology problem has been solved. Now it becomes a political and psychological problem. To see how small things can lead to big problems, watch Dr. Strangelove, perhaps the only movie I think everyone should watch.

Re:If this is true

[Grym]

That isn't true under all circumstances. You'll still get invaded if you have no credible 2nd strike capability (ie. I'll nuke your nukes).

Second Strike capability is really a bit of a misnomer, because things like nuclear counter-attack submarines are simply a gaurentee of retaliation but not actually a requirement for retaliation to take place.

Take Cuba, for instance, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had no second strike capability. And yet, the defense estimates at the time suggested that even after a massive carpet bombing campaign unparallleled in history which would produce similar devestation to multiple nuclear weapons, Cuba would still be likely to retaliate and hit at least one major American city with one of its nukes.

All it takes is one hidden missile silo or the survival of a single a mobile launcher. Would you be willing to risk it? JFK wasn't--and because of that, he probably saved a lot of people's lives.

-Grym

Re:If this is true

[donaldm]

When any nuclear device is exploded it would normally be detected as seismic activity, if this is not detected then N Korea has not tested a nuclear device unless they were running an emulation such as an arcade copy of Defender (sorry could not resist that).

Even China who is N Korea's closest ally would not like to see them with atomic weapons since China is right on their boarder and any nuclear war exchange would be just as devastating to China, so I think you will find the Chinese Government is working behind the scenes to prevent N Korea becoming a nuclear power, however the N Korean Government is really just a one man show and this is dangerous to all countries in the region.

Actually the greatest issue facing our world today is the generation of power and as more nations require increasing amounts power the problem is going to get worse. Nuclear energy is a viable energy resource along with coal and alternative (so called green) resources. So I can understand countries using Nuclear power but when that research is directed to weapons development especially if the Government is unstable or fanatical then there really is a very dangerous tip to the balance of power. To date we have always had rational pragmatic Governments who have had access to the "Doomsday Button" but this is changing and it is this that is quite worrying.

Re:If this is true

[flooey]

After an invasion of South Korea the US is left with an ugly choice, let SK fall or risk Nuclear retalliation against a 3rd neighboring coutnry from the NK.

I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of the Korean DMZ. The zone itself is covered in landmines, and each side has more than a million men guarding it (with United States troops already being part of the South Korean force). An invasion by either side would be a long and bloody struggle to get more than a couple miles into the other country.

Re:If this is true

[modecx]

You'll also get invaded if your enemies believe you aren't a rational actor.

You think so? Personally, I think that's precisely a good reason not to invade. Knowing ol' Kimmy, he'd nuke your invading forces inside of his borders, even if they occupied an area populated by a bunch of his people. He'd turn around and say that being vaporized 'brought happiness to the people of North Korea, and the patrriotic people enjoyed having their flesh melt off of their bones'

I'd give 'em credit for that kind of move, so long as he thought such a move wouldn't signifigantly disrupt his sphere of influence--his ability to make everyone do what he and his generals want them to do. I think he could easily get away with using a tactical size nuke to stop invading forces, even if it took out a few dozen villages, and only his generals would have a chance to dispose him afterwards.

Re:If this is true

[Trailwalker]

MacArthur's Inchon landing was a good example of how to flank fixed lines.

Re:If this is true

[forgoil]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country with rational leaders can have.

Observer, rational. Don't forget about what kind of leader they have over there, which is considered to be God basically. Historically people like that have done very very mad things, so I don't see a reason why we shouldn't consider North Korea not only capable but also willing to launch a Nuke...

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, nobody could possibly figure out how to bypass that border.

I hate to break it to you, it is no longer 1917.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

JFK wasn't--and because of that, he probably saved a lot of people's lives.

JFK was worried about West Germany. He said so, repeatedly, on tape. Cuba was 100% US vs. Soviet cold war.

One city is a casualty. When the shit hits the fan the US won't knuckle under to some regime for one city. That is the only "fact" worthy of credit. A nuclear exchange hasn't happened on Earth yet for one reason; at no time in our past has there ever been the slightest doubt about the ability and willingness of the US to retaliate effectively under all conditions. You, your ancestors and all your spawn own their lives to it.

Re:If this is true

[Maxo-Texas]

They also prevent use of concentrated large groups of troops against you.

Re:If this is true

[Adambomb]

For that we have this, the Trace-buster-buster!

Re:If this is true

[whereiseljefe]

Actually, sending in people you care deeply about tends to hamper you abilities to fight a war. Take for instance McClellan during the U.S. Civil War. Had he not been afraid to use the North's overwhelming numbers, McClellan would have ended the civil war much earlier than it did (it took Grant to realize that all he had to do was send wave after wave of troops and he would break Lee, despite the fact that McClellan was the only Northern commander that was near the intellectual level of General Lee).

That being said, what you are trying to say is it would be wrong for Bush to pull strings to keep his loved ones out of harms way, which if he does have anyone in the military (I smell an entire family tree of ivy league pussies... W's dad must feel greatly dissapointed) I have no doubt we would have done that.

As to your last part, I'm tired of that damned argument. These kids willingly joined the army, yes to pay for college, but they were told repeatedly and voluntarily swore an oath (no fucking fine print) that when the U.S. goes to war, they will probably have to ship off and if that is the case, there is nothing they can do about it. I feel little sympathy for these kids, I mean it sucks over there but you did sign up with the military, what did you expect? Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

Re:If this is true

[OverlordQ]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.

Bwahahahah, you think the DPRK is that rational? You think they're that *sane*?

Re:If this is true

[whereiseljefe]

You have to have the numbers to pull those off. Falling airborn troops become skeet practice (fuck up their parachute and no more soldier), not to mention anti-air defenses (south korea most definitely will have our patriot missile system), and landing craft are bottlenecks. Aim your machine guns at the exit and voila.

Re:If this is true

[xQx]

Who said anything about needing to use the nuke on another country?

Any halfwit -- and even most of our world leaders -- understand that launching a nuke towards any country will result in you being obliterated by nukes from them and their allies.

It's just as effective to setup the nuke in a capacity where it will obliterate your country fully when detonated, then telling the world if you can't have your country, nobody can.

C'mon, surely you've all watched Dr. Strangelove (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)

Re:If this is true

[nordicfrost]

What people are forgetting is the clear and present danger NK presents to China. NK is still stuck in a cold war with the US and SK, while China has moved on. Remember; NK lives on good will from China, and there are almost no defenses on the border to China. The DMZ is a nightmare for invading, but the north border is just to walk over. Mark my words, if there's an invasion of NK, the Chinese are on the side of the West and probably among SK soldiers. The political views of NK are a far cry from what China wants as its neighbour.

Re:If this is true

[crazyeddie740]

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure how much NK having nukes changes the situation. They already have enough conventional weapons to completely ruin South Korea's day. (Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ, as somebody else pointed out.) Japan is definitely within range of their missles, so NK having nukes does up the ante a bit there. The Japanese might loose a few cities they are fond of (that doesn't seem fair somehow - they got nuked last time, it should be somebody else's turn now). And, depending on how well you think North Korea's long range missle program is going, we could stand to loose San Francisco. (A pity, I rather like Emperor Norton...)

Of course, once Kim Jong-il fires all of that off, he's going to be in deep trouble. The DMZ might be fortified to a fare-thee-well, but North Korea's air force is a joke. Invading might be problematic, but we can definitely bomb them back to the Stone Age while we're working on it. And if he does push the big red button, we *will* invade. Also, if Kim goes *that* crazy, we'll probably also have the Chinese helping us. I think even they would prefer to have a reunifed and democratic Korea as a neighbor rather than a mad-dog nuclear state.

I don't think Kim having nukes really tips the balance that much. It just ups the ante, which was already pretty high. The scary thing is, I'm not entirely sure we can trust Kim not to put one of these babies on the open market. Mutual assured destruction won't work too well against Al Qaeda. On the up side, I don't think Kim has too many of these, so the asking price will be more than even Al Qaeda is going to be able to pay.

Re:If this is true

[smittyoneeach]

To China NK is a giant piece of schadenfreude.
For the cost of a diplomatically obnoxious neighbor, China gets:

• A nice buffer state to insulate China from all that bad, bad capital in SK and Japan
• A government so backwards as to make the Beijing regime "no' so bad" in comparison

If China would just work a little harder at empathizing with NK, it could almost be Anderson Cooper.

Re:If this is true

[eyeye]

Don't worry i'm sure Condaleeza Rice will get to it, just after she has finished touring the world trying to warn everyone how dangerous luminous watch hands made by Iran are.

Re:If this is true

[gerardrj]

Yea, cause the Patriot missile system did such a bang-up job in its fist deployment. By all accounts the Patriot failed to ever hit a target and is known to have rained down debris on the bystander population causing possibly more damage than the incoming missiles did.
The Patriot missile system has yet, to my knowledge, to have an undisputed, confirmed kill in an actual combat deployment scenario. Software timing glitches, guidance failures, tracking failures, weather, jamming, etc. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to the system, never mind the security of my nation's borders.

Re:If this is true

[polar red]

I feel little sympathy for these kids, I mean it sucks over there but you did sign up with the military, what did you expect? Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? One wonders whether the poverty in some regions in the US is a result of bad government. (like lack of resources for education to name one example.)

Re:If this is true

[ArwynH]

North Korea's leaders are rational. They are power-hungry dictators with little respect for others, but they're rational. I very much doubt they have any intention to use those weapons against either south korea, japan or china because they know they will die (The US and China have Nukes too) if they do and power-hungry dictators tend to fear death.

No, what you really should be fearing is Religious Fanatics (Iran anyone?) getting hold of Nukes. They are the ones prone to suicide attacks. Mind you the leaders of religious fanatical groups tend to be power-hungry dictators with little respect for others or God, so um... while it is more likely for Iran to use Nukes than it is for North Korea to use them, it's still pretty unlikely.

Re:If this is true

[lachlan76]

JFK wasn't--and because of that, he probably saved a lot of people's lives.

There was also the possibility of the Soviets attacking. It's not as though JFK didn't intend to attack; the invasion was scheduled for the day after Khrushchev backed down.

Had the air force not been so slow about removing the missiles from Turkey (Kennedy had ordered them removed in 1961, IIRC) he might not have had anything to negotiate the removal of the missiles from Cuba. But then again, the Soviets might not have felt pressured to put missiles in Cuba.

Re:If this is true

[93 Escort Wagon]

"Thinking with MADness, it's in North Korea's interest to convince the world that it has nukes. Without nukes, they have no feasible deterrent against an army of superior strength (U.S., China, etc.)."

I think there's a bigger picture here, and most people are missing it. While it's true that a nuke has some deterrent value militarily, with North Korea it has another role - it's the only thing they've got that keeps them at all relevant in the region. They basically don't produce anything of value; their people are probably 100 years behind the times in terms of economic production (heck, they are barely staying alive by most accounts); and they have no particularly valuable natural resources AFAIK.

We've been arguing with them about nukes for at least a decade. It doesn't seem likely that they'll give away the only card they've got in their hand. Eventually, some bright boy in the military (that Kim somehow missed eliminating) may solve this particular problem for us, but I'm afraid even then it's going to be very expensive for the west, unless we're willing to watch millions die of starvation. And that's the BEST case scenario!

Re:If this is true

[QuantumG]

That's the point.

Re:If this is true

[jcr]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them.

I wouldn't say it's useless to force a stalemate. Nukes are probably what prevented the cold war turning into WW3.

-jcr

Re:If this is true

[whereiseljefe]

??

And you're going where with this?

Poverty in regions is a big mix of factors, from lack of government funding for education to lack of jobs provided by the private sector to sometimes the general unwillingness of the local population really work for what they want (the lazy bum defense). Still doesn't prevent a kid from joining the national guard or the coast guard.

Every choice we make has consequences and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Re:If this is true

[polar red]

I suggest YOU go first. Here's your helmet, your weapon and your gasmask.

Re:If this is true

[jcr]

If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?

The question was actually whether he stlll had them. His use of chemical weapons and his program to develop nukes was not in doubt. The cease-fire that he agreed to after being ejected from Kuwait obligated Iraq to destroy those weapons, and prove that they had done so. It was not the job of the weapons inspectors to go hunting for them. Their job was to witness, document and audit Iraq's disarmament.

-jcr

Re:If this is true

[SEE]

Being a nuclear power almost guarantees that your country won't get invaded.

Having a defense guarantee from an allied nuclear power is considered to be similarly protective, as is having the capital of your nearest hostile neighbor under your guns.

That is, North Korea doesn't need a deterrent against the U.S., because it has a defense guarantee from China and artillery in place plenty capable of pulverizing Seoul, able to inflict tens to hundreds of thousands of casualties. If North Korea is being rational, and is doing this to have deterrent to invasion, the country they're trying to deter from invading is China.

On the other hand, they may not be trying to deter a Chinese invasion. They might be trying to deter, say, a U.S. defense of South Korea in case of a North Korean invasion. One way to do that is to say, to Japan, "You interfere, and we'll nuke Tokyo". That could quite well get the Japanese to deny the U.S. use of Okinawa, which would logistically cripple any U.S. military response. While NK might not have the ability to hit the U.S. with a nuke at this time, they certainly could hit Japan with one (if the missile doesn't blow up in flight).

Re:If this is true

[jcr]

This sort of publically-announced test is just an extremely expensive and technologically advanced version of chest-beating.

I'd describe it more as highly-aggressive panhandling. What the repugnant little runt expects, and what he's gotten in the past, is a package of bribes to get more empty promises out of him.

The North Korean economy is a complete basket case, as one would expect from one of the last two Stalinist regimes on earth. All that's keeping North Korea from collapsing into famine AGAIN, is the largess of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China.

-jcr

Re:If this is true

[mikek3332002]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country with rational leaders can have. But are the leaders rational thinkers?

Re:If this is true

[polar red]

50 years ago we tried to do the right thing in N Korea, and look at us now. If the US didn't, what would the situation be ? The Korean people would by now have a more democratic leadership; at least a not so crazy one. My Message : stop interfering!

Re:If this is true

[flyingfsck]

You don't have to launch them - put a nuke in a submarine and drop it in the mud of an enemy harbour, then phone the prez and tell him that it would be wise for him to start negotiations...

Re:If this is true

[DDLKermit007]

Remember...nukes DO serve a purpose, but not to the general sane part of the population. Bush belongs to the crazed Evangelical side that believes that armed conflicts + nukes = closer to Armageddon happening in their time. Nukes are the part where Armageddon sets in and they all get to go off to lala land and meet god. Flipping loons. They have the delusion that causing other's pain to bring about Armageddon is a GOOD thing.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I notice you only discuss their first deployment while ignoring their second major deployment (Iraq) where they were proven very successful. And yes, they have had several independently confirmed kills in actual combat deployment scenarios. Perhaps you should update your knowledge.

Re:If this is true

[jcr]

MacArthur had a Navy to help him.

-jcr

Re:If this is true

[Otto-Marrakech]

Coward is your second name.

Re:If this is true

[gmuslera]

Too bad there is no "peacetime" now.

In one side, we have someone that (not having personal opinion on him) could be paranoid, could be aggresive, could just need to take some measure to prevent that the other side put him in the "axis of evil" or whatever rimbombant name and fulfill his promise of invade him.

In the other side we have someone that looks more worried about gaining more executive power, winning more elections for him or his party (hey, we are in war times, we suspend for now elections for the good of everyone, or just scare all to death if they dont reelect him , his uncle, brother, cousing or his party), than for human lifes (how many civilians died in iraq/afganistan/wherever from direct US troops actions?), human rights (guantanamo), international rights (invading soberan country with excuses that were clear for anyone that were false) or anything else. I can hear lines like "the world cant be hostage of a madman, we must invade" coming, preemtive strikes, dont giving a shit for millons of people of that far away region dying, and if nukes are used killing who know how many innocent people, maybe not even hear an "oops" for the really responsable ones.

Too bad there are no large deposits of oil in NK, that could had saved them of what could come.

Re:If this is true

[Tom]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them.

They aren't for use, they're for having, much like an insurance. Think about them as an anti-being-liberated-by-the-US insurance. If Iraq really had had some nukes, they wouldn't have been invaded.

Re:If this is true

[orange]

It scares the hell out of me.

Yeah - you don't want someone unknowledgeable about the world at large, who steals elections, who unilaterally invades contries and who warantlessly spies on their own citizens to have an a-bomb......

oh shite!

Re:If this is true

[cunina]

Please cite a single statement or policy paper from any Bush official, or from anyone with significant influence on administration policy, that advocates nuclear armageddon.

Re:If this is true

[identity0]

A flanking manouver around the Korean peninsula would be very difficult for anyone but the U.S. to do. It takes a huge amount of resources to land enough troops to be useful in an amphibious assault. In fact, given the amount of western naval power, it's unlikely N.K. will even try to get more than a few commando teams ashore. Airborne units are also not likely to succeed given the amount of air defenses in S.K. The best bet for N.K. to bypass defenses would be a tunnel like the ones that have been found in the past, but I would imagine any such tunnel would be bombed as soon as troops started coming out of an entrance at the surface.

The DMZ and defensive line crosses the entire peninsula and is guarded by hundreds of thousands of troops. It's also got a huge amount of artillery to counter the N.K. artillary, so you would have to land a very large number of troops in a wide area in order to be useful.

You have to remember that N.K. may have nukes, but their conventional forces are probobly stuck in the 1950s, if not 1917.

Re:If this is true

[j35ter]

You'll also get invaded if your enemies believe you aren't a rational actor.

You just described the problemof cultural differences. To us its not rational to force women to cover their head/face/ancles/..., to forbid pornography, enforce strict gun control, publicly execute criminals, and so on.
To many, its unconceivable that people openly accept prostitution, pornography, open sales of a Barret .50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_(rifle), sleazy lawyers, and so on

If what you said was true, history would have been much different, since rationality always was a matter of cultural fashion.
Oh btw, you just justified the 9/11 attacks with Bushs stup...*cough*...irrationality :)

Re:If this is true

[FST777]

The point is: I trust that analogy between, say, the US and the USSR. Not between the US and NK. Not that I don't trust the US (well, I don't, but I do in this manner). I highly doubt if the minds of the higher NK's are sane enough to decide to wait with attacking before being attacked. I suspect them from using the nuke as soon as they have build one.

Re:If this is true

[jmo_jon]

I can't understand what the fuzz is all about. Sure NK isn't the most pleasant country in the world but it's their right to get nukes if they so wishes. They aren't members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so why can't they have their nukes?

I didn't see this when Pakistan, India and Israel got their nukes. I'd say all three of thoose nations are more likely to use their nukes.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

North Korea doesn't need a deterrent because the US won't invade unless North Korea crosses the border first. The US has seen significantly more hawkish characters than Bush and Rumsfeld on the topic of Korea. No one wants to fight there. It's horrendously mountainous, the winters are bitter cold, and the elite corps that would be handling any nuclear weapons are bound to be even more fanatical than the best of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

That said, the descriptions from the Russians about North Korea's bomb place it at 3m in length and weighing about four tons, which is far more than any North Korean missile can mount and more than most of their planes can handle. There is zero chance of North Korea mounting nuclear missile attack in the next few years, and they would have to learn some very powerful miniaturization tricks before they could threaten anyone at a significant range.

Re:If this is true

[smilindog2000]

It sure as heck should be scared! If you haven't read this yet, you gotta check it out:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= /opinion/2006/04/16/do1609.xml

The other really scare force in the world is well documented here:

        http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmare s

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

The US did do the right thing in Korea. It was China sending millions of troops across the border to reinforce the North Koreans that set things back. Had MacArthur had the chance to use nuclear weapons on China, it would have opened the path for the Soviets to use them, and the chances for a large-scale nuclear war would have grown much bigger.

The first use of nuclear weapons was an awakening for the world, and they saw something to fear: Pandora's Box. No one wanted -- or wants -- to turn its key.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed the part where you explained why it's any of our concern what weapons Saddam had or didn't have. Hell, whatever he did have, we probably sold to him in the first place.

Re:If this is true

[polar red]

That's : His use of chemical American-made weapons

Re:If this is true

[1u3hr]

The cease-fire that he agreed to after being ejected from Kuwait obligated Iraq to destroy those weapons, and prove that they had done so. It was not the job of the weapons inspectors to go hunting for them. Their job was to witness, document and audit Iraq's disarmament.

Trying to prove you destroyed something ten years ago isn't that easy. Nevertheless, Saddam did satisfy the inspectors that he had done so. Bush chose to stick his fingers in his ears and say "La La La 9-11 Al Qaeda WMD!" and sent in the troops anyway.

Re:If this is true

[shutdown -p now]

The real difference is that, with NK having the nukes, it will be a powerful psychological motivator for U.S. population to oppose any prospect of war with NK.

Re:If this is true

[shutdown -p now]

at no time in our past has there ever been the slightest doubt about the ability and willingness of the US to retaliate effectively under all conditions.

Surely you meant to write "ability and willingness of the US and the USSR to retaliate" there?

Re:If this is true

[flirek]

why? i'm quite more affraid of 1000+ ready ICBMs in US/Russian arsenal. with american threat to use nukes i dont see any difference to small country which can produce at most few of them, with limited range and precision.

Re:If this is true

[4D6963]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them

Very true, however I don't think they are uselss. It would be like saying that a gun without bullets in is completly useless. It's not because you can still point it at people and make then think you're gonna shoot. I'm pretty sure that some conflicts such as invasions have been avoided thanks to dissuasion from nuclear weapons. After all, would Russian and American troops have looked at each other in the eyes in Berlin in the 1960's if it weren't for nuclear weapons?

Anyways I'm pretty sure that it explains why terrorism has been fashionable lately, because you just can't as a country attack the UK or the USA, because if you do you'll get nuked, so your only solution is to attack not as a country but as an independant group, in other words a terrorist group.

This being said, I think it's fine that Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons, because as you said nobody's gonna use them anyways, and it guarantees that they -particularly Iran- won't get invaded or attacked, because unlike what you can hear sometimes, you do not attack a country that actually has weapons of mass destruction.

Re:If this is true

[Tony Hoyle]

Well, the book of revelation for a start.

The US is run and controlled by fundamentalists. Armageddon would suit them just fine.. although half of them can't agree whether to wait for the rapture first or not.

Re:If this is true

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

So in one sense, "nukes are the most useless weapon" because they take an enormous amount of resources for a handfull of bombs the owners hope to never use.

Actually, in the Sun Tzu sense, nukes are the perfect weapon. They allow you to win a war without ever firing a shot.

Re:If this is true

[1u3hr]

50 years ago we tried to do the right thing in N Korea, and look at us now. If the US didn't, what would the situation be ? The Korean people would by now have a more democratic leadership; at least a not so crazy one. My Message : stop interfering!

Hey, I'm a pretty vicious critic of the US's current policies, but in Korea 1950s they were right. If the US hadn't pushed back the North's invasion, lead by Kim Il Sung, the current Dear Leader's father, the whole peninsula would have been under their rule. Very likely, emboldened by that, the Kims would have proceeded to threaten Japan and other neighbours. Japan and the US would have responded, and China (under Mao) would have backed Korea up. After that, it gets more unpredictable, but undoubtedly terrible.

Re:If this is true

[Lord Kano]

As such, it is better for us to attack now as they can NOT use their bomb.

They can't use it against us, but they can use it against our allies in the region. An unguided rocket can deliver a nuclear payload well into South Korea. The Mig 21s that North Korea certainly has in their fleet can easily carry a nuclear payload as far as Japan.

If we attack them, they will use their weapon(s) against our allies.

LK

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

But the poster you are replying to is correct in stating that he parent is wrong. If you are a country that is not the United States and your policies, culture, national interests or form of government conflicts with the national interests of the United States, then nuclear weapons are not only a useful weapon, they are the ONLY useful weapon.

Iraq did not have nukes and we knew this and we invaded.
North Korea is worse than Iraq and Iran, has nukes, and we will NEVER invade.
Iran doesn't have nukes, and we are pushing to invade before they get them.

The message is clear: if you don't have nuclear weapons and the U.S. doesn't like you, you'd damned well better get them ASAP.

Re:If this is true

[awful]

There are a variety of complicating factors as to what all this adds up to, but the unifying element is Japan.

Since WW2 Japan has had an explicitly 'peaceful' constitution that precludes it from engaging in any military action other than self-defense.

In recent years though Japanese politicians and strategists have been reconsidering this posture, due largely to the continuing belligerence of North Korea, and more recently because of the strong nationalist and anti-Japan sentiments emanating from China.

Memory of Japanese nationalism and militarism within East Asia is very very strong (partly because of Chinese govt efforts to remind everyone of Japan's atrocities at every opportunity). There is great suspicion within China and Korea (Nth and Sth) of Japan. If Japan becomes alarmed by Nth Korea's (and they will) they may start down the path of a more expressly offensive military posture, even to the point of pursuing their own weapon. At this point China would be very very angry and nervous indeed. An arms race in East Asia is a real possibility.

In this light - the absolute best thing the US government can do right now is to immediately reassure the Japanese government and people that they are still very much protected by the US nuclear umbrella, that there is no need for Japan to pursue its own nuke, and that they should restrain their understandable urge to assume a more offensive military posture.

In this situation the US needs to make sure that there is no possible excuse for China and Japan, and to a lesser extent, Sth Korea, to begin an arms race. The best way to do that is restrain Japanese militarism, be firm with Nth Korea, and involve China in everything it does to resolve the situation.

The wild card in all of this is Taiwan. Taiwan is going through a very interesting political situation - and Taiwanese pro-independence politicians might be considering using such sentiment to shore up their own position (rocked by a corruption scandal). Taiwanese independence will almost certainly force China to attack Taiwan (they've always said they would), and so the US could be dragged into a war it can't actually fight.

We live in VERY interesting times.

Re:If this is true

[polar red]

I don't agree, if the west hadn't interefered, the people would eventually have revolted, but when the us attacked, the leader could use this too smother all dissidents. His regime would never have survived 50 years of resistance.

Re:If this is true

[walnutmon]

I don't like George Bush, but I don't think he is as avengelical as you think he is. He may not be very good at running the country, but he is a cunning polotician. Just because he says something, or states some belief, doesn't mean that it is true. Specifically when dealing with elections and winning a giant portion of the country on religious beliefs alone.

Re:If this is true

[stirz]

Reminds me of this popular Einstein-quotation: "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

No matter how "heavy" the nuclear explosion might have been, it's scary to think about *any* agression using non-conventional weapons.

Regards,
Stirz

Re:If this is true

[Lord Kano]

That could quite well get the Japanese to deny the U.S. use of Okinawa, which would logistically cripple any U.S. military response.

It would hurt, but the US would move some aircraft carriers and destroyers off of the North Korean coast and glass Pyongyang.

LK

Re:If this is true

[illspirit]

WTF is so "unconceivable" about a Barret .50 that it required its own link? Unless you think the Brady moonbats are going to start invading countries or something...

Re:If this is true

[onerob]

"Everyone in the civilized world knew that Iraq was bombed to stone age on Gulf war"

Actually, this isn't true. WMD elements were being destroyed in the mid nineties by the U.N (who only found some of it after information was received from defectors).
Foreign intelligence agencies (not simply U.S and U.K.) were telling their governments that Sadam had most likely NOT destroyed all the gear.

Not that it was ever a really good idea to invade.

Re:If this is true

[kbielefe]

He'd never actually send anyone he cared about into war

He must not care about himself then, because he put himself at risk of being sent into war for over 5 years as a young man. And don't forget the war has been going on long enough that most if not every soldier currently in Iraq knew they had a good chance of going there when they enlisted or re-upped, and chose to do so anyway.

Believe it or not, there are many thousands of people who think stability in Iraq is worth dying for, even knowing what we know today. So if your opinion of the war depends on believing that for no good reason Bush is heartlessly sending people to die against their will, then you might want to rethink your reasons for opposing the war. If you still disagree, then I can respect that as a difference of opinion.

Re:If this is true

[ray-auch]

Too easy, google for patriot missile downed gives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

Yep, confirmed patriot kill, right at the top of the list. Way to go.

Re:If this is true

[Greventls]

That kinda makes him sound like a patriotic American. While Haliburton is outsourcing, here is some foreigner supporting us.

Re:If this is true

[Pecisk]

No, there is no real difference, because Americans - well, at least lot of them - know how big is North Korean army that casualties will be too high at American side to take any war with NK. Of course, if NK crosses border - drops bomb on some city, or gives serious signals to do that - then US will have to attack, as China and Japan too.

Re:If this is true

[Cicero382]

"landing craft are bottlenecks. Aim your machine guns at the exit and voila."

Try telling that to the Germans in Normandy in 1945.

Re:If this is true

[Lonewolf666]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.

True, but only if both sides have them.
If only one side has them, there is no threat of retaliation and the nukes may actually be used. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Re:If this is true

[Braintrust]

Hear, hear.

Re:If this is true

[Cicero382]

...or even 1944.

Sorry the TARDIS had a glitch.

Re:If this is true

[mlk]

They do have one very scary use. Cash. I'm sure a nuke would get a high price on the open market.

Re:If this is true

[jacquesm]

a small - but significant - problem with this line of reasoning is that you assume that the people with their fingers on the respective buttons are sane. In the case of North Korea that's a definite NO, in the case of the US the jury is still out. Pakistan is on the edge, China is probably ok and England and France are probably too. Russia on the other hand is so fragmented that it has a hard time of keeping track of it's inventory.

Religious zeal or insanity, it doesn't really matter some people can't get to their version of the afterlife fast enough and they would not mind taking a few hundred thousand with them.

Re:If this is true

[Cicero382]

"We live in VERY interesting times."

How true. And how appropriate that this is a traditional *Chinese* curse. "May you live in interesting times".

But you knew that, didn't you?

Re:If this is true

[xoyoyo]

And underneath that is a picture of the ITN journalist the US army shot while travelling in a big bus with PRESS on the side.

And Americans wonder why we expect them to fight our wars for them: all things considered we're much safer stood behind your field of fire.

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

The headline that would cause the US to invade North Korea isn't North Korea says it has conducted nuclear tests, but North Korea discovers large deposit of oil.

Re:If this is true

[j35ter]

To me its inconceivable that someone acually *sells* or *buys* these weapons!
whats their purpose? hunting tanks? selfdefense against helicopters? ... Oh, might it be plainly killing people from a distance?
AFAIK many pople are not aware that these killing devices can be bought openly in quite a few coutries (Oh, I think Yemen banned the open sale of these so there is only one country left...)

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

he put himself at risk of being sent into war for over 5 years as a young man

Like most rich dads, Bush's father pulled strings to get him a safe posting.

the war has been going on long enough that most if not every soldier currently in Iraq knew they had a good chance of going there when they enlisted or re-upped

There are actually soldiers in Iraq who WANTED to come home at the end of their service, but were forced to stay on due to lack of numbers.

Re:If this is true

[1u3hr]

I don't agree, if the west hadn't interefered, the people would eventually have revolted, but when the us attacked, the leader could use this too smother all dissidents.

The Kims would have had no trouble creating enemies. Japan, as I mentioned. And even if the US had not sent in troops, they would remain an object of fear and hate. The variable is China. Perhaps without needing a buffer against a capitalist South Korea, China would have tired of supporting the crumbling economy and let it collapse. But millions could have died in that process, or China may have annexed it.

Re:If this is true

[arivanov]

You have no idea how close are you to the truth. There are some gas and oil deposits in the surrounding seas and for example China has non-stop quarrels with Vietnam on the subject. No idea if any are within North Korean territorial waters.

Re:If this is true

[Opportunist]

Nukes ain't meant to save you. They are meant to kill the other one too. A nuke is a last resort suicide bomb that you use when you lost already, only to make sure that your opponent doesn't win.

Re:If this is true

[dackroyd]

Amir Taheri, the author of that piece is a known fabricator of lies about Iran

From Wikipedia



On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published two pieces, one by Taheri, claiming that the Iranian parliament passed a law that "envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public." Iranian sources say Taheri had taken an Iranian Parliament discussion on a dress code law to have Muslims wear garments that showed you were a Muslim, and reported the event as a law being passed requiring Jews to wear badges as under the Nazis. Current Iranian law does require Jews to identify themselves as such if they sell food, but Iran claims badges for Jews was not actually under discussion nor in the law. Taheri states that his report is correct and that the dress code law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. He does not claim badges for Jews are in the law, but does say that special markers for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism are under discussion as a means to implement the law.

The National Post retracted the story several hours after it was posted online. The newspaper blamed Taheri for the falsehood in the article, [4] [5] and published a full apology on May 24.

Please to not be accepting propaganda as truth.

Re:If this is true

[coaxial]

I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of the Korean DMZ. The zone itself is covered in landmines, and each side has more than a million men guarding it (with United States troops already being part of the South Korean force). An invasion by either side would be a long and bloody struggle to get more than a couple miles into the other country.

Wrong. North Korea has 70% of its army already stationed along the DMZ, with numerous tunnels to move troops and material under it. It undoubtedly has laready targeted every defense structure along the DMZ and several miles inland, as the South Koreans and the US no doubt have with respect to North Korean defenses. According to Pentagon estimates, a North Korean surprise attack would easily overwelm the forces currently stationed in South Korea. In fact OPLAN 5027 assumes that any ROK-US counterattack would begin at least 20 miles south of the DMZ on day 20 to 35 of the invasion.

Now there are some civilian anaylsists that suggest that the DoD is overestimating the initial effectiveness of a DPRK invasion, but I believe Iraq has shown how well political motivated think tanks plan a war.

Re:If this is true

[Opportunist]

Most of all Ol' Mac had an armed force that was on top of the world considering equipment and training, lined with battle hardened WW2 veterans and everything a General can dream of, and he had an opponent that didn't think anyone would be so outright STUPID to try a stunt like this.

Think of the trojan horse. A great success, but it only worked once in history.

Re:If this is true

[bobscealy]

Well to be fair Saddam did not demonstrate to the inspectors that he had destroyed all his weapons, however it was not quite as simple as Bush and Saddam having a political punchup. I have recently become friends with Rod Barton, who was on a variety of the UN inpection teams in Iraq from the early 90s and into the recent war. He has recently had published a book called "The Weapons Detective" where he details his time as an inspector, it is a very honest and unbiased account of what he saw and I highly recommend it, although it can be hard to find. I think there is a company selling it online - I am sure Google knows who. The following two paragraphs I think are a nice summary of what became known in retrospect.

After the break we gradually came to the subject of real concern - what Dr Taha and others had told the ISG about the disposal of the anthrax and other agents in 1991. According to Taha's new account, the anthrax had not been stored at Al Hakam during the Gulf War but rather hidden in a warehouse at "Electronic Warfare Unit 114". When the location became unsafe because of Coalition bombing, it was move around the country on semitrailers. Eventually in July 1991, the instruction was given by Hussein Kamal to destroy it. At this time the anthrax was outside Radwaniyah Palace because this was where one of the semitrailers broke down, and so the agent was deactivated and simply tipped out onto the surrounding desert. Dr Taha could not declare this to UNSCOM or UNMOVIC because, to put it mildly, Saddam would not have been pleased. Hamish and I later visited the palace; as we stood at the steps to the entrance we could clearly see where the anthrax had been dumped.

Others confirmed Dr Taha's story. UNMOVIC's evidence, including Document 62856, had showed overwhelmingly that Iraq's storiy about the destruction of anthrax at Al Hakam could not be true. However, it was now clear that our conclusion, that "there must be a strong presumption that the anthrax still exists," had also been wrong. Now the ISG knew the truth: it had been destroyed outside one of Saddam's palaces.

Re:If this is true

[Hawkxor]

In fact, if they nuke one city, it's irrational to nuke back, because that invites the nuking of lots of cities; you're better off losing just the one city. but everything depends on the belief that 1 nuke in a first strike -> lots of nukes immediately, everywhere. This is the reason for the big show, the automated retaliation systems, the protocols written in stone and made public. You've gotta look committed to being irrational

Re:If this is true

[Opportunist]

As far as I remember it, the missiles were put on Cuba just to have something in the hand to negotiate those Turkish missiles away. I mean, why would someone want to ship missiles halfway 'round the globe just to have them stationed right in front of the US? It was a psychology stunt, and both sides thought they won, so I'd say let them both believe it and continue your life happily.

Re:If this is true

[nordicfrost]

No, that would be the high school answer. China is pursuing a more serious political course now, even if they are a bit off their rocks at times. China loves capital, and understands that they will be far, far more relevant with capital than they ever were with communism. Hence, they will not be interested in having a rouge state as their neighbour. It will only be a couple of more years before China is just as big an evil capitalist as the US, in the NK eyes.

As someone mentioned in the comments belov, the joker here is North Korea, the King Taiwan, The Ace is Japan. The 4 of clubs is the US.

I foresee a joint attack from China and US. The chinese will attack from north for three weeks, drawing sufficient resources away from the DMZ before the US attack the primary artillery positions north of the DMZ, sparing approx. 1,5 million SK inhabitants.

Re:If this is true

[suv4x4]

It scares the hell out of me.

It scares me more than it scares you, alas there's no +6 Insightful to mod me appropriately :P

Re:If this is true

[Opportunist]

Not to mention that the strategic significance of Korea has vanished into nothingness. It was crucial to keep the USSR from gaining a winter port (which it would've gotten with the assistance of China and Korea, back in the 50s they could still coop pretty well), that way their ships couldn't find a safe harbor without ice. Today, why would the US want to fight there?

NK has no resources to speak of. No oil, no radioactive material, nothing really useful that makes it worth fighting over. Instead they have mountains, incredibly cold winter, searing hot (and moist) summers and the various diseases that accompany that climate.

So unless NK develops intercontinental missiles, why would the US bother?

Re:If this is true

[Simon Garlick]

No, what you really should be fearing is Religious Fanatics (Iran anyone?) getting hold of Nukes.

I'm more afraid of the Religious Fanatics (USA anyone?) who ALREADY have nukes.

There's only one country that has ever been so evil as to use nuclear weapons on human beings -- on CIVILIANS, no less -- and that is the United States of America.

Re:If this is true

[suv4x4]

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Now THAT is what I call constructive thinking.

Re:If this is true

[Maestro4k]

No, there is no real difference, because Americans - well, at least lot of them - know how big is North Korean army that casualties will be too high at American side to take any war with NK

I hate to say this, but you're talking about the same country where a large percentage of young Americans can't even find New York on a map? (Source 11% couldn't even find the US on a map.) Maybe a good percentage of your older generations do, but I'm in my mid 30s and I doubt that more than half of the people I graduated with have any clue about North Korea's army or how hard it'd be to invade. So don't count on that to stop the government if it decides to invade, all the majority of people are going to think is "they have nukes, their leader's insane, we've got to stop them". I won't be surprised if we both invade and the draft is brought back in short order.

All hail World War III, it seems to be just around the corner anymore. If North Korea having nukes doesn't start it in Asia then Iraq collapsing into civil war and dragging in its neighboring countries will.

Re:If this is true

[killjoe]

"Believe it or not, there are many thousands of people who think stability in Iraq is worth dying for, even knowing what we know today."

I don't believe that. Maybe some people are stupid enough to want to die for a stable iraq and maybe others are hopped up on gods and guns but I just can't see why any sane and rational person would die for a stable iraq.

First of all Iraq was already stable. Secondly why iraq? Why not a stable china, stable north korea, stable, somalia, stable equador. I mean why decide that you are willing to die for a stable iraq? How come the iraqis deserve stability more then any other human beings on the planet?

"So if your opinion of the war depends on believing that for no good reason Bush is heartlessly sending people to die against their will,"

Nobody says he did it for no reason. Bush has lots of reasons. Oil, venegence for his dad, personal wealth, prving he is a man, hastening the return of jesus, securing the jewish vote, rewarding his supporters, the list goes on and on. Bush had many reasons to invade iraq.

Re:If this is true

[lixee]

Bob, we've got to fight them there, in Botswana, so we don't have to fight them here! Yee. Haw.

"For perhaps many a person will ask himself the question, why are we fighting at such great distances? We are fighting at such great distances in order to protect our homeland, in order to keep the war as far removed from it as possible . . . . It is therefore preferable to keep the front line at a distance of 1,000 and if necessary 2,000 kilometers from the borders of the Reich, than to hold that front somewhere near the border of the Reich and to be forced to hold it there."

- Adolf Hitler, 1942

Re:If this is true

[operagost]

If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?

Why not? His dad did.

Re:If this is true

[TapeCutter]

Hmmm, on that basis why stop at NK, why not blow up all the weak countries while your at it. After all someone, somewhere, might think about obtaining weapons that could be used in a suicidal attack against you.

As I see it there isn't (as yet) any confirmation that they actually detonated a nuke. NK are renowned for grandiose BS, it wouldn't surprise me to find a few trainloads of explosives was the real cause of the earthquake.

Re:If this is true

[Rob Kaper]

Good question. I've been wondering myself why that clock never changed the past months/years, certainly we've seen some developments (Kahn proliferation, Iranian desire, Korean accomplishments) that would set it forward.

On the other hand, I suspect that doomsday clock is mostly a political effort trying to reduce our own use of nuclear fission. I doubt anyone in Pyongyang or Tehran or even the DOD cares about it.

Re:If this is true

[Augmento]

you don't have a clue. North Korea and Kim Jr would never even dream of launching nukes to the south. He would probably threaten to and is most likely to nuke japan if anywhere. most chinese and south koreans still resent the upstart japanese barbarians. i just hope that this will shake the people here in the south about their complacency towards their cousins in the north but noooo, they are proud that the north has a nuke and say that U.S. has kept the south down for so long and prevented them from having them too because we are afraid of the strength of korea. you see they share the same inferiority complex along with the same language, and culture, 50ish years of separation is nothing compared to thier shared 5000 years of justified xenophobia as the doormat of asia.

Re:If this is true

[operagost]

I'm getting a little tired of this, the US is NOT AT WAR, it takes an act of concress to declare a war and such an act did not take place.

And I'm tired of ignoramuses saying that.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Re:If this is true

[wdr1]

You're still thinking in a cold war tit-for-tat mentality, a dangerous thing in a changed world.

What this does is give NK a nuclear shield. From behind that shield, it can more or less do whatever it desires with little fear of military action from the rest of the world. Sponsor terrorism, sell nuclear technology, etc. There's little the UN or anyone else would be willing to do.

That's a pretty big change.

-Bill

Re:If this is true

[illspirit]

Eh? You make them sound so... magical. Not to be rude or anything (really), but, let me guess. You probably believe the whole "they never had anything this powerful in mind 200 years ago" line the gun-control advocates chant? If so, well, you may be horrified to know that they often used .60 and even .80 caliber rifles and muskets at the time of the American Revolution. Sometimes with a powder load as big (or bigger) than the Barret. And you can buy these old "killing devices" all over the world. Even in a number of countries that pretty much banned modern arms. Toss some modern optics on it, and you're good to go at long range. Why, I hear you don't even need a permit to buy or make such muzzle loaders in Germany.

Granted, muzzle loaded weapons reload slower, but with a rifle like that, one seldom needs more than one shot. ;)

Re:If this is true

[Shadow99_1]

Um last I knew Japanese submarines did in fact contain a nuclear arsenal... So they need no new nuclear weapons... I've never heard anything about land based nukes in Japan, but there isn't much sense to use land based nukes in Japan (with the cost of land insanely high anyways). Whether these are conventional (which I doubt) or tactical nukes is awfully hard to say, and doing a seatrxh today brings up to many articles relating to the main topic (aka North Korea's nuclear test) making it hard to find the information.

Also (thanks to the US) South Korea does have nukes. Namely a group of US special forces who sit on a cache of nuclear weapons... But these forces are at the command of the South Korean president.

China may not like North Korea much at the moment, but they have signed some fairly hefty military alliance pacts with North Korea in the past. I would suggest they are most likely to want to avoid any attention atm over North Korea and the facts of what they have promised should North Korea get 'bullied' by other countries.

Taiwan really is the true wild card, they would love to cause troubel for China... It's almost a national past time in Taiwan... Supposedly (depending on what reports you believe) they also have a nuclear arsenal already... Though actively admiting to it is something they have no interest in doing...

Re:If this is true

[dreamchaser]

You are assuming a sane individual in charge of such nukes. Kim Jung Il is anything but.

Re:If this is true

[Eccles]

He must not care about himself then, because he put himself at risk of being sent into war for over 5 years as a young man.

You guys need to coordinate your efforts more. Bush joined the Air National Guard. In the words of whereiseljefe, above, "Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization."

While there are those who think they can make a difference going to Iraq, there are plenty more who would be long gone if not for stop-loss orders.

Re:If this is true

[rjstanford]

A nuke is a last resort suicide bomb that you use when you lost already, only to make sure that your opponent doesn't win.

And that's why its really scary when they're in the control of a person (ie: KJI) rather than a country or a military. The country knows that's its going to be around a while longer. If KJI finds out he has cancer, who's to say that he won't decide to take out everyone he can? He's already "lost" in that case. Now, that's scary.

Re:If this is true

[huber]

Really!! Funny I dont remember invading Iraq in the gulf war.

Re:If this is true

[The_Spud]

One of those independantly confirmed kills was an Tornado which the system couldn't differentiate from a scud missile

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

Another was an F18 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2003/04/04/wjet04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/04/i xnewstop.html

Great defensive system the patriot.

Re:If this is true

[BecomingLumberg]

Nations that have rational rulers don't use nukes because of mutually assured destruction. Countries ruled by nutbags like Kim Jong-il will certainly use it given the opportunity and half a reason because they believe their country invincable.

Re:If this is true

[Rob Kaper]

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

No.

I will accept that it's virtually impossible to eradicate rogue states, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. It's definitely a huge (and increasingly difficult) challenge to come up with geopolitical policies that will improve the security and welfare of the world and it's also a huge challenge to find politicians (of either side, party or flavour) who manage.

But I refuse to be afraid. What's the point.. I'd rather be ready.

Re:If this is true

[jeffs72]

Read your own link. That's not an invocation of the War Powers Act. It's permission from congress for a brushfire engagement.

Re:If this is true

[Lummoxx]

I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of the Korean DMZ.

Your picture of the DMZ isn't bad. Your estimation of it's effectiveness is a bit off, as others have, and are sure, to point out.

After 2 tours in Korea in the late 80's and early 90's, I also add that, in the case of a North Korean invasion, the DMZ, and everything in between it and Seoul are meant to be nothing more than a speed bump, giving the rest of the ROK and American forces enough time to mount an effective defense of Seoul.

Re:If this is true

[cypherz]

I know you're just a troll. I just can't resist.

>whats their purpose? hunting tanks? selfdefense against helicopters? ... Oh, might it be plainly killing people from a distance?

In civilian hands, they are sporting rifles used in extreme long distance shooting competition.
Military uses of single-shot (or semi-auto) .50 BMG rifles are limited to anti-materiel uses. No, you wouldn't shoot down a helicopter with it (though an extremely lucky shot might do it) but you would shoot up antennas, water and fuel pumps and other machinery. Bored soldiers will use just about any weapon to try and make really long shots and a few amazing long shots have been reported from Afghanistan using the Barrett .50. In Vietname, show-offs sometimes used the M-79 as to pick off individual enemy, (some guys were really good with them) but that wasn't a normal use of the weapon.
The Barrett is much less effective at "selfdefense against helicopters" than say, the commonly deployed M2. Thats why they're legal in the USA. They are rare due to their cost and they have very limited usefulness as anti-personel weapons. I've only heard of one crime that might have been committed using one in the USA. Why disarm thousands of sportsmen for a non-existent threat?
Once you scaredy-cats learn that many common hunting rifles are almost as effective at long-distance killing as the .50 single shot, you'll be using the same argument against them.
Oh wait. You already are.

Re:If this is true

[pete.com]

I remember it... I was there after all.

Re:If this is true

[Knutsi]

China would probably also be the force to invade, given that the population in the NK is so heavily soaked in anti-western ideologies. This is really much like Iraq in that sence. But there will be no invasion. The only political will and strength in this part of the world in terms of reaction to the nuclear tests are political pressure from China, and precision strikes from the US. I'm sure Japan wouldn't mind...

Me on the other hand will now go back to play Defcon.

Re:If this is true

[DjReagan]

Japanese subs do not contain nuclear weaponry.

Their constitution forbids them from producing nuclear weapons, and the country has signed up to the various non-proliferation treaties.

They did have a program to accquire nuclear weaponry during WWII, but nothing eventuated from it.

Re:If this is true

[Atheose]

Japan? Taiwan? There may be LONG term political consequences with these two bodies (can't call Taiwan a nation, now can I?), but if North Korea crosses the DMZ--which is much more likely now with the addition of PROK nukes--neither of them will matter much. If the South gets invaded, the only thing China is going to care about is North Korea.

What you are suggesting is analogous to the United States using Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939 as an excuse to settle border disputes with Canada while the Queen's Army is off fighting the Krauts.

Re:If this is true

[robert.short]

I don't think you understand the tactical situation in Korea. Last time I checked, Pyungyang had more than 50,000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. Nukes or no nukes, any invasion/incursion/liberation/exercise(insert favorite term here) would be met with massive retaliation, death and destruction for our favorite S. Korean city. It is the country equivalent of a hostage stand-off with a "gun to our head." In situations such as this there literally is no force, except sanctions and internal collapse that can work because S. Korea will have to be willing to sacrifice its largest city in the process. The only comfort I get is that the USGS says it has monitored no "unusual" seismic activity on the Korean Penninsula -- N. Korea is famous for its fiction and we can pin some of our hopes on the idea that they don't really have the technology ... not just yet.

Re:If this is true

[smchris]

He must not care about himself then, because he put himself at risk of being sent into war for over 5 years as a young man.

Ahistorical. The National Guard was the way to have your cake and eat it too during Vietnam if you could get in. You could appear all acquiescently "patriotic" and not have to take a stand against your government's insane war yet the act of joining the National Guard meant you were very unlikely to actually _go_ to Vietnam. LIke, because it was the "Guard" of the nation. (if you understand?) Unlike W as President where the "Guard" is doing extended tours on the front lines. I think the appropriate term is "spoiled little rich hypocrite" of a president who got to party in Alabama and take time off to work on a political campaign but as president sends today's "weekend warriors" who would otherwise have lives in the real world to the front lines of _his_ insane war.

Re:If this is true

[nurb432]

But some countries really dont care. If they strike first and kill the 'infidels' they are heros. Even if they all die.

Not saying NK is one of those countries, just commenting on your statement that they are useless.

Oh and you had to get in a bush bash didnt ya? that pretty much marginalizes anything you have to say. you really need to get over the fact you lost. It happens. Move on.

Re:If this is true

[smilindog2000]

Thanks for the wikipedia link! Any article like that first link I posted seems suspect. I'm not surprised it's neoconservative funded FUD.

Still, I think Iran remains more of a direct threat than NK. In North Korea, the leader is nuts, but he's your basic dictator, interested in protecting his own power. Also, he proven that he can be bought (which Clinton was happy to do). In Iran, their leader thinks he's taking orders directly from God. The funny thing is if I replace NK and Iran with 'neoconservatives', it's all still true!

Re:If this is true

[smilindog2000]

I'm not so good at humor... "Be afraid. Be very afraid." was a reference to "The Fly" and also "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." I meant it to be funny.

I'm a strong believer in the whole "nothing to fear but fear itself" idea. Fear is the problem. That's why I post links to "The Power of Nightmares". It's very worthwile viewing.

Re:If this is true

[squidguy]

It seems that playing video games has made you as much of a military expert as teaching yourself VB and PHP has made you a programmer.
Concur fully - you've hit the nail on the head.
Mod parent up!

Re:If this is true

[Tekzel]

Like most rich dads, Bush's father pulled strings to get him a safe posting.

You know, I see this kind of post often when discussion turns to the war. The thing is, I read that as you sounding all hurt that he would dare do such a thing. I believe ANY dad would do the same given the opportunity and ability. I know I sure would if my son was going into harms way. And, if you think any different you aren't much of a dad. Call me a liar.

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

Yup, you are right, they were very effective against friendly forces, shooting down at least one British Tornado coming back from a sortie.

Re:If this is true

[sig226]

"As a wise man once said, 'the only thing to fear is fear itself'."
That wise man had a bomb shelter and was protected by the federal
agents, not to mention the marines, army, etc.
You'll note that man was a politician from day one, and never had
to go to war, had he been in WWI, he would not have made that stupid
comment.

Re:If this is true

[Oestergaard]

Hmm, and then again...

Israel was pretty close to being overwhelmed - it was luck (or talent) that changed the tide in the golan heights, not the nukes they had but didn't use.

Re:If this is true

[Aqualung812]

Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

I personally know some guardsmen that will disagree with that statement.

Those people DO deserve our respect and sympathy. Regardless of their reasons for doing so, they are fighting and dying so YOU don't have to. If they didn't do it, there would be a draft and you would be rolling the dice.

Re:If this is true

[hcob$]

No, the majority of impoverished areas in America today can thank the bastardization of the welfare system to the point that people make a better living having babies and sitting on their butts than they would if they get off said butt and work for a living.

Re:If this is true

[SecurityGuy]

We won't be launching any kind of war against North Korea, pre-emptive or otherwise. Like all bullies, Bush is, at heart, a pussy.

Terribly naive. Bush didn't go to Iraq, he sent others to do it for him, so his *cough* feline qualities, true or otherwise, don't matter. What he's not afraid of is doing something unpopular when he thinks he's right. That would be admirable if he wasn't so often wrong.

I'm confident that attacking North Korea is unnecessary. I'm not confident Dubya has enough clues to rub together to get to the same conclusion.

Re:If this is true

[DragonPup]

Letting someone else die in your place is corwardice. Bush didn't even have the dignity to keep his Air Guard commitment. He was grounded after refusing to take a physical that included a drug test(this was back when Bush couldn't even remember the drugs he was on).

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

NATO tried that bombing to stone age thing with Serbia but Serbs still had serviceable tanks and artillery at the end of the campaign. With a nuke, all you need is a single mobile Skud launcher that can lob the weapon across the DMZ. Rather scary.

Although having a test does not mean that they have a delivery system, even a fighter bomber with a one way ticket might be enough deterrent.

If we were dealing with Pakistan, India, China or even Iraq with Saddam, I wouldn't be this uneasy about the whole thing; the current rulers of NK are completely nuts.

Re:If this is true

[SecurityGuy]

Nevertheless, Saddam did satisfy the inspectors that he had done so. Bush chose to stick his fingers in his ears and say "La La La 9-11 Al Qaeda WMD!" and sent in the troops anyway.

No, he didn't. Saddam went out of his way to frustrate their efforts. How many times were the denied access to sites? How many times were they kicked out? Saddam is the proximate cause of the Iraq war because he was stupid enough to keep smacking the 800 pound gorilla on the nose. If the inspectors were allowed to go wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, there would have been no credible cause for invasion. At the time, Saddam seemed to be doing everything in his power to make it impossible to know if he had WMDs without getting invaded.

Re:If this is true

[Krommenaas]

I think the French thought so too in 1940.

Re:If this is true

[Atheose]

Ever heard of the word "deterrent"? As about 20 above posters have noted, having nukes reduces the likelihood of US and Chinese interference in the event that Kim Jong Ill crosses the DMZ. You're right about nukes being used as a last resort, but it's far more complicated than that.

Re:If this is true

[Atzanteol]

Yeah, poor kids. Who'd have thought that joining the ARMY could get you killed!

Re:If this is true

[Money for Nothin']

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.

This assumes that the leaders who call the shots are sane and rational.

I'm not convinced that Kim Jong-Il is sane and rational. Insofar as Kim is trying to extort money and aid out of the world so his totalitarian socialist empire can continue to function in any way, he may be rational; tightening the screws on richer nations by ratcheting up his threats to the world and to th U.S. in particular every so often is a way to do that.

But he knows he's backed into a corner by the rest of the world, even their ally, China (which is responsible for some 80% of N. Korea's aid donations): will he fight his way out of that corner, or surrender?

As a wise man once said, 'the only thing to fear is fear itself'.

That "wise man" (which he was not, for the most part) was former U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).

Re:If this is true

[j35ter]

I see the problem in the purpose of these devices and not just in their caliber.
Thisis a weapon designed to be as accurate as possible for a range of 1000m. Now, give me a good civilian reason why you would want to shoot a target a full kilometer away? Tresspassing? :)

Granted, muzzle loaded weapons reload slower, but with a rifle like that, one seldom needs more than one shot. ;)

Are we talking patato guns? :D

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

It is quite funny actually, maybe not.

Americans place nukes in very short distance from Russia (aka, Turkey and Italy).

In retaliation, Russians place nukes in very short distance from America (aka Cuba).

Who's the bad guy? Of course it's the Soviets! A huge crisis with lots of tension ensures.

I hoped the world would never experience such a messy situation again. With Pakistan vs. India, China vs. Taiwan and N.Korea against the rest of the world, I suppose shit will happen sometime, probably too soon.

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

I have to question American military as a rational actor. Well into 80s, American generals believed that they could win a war with nuclear exchange in Europe and they also believed that if they striked first, they would survive MAD. I tell you, they were completely MAD...

Bush and Co. are not that different, Reagan (with all his faults) was probably saner, at least Reagan had a serious enemy in front of him, with thousands of modern tanks, ICMBs and bombers. Bush and Co. don't have those but still advocate for building more nuclear bombs. British are not that better either, it looks like they will eventually replace their nuclear submarine fleet instead of retiring them.

Re:If this is true

[UglyTool]

What happened in '91 wasn't really an invasion. US troops went into Iraq a few KMs (100's?), and were prohibited from chasing the Republican Guard back to Baghdad. The government and generals in the field knew that, were we to to a full-fledged invasion, Iraq's WMD's would be unleashed on our troops.

Bush the First realized this, and did not want to subject our troops to those weapons. Can you imagine what the world's reaction would have been? I'd rather not think about it.

The reason Bush the Second could invade Iraq is because, frankly, they no longer had those weapons. The reasons he DID invade are left to the reader as a thought excercise.

Re:If this is true

[suv4x4]

I'm not so good at humor... "Be afraid. Be very afraid." was a reference to "The Fly" and also "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." I meant it to be funny.

Don't worry, you're getting the idea accross ;)

Whatever happens, I have this (suicidal?) philosophy that we'll work it out, even if I don't live to see it.
People has a tendency to do BS most of the time when they are not under real and desperate pressure, but once we realize the devastating results of what we're doing, we wise up.. and ultimately survive.

That's basically saying: humanity will survive through global warming, third world war, meteors and what not. Maybe we'll also outlive our planet, and our Sun.

The only thing that will definitely not survive is the current attitude of world leaders towards their internal and international politics.

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

About miniaturization, do you think North Korea generals will say to themselves "OK then chaps, good work, you've done it, now pack everything and forget about the whole lot, there's a good lad" or just order their scientists to get on with it? They've come so far, miniaturization work is just the next step and wouldn't take a lot of efford compared to what they've done so far. Especially with Pakistani information they gained in the last couple of years, I suspect in a couple of years time World will be a much more scarier place.

Remember, duck and cover!

Re:If this is true

[stewwy]

Just a question, the system isn't made by ACME industries is it (of roadrunner fame)....just wondering

Re:If this is true

[Ihlosi]

I think the French thought so too in 1940.

Yeah. Too bad they didn't think coast-to-coast, which is what the Koreans certainly do.

Re:If this is true

[Alex P Keaton in da]

This is sad- I am interested in the technical aspects of the N. Korea bomb, and I come on slashdot and have to hear not just Bush bashing (you'll have that) but soldier bashing. It is a myth about soldiers being poor and uneducated, and it gets old. My dad was a Sr. Vp of a fortune 100 company and I was an enlisted man. Also, what a joke about the Nat'l Guard not being deployed. I can tell you first hand about an Ohio Nat'l Guard MP company that has been deployed to the middle east twice. But of course, you wouldn't care, because facts have no place here, right?
And like it or not, soldiers and their families voted overwhelmingly for GW Bush in the last election. So GW Bush's supporters do fight in Iraq. Of course, that is unimportant here, because it is a fact.
I am all for strong opinions about everything- but keep in mind that while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Whomever posted that there are zero congresman's kids in Iraq, are you serious? You even typed it as ZERO, and you are wrong. Seriously- how can you debate people that are like that?

Re:If this is true

[dave1791]

"Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization."

I met an Ohio National Guardsman the other day who has been deployed three out of the past five years and has seen two combat tours in Iraq (and told me a depressing story about a child with a bloody arm who was wired with explosives and killed the medic who tried to help him). He left the active duty military shortly before 9/11 becasue he thought being a part timer would allow him to spend more time with his family.

Oh and I met him in the train station in Heidelberg Germany. He is away from home again.

Re:If this is true

[Viper Daimao]

China's already worried and guarding the border. Things are only getting worse in NKorea, take a read of this Times of London article. Warning though, it's pretty graphic.

The Chinese are worried about a potential influx of North Korean refugees. They are also vexed with counterfeit US currency coming from North Korea and "...vast quantities of fake Viagra from North Korea."

I've also found Strategy Page a good source for intelligence and analysis on NKorea.

Re:If this is true

[gnuLNX]

I'd die for a stable Iraq. I'd also do the same for other countries. IT'S NOT ABOUT CONTRIES. IT'S ABOUT CERTAIN BASIC RIGHTS THAT ALL HUMANS SHOULD BE AFFORDED. Oh...yeah you wouldn't understand that since you have had them your whole life.

War is wrong and evil...but to argue that war is always avoidable is to ignore all of history. Oh...and Iraq was not stable before we went there. More stable yes...but not stable. The problem with us Americans is our "Right Now" mentality. It will likely be 10-20 years before Iraq is truly stable...that's what it took for Japan.

The reality is we are there now and we HAVE TO FINISH the job or....yeah guessed it....more terrorism from those who had their country rippied apart by Americans who then deserted them. So get over the fact that we are at war and start excepting the fact that we as a people have an obligation to make sure those people have something left. Let's not just pull out and bring our boy's home...there are other peope involved.

Oh and most of those in the military that I know are damn proud to be fighting for this country.

Re:If this is true

[Vexorian]

They are a great last resource though. If XXXX country is taking your country and going to replace your government, nuking them is not that bad.

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

A couple of days ago I saw a Daily Show episode on YouTube where Bush was asked if he believed in Armageddon and thought if it would happen soon or not, and why not. He couldn't answer. I'm not sure he's that intelligent, he couldn't get around the question, couldn't say "No, I don't believe in Armageddon" or "Yes, it will happen soon, fasten your seat belts" (google for Rapture Index, it's scary). The guy is not even cunning enough to spin the question.

Re:If this is true

[elrous0]

If North Korea has become so insignificant, then why does the U.S. still have 35,000 troops stationed on its border? It's sure not for South Korea's benefit (they've all but begged us to remove them).

-Eric

Re:If this is true

[jiawen]

That's actually not true. It somehow got attributed as Chinese, but in fact it isn't.

Re:If this is true

[CFTM]

I don't agree with Taiwan being the wild card in this instance; although on the surface it does appear as though China-Taiwan-US are all in for a nice little menage it's unlikely to happen because China is already at war with Taiwan and they are already winning. The war is not a war of bullets but of dollars; why in the world does China need to invade Taiwan when they can just use their economic might to ensure other countries do not trade with Taiwan?

Give it ten to fifteen years and they'll achieve the same end as invading Taiwan except they'll never have to fire a shot...sounds like a much smarter plan to me if I'm China...

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

I would guess even Japan had retaliation capabilities, American leadership wouldn't even blink and still use the bomb. If you are ready to use it against civilians just to make a case, TWICE, you are ready for anything. I bet they would have preferred Japan retaliating, then they could nuke the whole place to the ground, they've been bombing all major cities in Japan with incineeries for a long time already, with Japan having absolutely no air defence left so they didn't care about Japanese at all.

Re:If this is true

[elrous0]

Kim Jong Il may be a bit of a narcissist, with a Napoleon complex, but he's hardly "insane." In fact, I'd call his actions quite rational, in light of the horrendously stupid move by Bush with his "axis of evil" remarks. If a huge superpower with a propensity for "preemptive" invasions has basically told you "you're next," you would be insane NOT to try and develop nukes to deter them.

-Eric

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

1. McClellan's incompetence was responsible for some of the largest losses of human life during the Civil war, including the battles of Manassas. He was given multiple chances to successfully engage Lee and failed miserably on every case. Intellectual ability doesn't matter a damn if you can't apply it.

2. There's plenty of fine print. The clause defining the government's ability to prevent one's separation (stop-loss) is obliquely referred to by mentioning a government regulation (not available at MEPS) on one's enlistment contract. These "kids" signed up for a certain number of years, and are involuntarily extended while serving. Most of them are willing to fight, but many would prefer competent command authority. (Forgive the A/C here, I'm still in and am not supposed to say such things)

3. Finally, since when are we at war? You can't fight an idea, so don't give me that "war on terror" crap. I was ok with Afghanistan, but Iraq never made any sense to me from the "national interest" arguement. I have no problem fighting for my country, but I have a big problem fighting for the economic interests or personal vendettas of the people in power. I'll let the rest of the /. posters deal with your inaccuracies regarding Nat'l Guard troops and reasons for enlisting.

Re:If this is true

[garcia]

I have done a lot of reading on North Korea recently and while that doesn't make me an expert by any means, I have to believe that the people in NK are a little less likely to blindly follow Kim than his father.

They blindly followed "their" Father but Kim doesn't have the same kind of appeal.

Re:If this is true

[cloudmaster]

It's possible to get a job without a college education, and possible to go to college without the Army. Lots of scholarships go unclaimed on a yearly basis. The key is that one needs to have a work ethic of some sort, rather than an "I need another handout" ethic. Sometimes that means failure, though, and we have a full generation who are convinced that the gov't exists solely to save each person from failure, an that success is defined by winning the lottery or a personal injury lawsuit.

The military *does* provide some discipline and a means of obtaining some self-respect, as well as some useful experience and a guaranteed "free pass to the front of the line" at lots of employers. It's in exchange for promising to risk your life for your contry. Much like gambling that you'll be able to pay for your family with a job at McDonald's, it's gambling that you'll be killed while trying to feed your family. Unfortunately, as with all gambles, some people lose.

Regardless, if there were no limits on welfare, there'd just be more people improperly taking advantage of it as a means of avoiding work.

Re:If this is true

[J05H]

You only have half of it. Confucius is attributed to saying:

"May you live in interesting times and attract the Emperor's attention."

Makes much more sense like that.

Josh

Re:If this is true

[bigdavesmith]

I wouldn't call you a liar, I certainly am not decided on the issue, but I know from personal experience that you're not wholly correct. There are families with proud military and civil service traditions, whose mothers and fathers, although I'm sure they love and care about their offspring, are proud to have them defending their various countries, and upholding their way of life.

I know that in the United States, there was a time when we held ideals that were actually worth fighting and dying for, and a lot of people were proud to be doing what they were doing. I think we've lost a lot of that now, but that doesn't make joining the army to get cuddled by your family's money an ok thing.

Just my experiences and ideas though. Call me a liar :)

Re:If this is true

[rbochan]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them...

Really?
Tell that to Harry Truman.

Re:If this is true

[Serveert]

Is that what you would have said in WW2? We need a Churchill to wake us up. Iraq was a firedrill, this is the real thing.

Re:If this is true

[Shadow99_1]

Um their constitution doesn't forbid them, they will of the people has historically been against it... That has changed in teh last decade however and in fact they have voiced that any agression by China would lead to them producing more nuclear weapons than china could ever hope to field (said in 2002, though that's not the exact quote) and for nearly ten years their have been several military reports that in fact they do have nuclear potential in their subs (the degree is the question, is it simply tactical or is it full fledged ICBM style nukes...). It's been remarked militarily that it's awfuly funny that japanese subs have full launch capabilities for weapons they 'supposedly' don't carry, which probably has alot of weight to the argument that in fact they are armed with sych weapons.

Do some more research on the subject, you seem at least a decade behind...

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

I didn't pass any judgement on whether it was a good decision or not (I would probably try and save my children if I had them too)

I was simply using that to refute the poster I replied to, who said that Bush put himself in danger in the military.

Re:If this is true

[Palshife]

Oh, there's a shot.

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

I'd probably be arrested.

Re:If this is true

[WindBourne]

Hmmmm. I did kind of leave that hanging. The simple answer is that I am not a fan of attacking. But Bush/Chenye is going to push the idea that the world needs to attack now or risk NK selling nukes to terrorists or being able to launch (they are probably correct on the selling part). Considering that America is overextended by fighting on multiple fronts we will push China/Russia to solve this one.

Re:If this is true

[accessdeniednsp]

The guy on Robot Chicken itemized it further:

spiders, sharks, aliens, werewolves, dying alone, Johnsons' wife, and 'fear' itself

Re:If this is true

[illspirit]

I see the problem in the purpose of these devices and not just in their caliber. Thisis a weapon designed to be as accurate as possible for a range of 1000m. Now, give me a good civilian reason why you would want to shoot a target a full kilometer away? Tresspassing?

The purpose, is, sending bits of metal downrange, just like any other rifle. The Marines and police departments often use a Remington 700 for a sniper rifle too, but does that mean its only use is killing people? No. The Rem' 700 is also a very popular hunting rifle. And it can do "scary" things like pierce airplane hulls or body armor, and with a range of about a kilometer. Aside from the rather popular target shooting competitions, the .50 ammo would probably come in handy hunting large game, or defending oneself from large angry bears.

Re:If this is true

[Rew190]

Sure, and most dads also don't wage wars that result in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers.

You're right, I wouldn't send my kid into a war. Then again, I probably wouldn't take a position that might require me to send Americans to their deaths while at the same time pulling strings (that other Americans don't have) to keep my loved ones out of it. This is a pretty disgusting trait for a leader to have, if you ask me.

Don't paint the picture of the president of the US, arguably the most powerful man in the world, as being some regular dad. He isn't.

Re:If this is true

[vertinox]

As to your last part, I'm tired of that damned argument. These kids willingly joined the army, yes to pay for college, but they were told repeatedly and voluntarily swore an oath (no fucking fine print) that when the U.S. goes to war, they will probably have to ship off and if that is the case, there is nothing they can do about it. I feel little sympathy for these kids, I mean it sucks over there but you did sign up with the military, what did you expect? Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

This is one heck of a strawman. If you ask most of the dissenters in the military, they'll tell you that they would fight in Afghanistan which they believe is a just war over 9/11 but most consider Iraq an unjust war of aggression that isn't fighting for the benefit of American.

Secondly, there are National Guard units in Iraq so that suggestion is ignorant.

Re:If this is true

[NewWorldDan]

Nah, North Korea only had a handful of nukes. Now they have one less. I for one encourage North Korea to test the rest of their bombs. Also, as a matter of practicality, we have verifiable proof that they have nukes. Kim Jong Il may be crazy, but he's not suicidal. This is mostly just leverage for him to extort things from the rest of the world.

Re:If this is true

[berzerke]

We won't be launching any kind of war against North Korea, pre-emptive or otherwise.

What most people forget is the Korean Conflict never had a peace treaty, only a cease-fire. It's not the hard to find or create an incident to use to claim that cease-fire has been broken by the other side (such as the recent incusion by N. Korean troops across the border). If W wants a war there, it wouldn't be hard at all to justify one. And this time, the N. Koreans can't expect Chinese troops to help them.

However, I do agree that any shooting by the US is unlikely.

Re:If this is true

[pizzaman100]

"Peace in our time." -Neville Chamberlain 1938

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Japanese person living in Tokyo, I need to add a few facts to this.

Since WW2 Japan has had an explicitly 'peaceful' constitution that precludes it from engaging in any military action other than self-defense.

Actually, the Japanese constitution (9th paragraph) states that the only use of armed forces can be for self defense. That said, there is a plethora of laws that forbid it from doing even that. If North Korea, or any other country starts shooting Tepodong missiles into Japan, we still can't retaliate. We can't shoot missiles back into North Korea. Fuck, we DON'T EVEN HAVE LONG DISTANCE MISSILES to shoot back with! We have a sorry excuse of a missile defense system, that has been proven to be very unlikely to work if we really need it. The only thing we can do, at the moment, is shoot enemy armies if they decide to launch a full land invasion. I don't think the Maniac with Don King's hair is even that stupid. My brother-in-law pilots a tank in the self defense force, and he doesn't want war, explicitly because it'll make him a sitting duck.

In this light - the absolute best thing the US government can do right now is to immediately reassure the Japanese government and people that they are still very much protected by the US nuclear umbrella, that there is no need for Japan to pursue its own nuke, and that they should restrain their understandable urge to assume a more offensive military posture.

Won't work. Why? Because us Japanese don't want the U.S. to bring nukes into the country. There are a very few vocal people that have said otherwise, but the silent masses (and the not so silent government) has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. do not bring any ships carrying nuclear weapons into the country. What we want the U.S. to do is stop playing "I pretend to care (but really could care less since there's no oil involved)" and actually do something. Something like persuade Russia and China so that we could actually get full, binding, international sanctions against North Korea through the U.N. Last time N.K. shot missiles in the general direction of Japan (7 in total, on July 4th) we got soooo close to getting this through. But then China demanded they would veto it if the a full, binding sanction was included in the language. They wanted to keep it to "strong language" and nothing fully binding. In short, it read "If you don't stop now, we'll... tell you to stop again!!" No wonder Jong-Il doesn't seem deterred by another "Stop! Or else!" call from China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. Us Japanese people don't want nukes, we don't want to make nukes, we don't want to use nukes. And we sure as hell don't want to be bombed AGAIN with nukes. We want someone with a spine against China to help get our claims through. (On a side note, we also want a prime minister and cabinet that has a spine...)

Anyhow... even if all I wrote turns out to take a 180 degree U-turn and change, you still can't change the fact that the Japanese self defense force probably can't even win a war against North Korea, even if every single surrounding nation agrees that Japan can go ahead. The Japanese self decense army is under prepared, under staffed, and does not have the necessary equipment. We have no missiles. Our jet fighters were deliberately modified so that they don't have fuel tanks large enough to fly a round trip to Korea and back. (They can't be easily retrofitted either... owning such a jet was considered, at the time, unnecessarily provocative.) Our guns are inferior to even the North Korean AK-47 knock downs, since Japan cannot legally purchase arms, and had to develop everything internally, which turned out to be very, very expensive, and hard to use in a real war. (The old Model 66 assault rifle, when dis-assembled, broke down into 30-some odd parts, including some very small springs, which my brother says would be impossible to re-build in the field. People lose parts when undergoing re-build training in the baracks!) Even th

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I will try and avoid politics and provide some kernel of useful information.

Not having any proof, I think the device was probably a gun type device similar to "Little Boy" which was used on Hiroshima. This is basically a cannon with a shell made of uranium fired into a plug also made of uranium. (Of course this is a very simplistic description)

This has the advantage of simplicity. the disadvantage is the device is enormous. Little Boy weighed in around 5 tons IIRC.

These days weapons are usually built using the implosion method. This is far more efficient, but is extremely difficult to pull off. The advantage is you get a device that is smaller and a lot more powerful.

It appears from the news reports that the NK's still managed to botch the device. It looks like it was a sub-kiloton detonation.

Still, this is very unnerving. There are two nations that really can't be trusted with WMD's. North Korea and Iran.

If Iran gets the bomb, they will only wait long enough to build 5-20 devices and figure a way to deploy them to Israel and the United States. (They might send a few into Europe for good measure)

NK is less probable in using the weapons, but only a bit less. I have a feeling that if Ding Dong Il gets really sick, (Rumors are that he isn't well at all), he might just restart the Korean War. If so nuking the U.S. and ROK military would be the first thing they do.
(Chemical and bio attacks would also be high on the list)

MAD, (mutually assured destruction), only works of both sides really don't want to be destroyed.

The people running Iran believe that being destroyed will be a good thing, and if Kim whatshisname decides he's finished anyway, he won't be deterred either.

We won't go into the possibility of putting some nukes on ships and sailing into assorted harbors. In that case, the physical size of the devices really won't matter.

Yes, be concerned and be afraid.

Re:If this is true

[$imo]

Patriot surely is effective - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/14/iraq/mai n549216.shtml (Patriot Eyed In Downing Of Navy Jet)

Re:If this is true

[j35ter]

Which brings us back to the original purpose of posting! :)
In your cultural envoronment, you percieve such a weapon in civilian hands as something perfectly normal. Be it fir self defense, shooting wild animals, dealing with tresspassers, etc.
Me, OTOH, think its normal to see nipples and pubic hair on public TV. Is that a reason to invade my country?

Re:If this is true

[ursabear]

I don't disagree with your post very much. But...

Sometimes, folks tend to look at the actions of others in a rational way. The main problem with doing things that way is that it is very difficult to apply reason to unreasonable people. Kim is not a reasonable person (or facsimile thereof).

I dearly and sincerely hope that this nuclear test is saber-rattling, and not the manifestation of a feverish, megalomaniacal (and unreasonable) mind's desire for regional/world control.

Re:If this is true

[Registered Coward v2]

As to your last part, I'm tired of that damned argument. These kids willingly joined the army, yes to pay for college, but they were told repeatedly and voluntarily swore an oath (no fucking fine print) that when the U.S. goes to war, they will probably have to ship off and if that is the case, there is nothing they can do about it. I feel little sympathy for these kids, I mean it sucks over there but you did sign up with the military, what did you expect? Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

While I agree with your sentiment (Queen's shilling, after all) The NG is not the place to avoid combat (not that that is why people join the Guard). Look at the deployments and the Guard is right up there with their reserve and regular counterparts. More reservists may go but the NG s a big part of the Army these days. One weekend a month and two weeks over the summer my ass.

What this is doing is once again bring the real cost of the war home to Americans across the spectrum - it's not just a bunch of poor kids' parents but the soccer moms and dads who are seeing their son/daughter/husband/wife or neighbor go to war - which is changing the political landscape. That is a good thing (no matter what side you are on politically because it brings a better understanding of the military and the cost of employing them. We (the US) has traditionally had a citizen Army who was connected to its populace - we need to keep that tie strong.

Re:If this is true

[TapeCutter]

I get your point, NK is a credible threat to Okinawa (sic?) but politicians will emphasize the threat to major cities such as Tokyo.

Re:If this is true

[cheezedawg]

You couldn't be more wrong. The first deployment of Patriot missiles in 1991 had limited success, but that was 15 years and several generations of the product ago. The latest version that was deployed in Iraq in 2003 had close to a 100% success rate with 11/11 Iraqi missiles being hit (8 of which have been independently verified).

Re:If this is true

[feed_me_cereal]

semantics, semantics... jesus. Here's a better link for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

Re:If this is true

[awful]

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote - I would point out though that the US doesn't have to station nukes in Japan to place Japan under the US' nuclear umbrella.

Re:If this is true

[El Cabri]

Chemical weapons such as those that Iraq possessed and used in the 80s are not weapons of mass destruction. Similar weapons have been used over several years during WWI, as fast as they could be produced, with the same terrifying effects on their victims, yet, the total amount of both civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction in that war was largely inferior to those of WWII, during which chemicals weapons were almost not used at all : at least the Atlantic theatre was 100% "conventional" from the start to the finish of the war.

Re:If this is true

[Creedo]

The first use of nuclear weapons was an awakening for the world, and they saw something to fear: Pandora's Box. No one wanted -- or wants -- to turn its key.
I think that statement should be qualified. No one who is sane(in an institutional sense) wants to turn the key. I can think of of several ideology driven groups who would happily turn that key.

Re:If this is true

[cheezedawg]

You do realize that the United States' status in the Non-proliferation treaty as a nuclear power, coupled with UN Resolution 255, requires that we maintain a nuclear arsenal to defend non-nuclear states, right? The same goes for the UK.

Re:If this is true

[Broken scope]

So it wasn't a fusion device, just a plain old Nuke?

Re:If this is true

[be951]

Also, your point is about kids willingly joining the army would be valid if they did it willingly.

If you are aware of any instances where that is not the case, some references would be nice.

But in America you put a limit on the amount of social security anyone can claim. So it is highly likely that if you run out of social security you would be very desperate for anywork you could get as starvation is fairly unpleasant. And watching your family starve is probably about the only thing less than pleasant than starving to death yourself.

Obesity -- not starvation -- is the big problem in the U.S. I gather by "social security" you mean public assitance, which is provided at both state and federal level (social security is the name of a specific federal program that pays benefits primarily to retirees). But lets back up a bit -- are we speaking of kids straight out of high school, or adults with families to support? For the moment, I'll address kids fresh out of school since that is probably the vast majority of enlistments in the U.S. armed forces. You imply that (significant numbers of) these kids face the choice of joining the military or starving. And yet, unemployment is fairly low in the U.S. (varies by region). So there is a third choice -- if no jobs are available where you live, move to where jobs are easier to come by. Now before you argue that these kids might not want to move away from family/friends, recall that these are the kids whose families choose to stop supporting them as soon as they're out of school.

This will give people a great incentive to join the army even without the fact that it is the only way a lot of poor kids can afford to go to college.And before anyone claims that they paid there own way through college with no financial help from their parents please include a free place to live while saving for college as financial help.

There are options for going to school aside from having one's parents pay, or getting a job and paying it all yourself. In the case we've been considering --in which the parents no longer provide any financial support -- a student would be elible for federal grants and loans, as well as need based assistance from most schools, and perhaps states. This is based entirely on financial need. If one is a good student, athelete, musician (or other art or performing art), or has other skills, scholarships may be available for that as well.

From your comments, it appears that you are not from the U.S., correct? If that is the case, perhaps you're just not getting the full picture. There are other choices for kids besides joining the military.

Regards

Re:If this is true

[EMiniShark]

"Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization"

The 29th Infantry Division, a part of the Army National Gaurd, was part of the first wave on the assault on Omaha Beach on D-Day in WWII. [wikipedia.org]

Re:If this is true

[feed_me_cereal]

The guy who typed in "ZERO" was pretty soundly refuted, and also modded to ZERO (snicker), so I wouldn't say there's a universal lack of rational discussion here, neccesarily. I sort of get the impression that you believe those who would disagree with you are all just like that guy. Maybe not, but your post really comes off that way. Anyway, being someone inclined to believe that, these days, the military mostly attracts poorer people from rural communities, glory seekers, and true believers in the bush doctrine, I'm not surprised that the military would support bush in the election, but I am surprised by your assertion that soldiers are not poor or uneducated (read: more poor and less educated than average). This is not meant to be an insult to soldiers, or anything like that, just what I would see as a consequence of the motivations for joining the military. Of course, the fact that you're not poor doesn't really mean anything, so I'm interested in the facts you claim to have concerning the average education level and poverty level among enlisted men/women. I wouldn't be terribly surprised either way, but I am curious.

Re:If this is true

[Broken scope]

I don't support the iraq war, but people have the right to think differently, maybe you need to stop assuming everyone is out for their own self some people are selfless be thet far and few bettween.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill

They may believe in a stable Iraq. We fucked it up, we need to fix it.

Re:If this is true

[DesertWolf0132]

Correct. It used fission which produces significantly lower yields of force but is still nothing to be trifled with.

Re:If this is true

[Johnny5000]

China may not like North Korea much at the moment, but they have signed some fairly hefty military alliance pacts with North Korea in the past. I would suggest they are most likely to want to avoid any attention atm over North Korea and the facts of what they have promised should North Korea get 'bullied' by other countries.

Maybe so, but I think it would be the same situation as any other time a country is called upon to follow a treaty it signed- determine whether or not following the terms of the agreement would be in the best interests of the country.

In this case, it wouldn't surprise me at all if China didn't honor its end of the military alliance pacts with North Korea, and I don't think the rest of the world would be too upset about their failure to defend NK.

So really, anything could happen.

Re:If this is true

[love2hateMS]

Like most rich dads, Bush's father pulled strings to get him a safe posting.

Wrong. Bush actually volunteered for a unit that was very likely to be sent over to Vietnam, but he was rejected because he didn't have enough flight hours yet to qualify. I love how a lie, repeated often enough, becomes truth. Your statement is a lie.

Re:If this is true

[tinkerghost]

And like it or not, soldiers and their families voted overwhelmingly for GW Bush in the last election.

I actually do not believe that to be true. Bush, w/ 51% of the vote, was re-elected with the smallest margin ever for a sitting wartime president. I don't think that any group voted for him in an "overwhelming" manner.

Re:If this is true

[DesertWolf0132]

I am with Alex. I had two friends, both female and both National Guard, deployed with their respective companies as supply staff. One was killed when her convoy was ambushed and the other had her truck peppered with landmine shrappnel more than once and was by luck alone unharmed. I may not support Bush's approach to this war but I have nothing but respect for the troops over there. I would be with them myself were it not for a serious knee injury I suffered in Basic Training.

As to the congressional offspring in the military, there are at least 7 members of congress with children on active duty and I would wager more in the reserves and guard.

Re:If this is true

[Broken scope]

Well I knew that, you need tritium and dueterium for a fussion weapon, just curious though would a fissile (misfired) fusion detonation still be in the megaton range?

Re:If this is true

[Johnny5000]

Knowing ol' Kimmy, he'd nuke your invading forces inside of his borders, even if they occupied an area populated by a bunch of his people. He'd turn around and say that being vaporized 'brought happiness to the people of North Korea, and the patrriotic people enjoyed having their flesh melt off of their bones'

Beats living in North Korea, I guess.

Re:If this is true

[cunina]

First of all, the Book of Revelation is not a Bush policy paper, nor has the Administration referenced it in any of its policy positions, nor has any influential advisor to the Administration done so.

Second, there is a very significant difference between fundamentalists, who have little if any influence on the Bush Administration, and evangelicals, who do influence the administration.

Re:If this is true

[inKubus]

Yeah, let's NOT invade N. Korea and say we did. We lost that war, we lost in Vietnam and we're losing in Iraq. We need a few terms of a nice isolationist leader and congress. We are not the world police, let the UN do it's job.

Re:If this is true

[KDR_11k]

landing craft are bottlenecks. Aim your machine guns at the exit and voila.

Yes but what if they are unloading armored vehicles or have warships giving fire support?

Re:If this is true

[crazyeddie740]

Again, NK doesn't need nukes to completely ruin South Korea's day. The main targets for these nukes are Japan and, if they can, the US (San Francisco). By the time we mobilize to bomb them (assuming we don't do a pre-emptive strike), there will hardly be any targets in South Korea worth nuking. Well, maybe in the southern part, I don't know... (Come on, this is slashdot, I'm talking out my nether regions here.) Given that North Korea can't have more of a handful of nukes, I'd would say that they would committ them all in the initial attack. They probably have the launch facilities to get them all into the air (or at least explode on the launch pad), but given the reliability of the NK's missles, they might not all get to the target.

So, after the initial attack, we'll be dealing with conventional weapons. Going across the DMZ will be a bit tough. Somebody mentioned an amphib assault, but North Korea does have a respectable submarine fleet. On the other hand, their air force is a joke. With in a very short time, we will own the air to the point where a "fighter bomber with a one way ticket" is going to have a hard time getting off the ground. Air power alone won't be enough to win the war, but it will at least keep the North Koreans pre-occupied while we work on the ground war. As for the ground war, well, to put it bluntly, just about any problem is shallow if you throw enough resources (i.e. bodies) at it, and we will also have help from the Chinese. The only question in my mind is that, if this plays out, if we will need to go to a draft, or if our standing forces can handle it before the draftees can mobilize.

As for North Korea being nuts, well, there's nuts and then there's nuts. It's pretty clear that Kim wants nukes as a deterrent against an American invasion, and also to show that he's a world-class player too. If he actually uses them, he's toast. End of problem. The most scary thing is if he sells them to someone else, but given that he probably doesn't have too many of them, he probably won't want to.

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

>> Bush actually volunteered for a unit that was very likely to be sent over to Vietnam

"No, I didn't."

-- President Bush, Feb. 8, responding to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" about whether he volunteered to go to Vietnam

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be under the chapter titled "Terms Of Surrender: Desert Storm"

Re:If this is true

[khallow]

In the Sun Tzu sense nukes aren't that great a weapon. You don't win the war, you never fight it.

That is the point. The best way to win a war is by never needing to fight it in the first place.

The only war you could win, is the one where you would get attacked if it hadn't been for those pesky nuclear weapons, but you certainly don't get anything out of that.

You haven't thought this through. This is an important category of war. You get a lot out of fighting fewer of these. And generally you can extend that protection past your territory (ie, keeping enemies from deploying nukes in South Korea).

In fact, I'm not sure Sun Tzu would approve of modern warfare at all. When the big powers go to war the first thing they do is saturation bombing. Destroy everything that isn't in special bunkers and the send in the troops to get the rest. They cerrtainly don't try to minimize collateral damage. The only reason they have to do so is because bombs are expensive, which only applies if they have to worry about their budget.

The US hasn't conducted a saturation bombing campaign against targets in civilian areas since the Vietnam war (when North Vietnam was bombed for a brief while). There were some saturation bombing during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but those were against well defined military targets in the middle of desert. Smart bombs are the usual tool of choice and far more effective. Russia's efforts in Chechnya were probably more like saturated bombing, but even then, they seem to have achieved what they intended.

Finally, just a note on technique. You contradict yourself in the last two paragraphs. Saying that the great powers "don't try to minimize collateral damage" followed immediately by "The only reason they have to do so is because bombs are expensive" doesn't help your argument. And it ignores that most governments are somewhat sensitive to political costs associated with causing unnecessary civilian casualties.

Re:If this is true

[blugu64]

Heh, while that may be true, it's not like that was the largest invasion in the history of the world or anything.

Re:If this is true

[DavidTC]

How about we have two military forces? One that the government can send off wherever the fuck they want for any reason, and one limited to actually defending the US from invasion and responding to attacks on it, with a draft enactable for the second.

Oh, wait. No one would join the first one.

Bush has basically destroyed our volunteer military. Not even because of the fact he's running it underfunded and overextended. Even if it was perfectly funded, there were people like me who had no problem with military service beforehand, but would never sign up now without a hell of a lot of safeguards on, you know, randomly invading places.

And I don't think very highly of people who choose to join at this point, either. If you were already in, well, you signed up for something noble that got perverted out from under you, and I can understand you're serving out your time until you can get out of it, instead of going to prison for 20 years. Just keep marking time and try not to get killed.

But joining up now...WTF are you thinking? You're goddamn cannon fodder being throw into the feed trough by moronic lunatics. Here's hope you won't accidently kill any innocent people because you've ended up in a guerilla insurgency on the losing side. Don't worry, soon your legs will get blown off and the military will completely ignore you. If you want to defend the county, wait until the lunatics in office have left or we're invaded.

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

Here you go:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?

President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command system.

Re:If this is true

[hey!]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them.

Not being able to detonate them is not the same as being unable to use them.

This reminds me a lot of Terry Pratchett's wizards, who spend a lot of time try not to do magic, but not doing it in a dynamic way. In other words not doing magic because you don't want to is completely different than not doing magic because you can't.

Having nukes, but not using them, was a big part of the cold war.

I'd argue in a post-colonialism world that all warfare lasting more than a few months has the same character. The ability to take military action is an important part of a state's political power and prestige. But actually using that ability saps national power and prestige.

This is precisely the position we find ourselves in in Iraq. As soon as it became clear we were actually going in, our political power and prestige ended up in the trash, which is why we are impotent to do anything about Syria, Iran, North Korea or even Afghanistan.

Re:If this is true

[DavidTC]

That's right, we've broken half the china in this china shop, and we're staying here until we've glued it all back together!

Re:If this is true

[Wolfkin]

I think you're wrong. See, Americans know that NK currently has no way to deliver nukes to the US. Also, there is the strong possibility (for red-staters) that NK will eventually sell a nuke to some terrorist(s), and that that nuke will actually be used, either in the middle east or the US.

This makes a fairly strong case for assuming that this administration will want to come down hard on NK now, while their nukes are incapable of hitting the US. The only things I can see against this are that the war in Iraq has reduced the effectiveness of a potential action elsewhere, and that politicians almost always talk more than do.

Re:If this is true

[ArwynH]

Oh I wouldn't go as far as to say the US is ruled by Religious Fanatics. The Right maybe. With the support of the far Right and the fanatics, but the Goverment itself is not fanatical.

True, US is the only country to use Nukes. It was also the 1st country to develop them and the effects on humans at the time wasn't really known, which is one of the reasons they dropped them. To test them on human targets. That in itself was not very nice (a bit of an understatement there), but it wasn't evil as such. I suspect they did not realise themselves the full effects of the weapon. Killing 300,000(number made up) people in one shot is what I think they expected, not killing 200,000 with another 150,000's skin melting off their bones.

I have no fear at the moment of the US being the first to start using Nukes in a war. In retaliation, maybe. The governing party seems to be in enough trouble at the moment, using Nukes is one problem they can do without.

Re:If this is true

[Alex P Keaton in da]

"I sort of get the impression that you believe those who would disagree with you are all just like that guy."
I hope not- the truth is, Slashdot is my favorite forum because I think the mod system works well, and almost all the posts here (I am excluding the blatant trolls and GNAA type posts) are thought out and intelligent. I guess my point is, that if a glass that holds 10 liters has two liters of water, then why not argue using the fact that there are only two liters of water? Why say that there is zero water, when two liters is bad enough?
Anyhow- I am sorry I gave the impression that I don't listen to people with whom I disagree... I really hope that is not how I am, because I don't really respect people who won't at least listen to and consider the other side...
And yes, there are a lot of people who enlist who have few other opportunities- but they are not the drooling half wits that they get made out to be sometimes. I will look for some info (non opinion pieces) about the education level of the enlistees... (Of course, by default, enlistees, esp. the young ones, are almost all not going to have college degrees, because if they did, they would try to take the Officer route...)

Re:If this is true

[yanos]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. You see, under the regime in North Korea, a hell lot of people choose to join the army in order not to starve and have a 'decent' life. Remember that NK had (maybe still has?) severe povrety and famine problems in their hands, and most of the humanitarian help went straigth to the soldiers. The result of this is that they now have a huge military forces, something along the line of the US army in term of man power. If the US had difficulty moving in the desert facing a much smaller army in Irak, imagine what would it be like to face an almost 1:1 ratio of soldiers. I don't think the US could invade NK, nukes or not. It would just be a *total* mess.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

It's actually 30,000, and will be dropping to 25,000 in a couple of years. And if you think that they want us out so badly, consider that the US wants to turn over wartime command of the forces to Seoul by 2009, but the South Koreans say they won't be ready until 2012. We're primarily there for overall wartime command, air superiority and close air support, artillery, and to provide a reason to bring in more forces when US soldiers are killed in combat.

Note that I didn't say that there's no reason for the US to be in South Korea. I said that no one wants to fight in North Korea. North Korea does not need a deterrent, but South Korea does. The border between the two is the most heavily-fortified area of the world, with a million or so soldiers watching each other, thousands of artillery pieces in constant state of readiness, and millions of land mines in place to make any thoughts of crossing the border suicidal.

Re:If this is true

[John Hasler]

> It's sure not for South Korea's benefit (they've all but begged us to remove
> them).

Let's see some evidence to support this claim.

Re:If this is true

[mOdQuArK!]

Bush the First realized this, and did not want to subject our troops to those weapons. Can you imagine what the world's reaction would have been? I'd rather not think about it.

It wasn't just that. The Iraqi army was pretty demoralized, including the vaunted "Republican Guards" - there's a decent chance they would've folded like the 2nd time w/o using any WMD (even if they had anything effective left at that time).

What Bush Sr. didn't want to set up was the _exact_ situation that we're in right now - our soldiers indefinitely stuck suppressing massive sectarian civil violence (which had been repressed by Hussein's brutality). Too bad Bush Jr. didn't care to listen to Daddy's advice.

Re:If this is true

[Rorschach1]

Our first H-bomb ("Mike") was 82 tons and occupied its own building. When you're trying to prove the basic technology, miniaturization isn't a priority. That said, I don't know if North Korea's going to bother. As someone else pointed out, they have plenty of conventional weapons, and proving that they have nukes is probably worth more for the psychological impact.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

There were Republican Guard members that continued fighting in pointless locales, and some of them went underground and provided a serious nuisance even before the announced end of hostilities. They were the ones who had the best weapons (such as the Kornet missiles that managed to knock a couple of Abrams tanks out of service) and the training to use them. Not all of them gave up at the sound of firecrackers.

Re:If this is true

[jfengel]

You want data? We got data.

Some groups who voted overwhelingly for Bush:

* Gun owners (63%)
* People with $200k+ incomes (63%)
* Evangelicals (78%)
* More-than-weekly churchgoers (64%)
* Married-with-children (59%)

The military clocks in at 57%, which I wouldn't call "overwhelming", but I'd call "decisive". It may not seem all that big, but in politics 60% is called a "landslide".

It kinda sucks that a 40% minority could be considered to have a negligible opinion. (That's exactly what the President means when he calls for a "simple up or down vote" on a judicial candidate; he knows that he can get 51% but not the 60% required to end a filibuster.) We may see in January if the Democrats would be any more polite when they have 51%, but I'm betting the answer is "no".

Re:If this is true

[siufish]

In recent years though Japanese politicians and strategists have been reconsidering this posture, due largely to the continuing belligerence of North Korea, and more recently because of the strong nationalist and anti-Japan sentiments emanating from China. Memory of Japanese nationalism and militarism within East Asia is very very strong (partly because of Chinese govt efforts to remind everyone of Japan's atrocities at every opportunity). There is great suspicion within China and Korea (Nth and Sth) of Japan.

I would say it is the Japanese government who keep reminding everyone of Japan's atrocities by visiting Yasukuni War Shrine and denying history. Europeans would be very suspicious if Angela Merkel went to a war shrine built for Nazis once a year and denied the Holocaust had happened.

Re:If this is true

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08, @09:29PM (#16360055)
It scares the hell out of me.


You sir need a comfort game.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

Miniaturization work is the next step, but it's not one of those things that qualifies as a "just." Miniaturization of a nuclear weapon is hard stuff. It took until 1957 and 1958 to get the first ICBMs in place for the USSR and the USA, respectively, and each had a massive program that was funded with a significant portion of the defense budget. Modern computers will help this somewhat, but there's still a lot of machine work and testing to do, and Pyongyang simply doesn't have the cash to push ahead that quickly.

Re:If this is true

[khallow]

What people are forgetting is the clear and present danger NK presents to China. NK is still stuck in a cold war with the US and SK, while China has moved on. Remember; NK lives on good will from China, and there are almost no defenses on the border to China. The DMZ is a nightmare for invading, but the north border is just to walk over. Mark my words, if there's an invasion of NK, the Chinese are on the side of the West and probably among SK soldiers. The political views of NK are a far cry from what China wants as its neighbour.

I doubt it. I think North Korea serves Chinese interests quite well. It vastly weakens the Korean peninsula, provides a buffer state, and distracts Western interests. The only real problems I see are that the North Korea regime is unstable and requires expensive propping up by China wealth and power, and that the current NK saber-rattling might encourage Japan to go nuclear. Long term, a nuclear Japan will be a strong counter to Chinese power. The longer China can postpone that, the better off they'll be strategically.

Re:If this is true

[Cheeko]

I don't think anyone questioned the USSR's resolve. The key being that if the Soviet's ever felt like the US had lost its resolve to retalliate, there was a real danger they would initiate. The US never would have initiated an attack on the Soviets no matter what their percieved weaknesses.

Whether this is true is a matter of historical interpritation, but I think thats the general basis on which he referred to the US only.

Re:If this is true

[neoform]

This criticism isn't that Bush Jr. didn't go, it's that Bush Sr. sent OTHER kids off to their death while making sure his own didn't have to die.

That's the bullshit part that pisses people off, and rightly so.

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

Nothing stops USA and UK from withdrawing from the treaty and giving up nuclear weapons completely. Nothing stops any signatory from withdrawing and developing new weapons either.

Re:If this is true

[boner]

You are confusing Patriot performance agains ballistic missiles with Patriot performance agains aircraft. Patriot against ballistic missiles performs poorly at best. Patriot against aircraft however... very high kill ratio.

Re:If this is true

[polar red]

No, it is NOT. If any, the fault has to be seen in a very small elite which rules this earth. This elite is most influencial in the US, but also in other countries. This elite uses nationalism to divide the masses.

Re:If this is true

[Shajenko42]

I knew two people who joined the military within the last year. For some reason they don't think they're going to be deployed to Iraq.

Re:If this is true

[kimvette]

Kim Jong-il just may be insane enough to use them.

Re:If this is true

[SQLz]

Saddam had destroyed them, the only problem was he didn't want to prove it. Once we got into Iraq we found documents explaining why Saddam sent the weapons inspectors through all that turmoil, so it looked like he had weapons. Look where Saddam was, right smack dab in the middle of fundamentalism central. To admit weakness would have just invited militant fundamentalist into Iraq.

Re:If this is true

[DavidTC]

And that's somewhat a moot point, as the only WMDs he had were chemical weapons, and those aren't usable after about three years without careful storage, and about ten years with storage. It's the 'careful storage' sites that were easy to find, the 'buried in the desert and ignored' sites were impossible to find, but even assuming anyone knew where they were, the weapons wouldn't work.

Unless he was manufacturing chemical weapons, all he had were things that were much more likely to kill the people trying to use them than the people being hit with them. Leaking chemical weapons are no fun at all.

And the chemical weapons he had, mustard and sarin gas, can be defended against quite well by any military in the world. It's the danger to civilians that people worry about, and it was, in fact, his own civilians who were the actual victims of his chemical weapons.

How this posed any sort of threat to the US was never explained. Yes, in theory, he could have taken the leaky weapons and handed them to terrorist, who could carefully process them and make five working shells out of every ten shells, and ship them to the US and use them, but he never worked with terrorists, he wouldn't want to piss off the US, and mustard gas isn't that hard to make in the first place, so simply making it in the US would be a more clever plan. How, exactly, Saddam's mostly disfunct WMDs were a threat to us isn't clear.

Or just use something like phosgene, which is much easier to make and much less obvious. Release that in a subway.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

US "support" for the Taleban didn't last very long, especially once word of their continuing oppressive activities got round, and it was tepid in the first place. What was there was closer to an acknowledgement that they had largely ended the war across most of the country. The Taleban had one friendly visit to the US, which was for a briefly-floated idea for a pipeline across Afghanistan, but that vanished quickly, and the US dropped all support for the idea. It was never recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, even though it controlled the vast majority of it.

Re:If this is true

[Goose3254]

This is simple...objectively, if you can afford to do nothing and still eat a diet sufficent to allow procreation, and have shelter, the welfare state is encouraging the behavior. Food and shelter are now taken care of, so, in Maslow's Heirachy of needs, the physiological and safety "layers" are met. Next in line are love and status...which in the twisted little minds of people satisfied to be impoverished baby machines are satisfied by squirting our more mewling ticks on society. Especially if you get a "raise" for each leech you generate.

Re:If this is true

[justthinkit]

It looks like it was a sub-kiloton detonation.

FTA: "The U.S. Geological survey reported a 4.2 magnitude quake".

According to Answers.com (half way down page), a 4.2 quake would correspond with a .GT. 1 and .LT. 5 kiloton device.

Re:If this is true

[smithmc]

  MacArthur's Inchon landing was a good example of how to flank fixed lines.

North Korea isn't exactly known for its navy.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

They're not doing an H-bomb, but a classic "atomic" bomb -- a low-yield fission weapon. Their bomb, by all descriptions, is closer to Little Boy in size if not design (I don't think anyone has mentioned whether it's an implosion or gun-type design).

Yes, it's more for the psychological impact, because once the probability of presence of nuclear weapons reaches one, battle plans change to minimize the chance of the enemy ever using them.

Re:If this is true

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

There is a very famous quote, I think by (ten) President Reagan, that says something to the effect of:

"I'm not afriad of the man who wants many nukes, I'm afraid of the man who wants only one."

Nuke are not useless.

Re:If this is true

[DesertWolf0132]

It would be theoretically possible if the initial mass of the U235 was sufficient and the cascade reaction were set up properly. Of course the device would have to be of massive proportions and the calculations perfect to generate a yield of that magnitude.

Re:If this is true

[Chode2235]

I personally think it has more to do with the proximity to China, rather than them having or not having nukes.

Re:If this is true

[soft_guy]

He'd never actually send anyone he cared about into war... just the poor kids who have no other way to pay for school and hoped the military service would offer it.

Actually, I read that after you join the military, the "pay for college" thing turns out to have many catches that actually prevent most people from being able to actually go to college. It is kine of like using a coupon or getting a rebate on a product you buy - sometimes you can get it and it IS actually possible, but more often than not they will cheat you out of it.

Re:If this is true

[soft_guy]

If they didn't do it, there would be a draft and you would be rolling the dice.

If there is a draft, I'll be in Canada.

Re:If this is true

[workindev]

Withdrawing from the treaty and giving up our weapons is far more insane than anything you are complaining about. The only reason the NPT has worked as well as it has is because we have the weapons to enforce it. If we gave our weapons up, we would have no way to enforce this treaty, and would be powerless against regimes like NK. It would be the diplomatic equivelant of bringing a 3" knife blade to a .50 M2 machine gun fight.

Nuclear technology is already "out there", and there is no "undo" button to click. The only way for us to protect against a nuclear attack is to pose a nuclear threat ourselves.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

Actually, sending in people you care deeply about tends to hamper you abilities to fight a war.

I believe it was Rome that had a legion (or perhaps some smaller unit) of homosexuals. They were feared above all other units because they fought with love for one another and were said to be unbeatable as a result. This may be the only example of succesful militarization of love on a significant scale, but was certainly the first.

Re:If this is true

[DavidTC]

So, the person you're responding to is right, and that's revisionist?

Let's recap. Invading Iraq when they have WMD is a bad idea. That's why Iraq wasn't invaded during the Gulf War. With me so far?

So, when there's talk about invading Iraq again, the Democratic party mentions this, presumably because they believe Iraq does have WMDs, thanks to faulty intelligence provided them by the Administration, and because they don't want to send our soldiers to their death pointlessly.

The Administration, however, completely disregard this possiblity, either because they're idiots, they're willing to sacrifice the soldiers, or they know there are no WMDs. (The Republicans in Congress, of course, went along with our Decider-in-Chief.)

What, exactly, was your point there? How does saying 'The Democrats objected to the invasion on the grounds Iraq might use their WMDs' translate into rebuting 'If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?'?

'If we thought this road was closed, we wouldn't have taken it.' 'Pete thought this road was closed, and he objected to us taking it, so you're wrong!' 'Huh? Isn't that what I just said?'

All you've demonstrated with your comment is that the Democrats honestly believed there were WMDs, based on the reports from the Administration, and thus, quite sanely, objected to the invasion.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

The democrats got behind the welfare reform bill too, you know. Everyone was on it. It limits welfare to five years. Personally I don't think it goes far enough. If you have two children already or have a child when you go on welfare you should be fucking sterilized. If you can't support yourself we shouldn't allow you to make the problem worse. But of course that could never happen, it's a violation of human rights or some shit. If I were Emperor of the world (provided Bush doesn't become that first) it's one of the first restrictions I'd place on welfare.

Re:If this is true

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have,

How this gets moderated +5, I can't even guess. Nukes are not useless, since it keeps big countries from invading smaller countries half a world away. The threat of a nuclear reprisal to an overwhelming conventional attack tends to keep nuclear nations from getting attacked. Of course it also helps if China is your neighbor and doesn't want lots of your refugees flooding its countryside. Another wise man once said, "The only way for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

Re:If this is true

[THE anonymus coward]

If it is in the sub-kiloton range, than I doubt much fusion was going on.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

Those people DO deserve our respect and sympathy. Regardless of their reasons for doing so, they are fighting and dying so YOU don't have to. If they didn't do it, there would be a draft and you would be rolling the dice.

No, there would be a draft, and I would be leaving the country, or going to prison because I refused to serve.

Let me clarify: I would be willing to go to war to actually defend our country. This is not the purpose of this incursion. It is to protect our economic interests. Out of the hundreds of military actions the US has been involved with, only a couple of them have been justified. Most of the rest of them have involved us setting up dictators, and then dealing with them when they became powerful.

We literally put both Saddam and Bin Laden into their positions of power; we trained them and their people and gave them both equipment. We're also pretty much directly responsible for the current state of the Israel/Palestine situation... and many others. We're partly/mostly responsible for the economic situation in Mexico, it's not in our best interest to help them get their act together so we support the politicians and businesses that will do the most damage down there, just to ensure our steady flow of illegal mexicans so that we can keep produce prices low at the store. (And do a little research on the number of times we engaged in naval encursions on the south american continent to force people to continue selling fruit to the united fruit conglomerate...)

These people do not deserve our loyalty, or our respect, if they signed up just so that they could get money for college. They are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. When we have a military strong enough to go engage in military actions, we do so. If we didn't, we wouldn't be so froggy. But, because of the mindless idiots who believe in their country right or wrong, and the other idiots (well there's actually quite a bit of overlap) who signed up for the military to get a free education figuring "I'll never be deployed" they have plenty of men to piss away in their pursuit of profits.

Why, exactly, should I thank someone for being willing to die for Exxon and Halliburton?

Re:If this is true

[GoChickenFat]

Amen brother... Missouri even recently had one of it's House members wounded in combat. http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?con tentId=1104585&version=19&locale=EN-US&layoutCode= TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
Also my old high school biology teacher just got deployed and he is in the Kansas National Guard.

The real fact of the matter is that Slashdot is getting further away from "news for nerds" and a lot closer to "FUD that doesn't matter." It's evident once again by the fact that this discussion has moved to US/Bush bashing instead of focusing on the technology or the fact that this is a world problem.

Re:If this is true

[DavidTC]

I think you would have been morally justified in taking their car keys away so they couldn't sign up.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

An invasion of the US by Iran would go almost as poorly as the US invading Iran.

We don't need to invade. Ever hear of carpet bombing? Of course, if we can't actually get some oil coming out of Iraq (in spite (or really because of) the invasion, oil production is still down) we might start thinking about it...

Re:If this is true

[Broken scope]

Of course, the energy to start a fusion reaction would need to be greater than that which is in a sub kiliton fission device.

Re:If this is true

[radtea]

If North Korea is being rational, and is doing this to have deterrent to invasion, the country they're trying to deter from invading is China.

There is an informal logical falacy I call the "argumentum ad stultum", that is, "argument from stupidity". It applies to any argument that uses as an explicit or implicit premise "no one would ever do something that stupid." All such arguments are falacious, because it is a matter of empirical fact that people will and do behave with an astonishing degree of stupidity and irrationality every single day.

We all know that there are people out there who believe the Bible or the Koran are infallibly true, and that humans and dinosaurs shared the Earth. We know that the cleverly told just-so stories of Marx and Freud have been drivers of huge intellectual, political and cultural movements. We know that most people hate to have their assumptions or beliefs challenged in any way. And we know that these irrational, stupid behaviours know no boundaries of race or creed.

So any argument regarding the rationality of the North Koreans is simply irrelevant. The leadership of North Korea is living in a delusional bubble, to the extent that they have built a closed society that is subject to widespread starvation rather than open their own delusions of power and supremacy to external challenge.

The leadership of North Korea is just as much a bunch of monkeys as Bush, Cheney et al, and is doing much the same thing as the Americans were doing when undertaking some of their less-rational policiy initiatives in the past few years: thumping their chests and howling to show what a bunch of tough bastards they are. The desire to do this is universal amongst humans, and the only check against it is to have well-balanced antagonisitc powers that prevent anyone from ever getting a significant upper hand, because as soon as they do we find ourselves ona slippery slope to North Korea, the old Soviet Union, or what-have-you. That such situations are worse for almost everyone by any rational measure makes no difference to those who have the power, because they are fulfilling the basic desires of the kind of social primate we are, and rationality be damned.

Re:If this is true

[DavidTC]

Yes, we could bomb Iran.

And what on earth would that accomplish?

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

And like it or not, soldiers and their families voted overwhelmingly for GW Bush in the last election.

I call SHENANIGANS. Military absentee ballots are notorious for not being counted. Do you really think that our people dying in the middle east for Exxon and Halliburton are really voting for Bush? I bet you believe that terminating the recount was legal, and that even if it had continued Gore wouldn't have won, too, right?

Re:If this is true

[cheezedawg]

Nothing stops USA and UK from withdrawing from the treaty and giving up nuclear weapons completely.

I think our desire to exist should stop us from doing something as stupid as that. The genie is out of the bottle- the world is nuclear, and there is nothing we can do about it now aside from maintaining our own arsenal and using it to promote peace instead of destruction.

Nothing stops any signatory from withdrawing and developing new weapons either.

Well, that's not true. Nothing in the NPT itself stops a signatory from withdrawing to develop weapons (which is one of the fundamental flaws of the treaty), but there is a lot that can be done outside of the treaty to stop a signatory from withdrawing (along the lines of imposing economic sanctions or pointing big guns at the country that is misbehaving).

Re:If this is true

[Poppler]

If you ask most of the dissenters in the military, they'll tell you that they would fight in Afghanistan which they believe is a just war over 9/11 but most consider Iraq an unjust war of aggression that isn't fighting for the benefit of America

Dead on. A friend of mine signed up for the Army right after 9/11. He was willing to sacrifice everything to fight those who attacked his country, but he was instead forced to fight Bush's war of choice in Iraq. He's now active with Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Re:If this is true

[Maximilio]

As to your last part, I'm tired of that damned argument. These kids willingly joined the army, yes to pay for college, but they were told repeatedly and voluntarily swore an oath (no fucking fine print) that when the U.S. goes to war, they will probably have to ship off and if that is the case, there is nothing they can do about it.

Problem being: they also assumed when they signed up that any war would be fought for the United States and not for the political ambitions of an otherwise lightweight President. Bush has abused these kids' commitment to their nation and acted in extraordinarily bad faith. The fact that the ruling elite to a man apparently have no flesh invested in this war is highly revealing.

Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

You've now downgraded yourself to the status of very poorly-informed. The National Guard are being deployed into this cluster-fuck. It's all over the news. Your opinion becomes less important by the word.

Re:If this is true

[DesertWolf0132]

First, calm yourself. For the record, Iran is in fact batshit insane as proven by its history over the last 30 years. Anyone remember Ayatollah Khomeini? The current leader is not exactly the picture of mental health himself. That said, Iran would never directly use a nuclear device on the United States. Why do that when the multi-billion dollar terrorist movements it supports could easily do it for them with plausable deniability? It would most likely be used against one of the U.S. allies in the region like Saudi Arabia in retaliation for support of the U.S. and Iran would deny all ties to the group setting off the nuke. The cool thing about nukes is, all of the evidence to its origin is obliterated in the blast. Plus, you forget the 79 virgins baloney drilled into the heads of these bozos from birth. "Hmmm, 79 virgins for being blown up in battle with the infidels or life in this sandbox we call a country. Praise Allah and pass the Uranium!"

Re:If this is true

[Roduku]

"I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."
    -- Franklin D. Roosevelt 32nd president of US (1882 - 1945)
              Excerpt from his First Inaugural Address -- March 4th, 1933

Re:If this is true

[Elbowgeek]

As to your last part, I'm tired of that damned argument. These kids willingly joined the army, yes to pay for college, but they were told repeatedly and voluntarily swore an oath (no fucking fine print) that when the U.S. goes to war, they will probably have to ship off and if that is the case, there is nothing they can do about it. I feel little sympathy for these kids, I mean it sucks over there but you did sign up with the military, what did you expect? Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

It should also be part of every soldier's education the lessons learned from previous wars in which the intransigence of the ultimate commanders on each side, in which their pride came before regard for the lives of the footsoldiers, which kept the virtual genocidal conflicts of WWI, Vietnam etc boiling away. The thinking of our leaders is no more rational than it ever was because... we're human (actually we're animals, and all our behaviour is animalistic. The aforementioned intransigence of the upper leadership is a testament to that).

However they should be taught this before they sign up, although that would utterly destroy recruiting numbers.

Re:If this is true

[heinousjay]

This reminds me of all the broken promises to leave the US if Bush won again. It's easy to make theoretical threats. It's easy to take actions which have no consequences.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

It would make the boys in green (well, that or khaki these days) feel good about themselves because they got to play with their toys. But more to the point, we could devastate their military. Not that I'm suggesting that we should. I doubt we could do it while we're also dealing with Iraq, though. It's expensive.

Re:If this is true

[StaticEngine]

Doesn't have the cash? Why, they can just print more!

Re:If this is true

[Braintrust]

"Kim Jong Il may be a bit of a narcissist, with a Napoleon complex, but he's hardly "insane." "

  http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=14620

Nope. He's insane.

Re:If this is true

[norman619]

Oh come on... Anyone who chooses to join the armed forces should know there is always a chance of something breaking out somewhere in the world and that they may be sent there. The whole joining just to pay for college is BS. I put myself through college by busting my ass. Mom and dad were in no position to help me. If you want to do it bad enough you can put yourself through college. Joining the military just to pay for school never crossed my mind. I have no sympathy for those soldiers that did just that and then bitched when it came time to do what they swore to do. Their freaking jobs! They were expecting a free lunch and were suprised when they had to pony up. To be honest I feel everyone who is able bodied should be required to do a short stint in the military right after highschool. It woulds perhaps force some to grow up and see the world as it is not through the distorted lenses of the mainstream media.

Re:If this is true

[glsunder]

One of those independantly confirmed kills was a Tornado

Great, now people in texas are calling for patriots to be deployed around trailer parks.

Re:If this is true

[jacquesm]

the us is as much at war with terror as it is at war with drugs or cancer. it's a media thing, it's used to sell you stuff and take your $.

A declaration of war is another thing entirely, it's the - regrettable - act of a country that sees no diplomatic way out to resolve an immediate threat to its national security. Not an attempt at fleecing the coffers of the country by using magic invocations. Not a device for personal revenge
while ignoring more pressing matters.

If the US was really at war there would be (at a minimum):

    - a rationing of resources states side in order to
        get the war over with as fast as possible
    - no lack of resources for the fighting personel
    - no talk of 'pulling out' in the midst of engagement
        (that would otherwise be known as 'defeat')
    - a *PLAN* for victory, and a clear definition of what it would
        take to declare victory (such as a defined enemy that can capitulate)

With all these factors absent there is no war, except in some peoples heads maybe.

One of the elements of war we do seem to have is war crimes though. And lots of
dead people - both sides - too, for that matter.

Mod me down, see if I care. If you can't stand the truth then use your modpoints
but it won't make the truth go away any time soon. You can't really argue with facts.

If what you keep saying is true then the only thing the US can be conceivably at war with is Islam because that seems to be the common denominator amongst the victims.

Re:If this is true

[Roduku]

part-time troops now constitute more than 40 percent of the occupation force in Iraq, up from roughly a quarter of the troops who were part of the invasion force.

Re:If this is true

[Aqualung812]

Then I thank you for staying here, even after Bush was re-elected, even after we went to war with Iraq. Your tax dollars have helped even more then the "idiots" who go to fight. YOUR TAX DOLLARS paid for the gas to get them there, paid for their guns, bullets, laser-guided bombs. YOUR MONEY IS PAYING FOR THE WAR, yet you are still in the US. Your talk about moving to Canada is cheap.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

Your talk about moving to Canada is cheap.

True - but only because I am not yet sufficiently motivated.

Actually, I think I'd probably be moving to Brazil, since land is cheap there and I have friends who would be headed in the same direction, and who already speak portugese. :)

Re:If this is true

[kernelistic]

How did this get marked as a troll? I guess that hit a nerve. Let's face it, the truth hurts...

Re:If this is true

[gad_zuki!]

>A nuclear exchange hasn't happened on Earth yet for one reason;

Your reason is simply wrong. The two times nuclear weapons were deployed in warfare were against a nation without nuclear capabilities. Thats why there has not yet been a nuclear exchange.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC so I'm not accused of spreading family gossip (not that anyone else in my family reads /.)... I have a cousin who is the black sheep of the family. She and her husband were in and out of jail, on all kinds of drugs, abused their kids horribly, etc etc. By the time she was in her mid-20s they had their fifth child. The baby was delivered by c-section, and the doctor asked her if she wanted him to go ahead and tie her tubes while he was in there. She consented.

Her husband screamed at her (in the hospital, probably only reason why he didn't beat her right then) when he found out, because welfare would pay extra per child for up to seven kids. So why stop at five?

(Yes, eventually the kids were permanently taken away and adopted out - but the oldest was ten by then, and they'd been taken away temporarily several times. CPS needs some revamping too.)

Welfare is a mess. I don't know about forced sterilization, but giving people incentives to have more kids is just not a good way to go about things. I'm sure abuses like this are the minority, but the system still acts as an enabler for the people like this who are out there.

Re:If this is true

[love2hateMS]

I didn't claim he volunteered to go to Vietnam. I said he tried to get into a unit that was very likely to be sent to Vietnam.

Re:If this is true

[Merath]

Won't work. Why? Because us Japanese don't want the U.S. to bring nukes into the country. There are a very few vocal people that have said otherwise, but the silent masses (and the not so silent government) has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. do not bring any ships carrying nuclear weapons into the country.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if N.Korea nuked Japan, why would our nukes need to be in Japan, on a boat near Japan, or otherwise... We would probably use an Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from like Arizona... Like I said I could be wrong about that but that would make sense to me.

What we want the U.S. to do is stop playing "I pretend to care (but really could care less since there's no oil involved)" and actually do something. Something like persuade Russia and China so that we could actually get full, binding, international sanctions against North Korea through the U.N. Last time N.K. shot missiles in the general direction of Japan (7 in total, on July 4th) we got soooo close to getting this through. But then China demanded they would veto it if the a full, binding sanction was included in the language.

Uh, you said yourself that we tried to get the other Eastern Asian countries to cooperate once, what else do you want other than our protection...(Oil has nothing to do with this, and does not dictate our foreign policy in countries that do not have it, perhaps in ones that do but thats a different story).

And if you have not noticed this article is about N.Korea performing an unanounced nuclear test. Which means N.Korea has no problems breaking the rules and therefore would have no problem lying about abductions to the world. So for all purposes this article agrees with you that N.Korea's Government has some questions surrounding it.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

Yes, this is exactly the problem I would like to resolve. There's not enough motivation not to have more kids, and there is motivation to have more kids.

I'm not sure CPS really needs revamping, I mean as bad as it is to leave kids with their real parents when they are abusive, it's actually often worse to place them with a foster family. Occurrence of sexual abuse by males is much higher when they are not the biological parent, for example. No, it's not CPS that needs fixing, it's our whole society, and CPS is pretty much powerless until that happens, and pretty much unnecessary after. Of course, no, I'm not holding my breath.

Like I said, forced sterilization will never fly in this country, or probably any other in this age (except those getting away with genocide) but I think it's the right answer. If you've proven that you're unfit to care for children by not being able to provide for them, then I think you should have to give up your right to children.

In a perfect world in which technology eliminates the medical side effects of doing such things, I would personally favor a requirement for getting a license to have a child. It would be a system that was highly abused but it would be a step in the right direction - problem is, you need a way to reversibly sterilize people before they even become fertile, and we just can't do that right now.

Re:If this is true

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Why do that when the multi-billion dollar terrorist movements it
> supports could easily do it for them with plausable deniability?

A few years back the US made it clear to Russia and China that "plausible deniability" does not exist in the realm of nuclear weapons. This was when both were having problems possibly keeping their nukes from getting on the black market for valuable western cash. "If you are having a tough time tracking them, let us help you track them. For if one of them gets into the hands of terrorists, well, if your nukes are gonna destroy our cities one way or another, we're 'gonna get into it with you directly'"

It's conceivable that all smaller nations that have nukes and might help terrorists will be sundered in a whirlwind "just in case", if the US is hit by a terrorist nuke.

Part of both Iraq and Afghanistan was to tell the world that if you start this up, diplomatic "business as usual" was over.

Re:If this is true

[Roduku]

CANADIAN TROOPS ARE IN IRAQ

Re:If this is true

[Wakko Warner]

I'm more worried about dying from a hangnail.

Re:If this is true

[ghc71]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them.

Why not? I would certainly submit that there are many occasions when the US would be better off not using them, but (picking an example entirely at random) a nuclear option to neutralize the Iranian enrichment capability would seem sensible in many ways.

As a horrible counterexample, say for instance, that the US launches a conventional campaign against the DPRK. With a conventional response, North Korea is doomed, just like Iraq was. If, two hours into the air campaign, a Nodong missile makes Honolulu glow in the dark, while DPRK embassies around the world issue public communiques that Seattle will follow in one hour unless hostilities stop, will a US president call Kim's bluff, and trust that the Navy will intercept the next one?

Re:If this is true

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> 1. McClellan's incompetence was responsible for some of the largest losses of human
> life during the Civil war, including the battles of Manassas. He was given multiple
> chances to successfully engage Lee and failed miserably on every case. Intellectual
> ability doesn't matter a damn if you can't apply it.

Of him, Lincoln made one of his most famous quotes, "He snatches defeat from the jaws of victory." And McClellan's incompetence was so great there are no shortage of historians who harbor serious suspicions he was a southern sympathizer.

As for IQ, Jimmy Carter was one of the brighter presidents, and arguably the only one since Jefferson to be marginally trained in sciences. Lot of good that did with "stagflation" and the hostage crisis...

Re:If this is true

[Junior J. Junior III]

The problem isn't that all fathers want to keep their children safe. The problem is that the corrupt social order enables rich fathers to pull strings while poor fathers get to watch hopelessly while their children are devoured by the beast of war, and that wars invariably serve the needs of the rich and powerful.

Re:If this is true

[itof500]

A sailboat into New York harbor?

duke out

>

hat said, the descriptions from the Russians about North Korea's bomb place it at 3m in length and weighing about four tons, which is far more than any North Korean missile can mount and more than most of their planes can handle. There is zero chance of North Korea mounting nuclear missile attack in the next few years, and they would have to learn some very powerful miniaturization tricks before they could threaten anyone at a significant range.

Re:If this is true

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The US Constitution has a clear definition of "declaring war", and that document ain't it. And that's part of the problem.

Congress won't declare a war for several reasons: Lack of clear opponent, lack of clear definition of victory, declaring war means insurance policies that are void on "acts of war" no longer need be enforced and Congress doesn't want to take the heat for that with a bunch of pissed off constituents...

Re:If this is true

[AtomicBomb]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have

This statement applies to every single nation (e.g. Iran, Iraq, Syria or even semi-nation) in the planet apart from North Korea. He is the second worse person than Bin Laden to own a nuke. Kim may not be schizophrenia, but really has some serious personality defect. From all those kidnap deals in the 1980 (including the most brazen case in which he captured a South Korean movie star because he watched a movie....) you can have a glimpse of his crazy dark mind. This type of person has a mentality that he is on top of the world and should not bound by rules. He may be deadly rational, but his goal can be very dark (like maximise his own definition of fun -- like manipulation, power and damage). Suppose he knows he has got cancer tomorrow, he probably will just push the nuke button just for the sake/fun of it.

Re:If this is true

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You know, I see this kind of post often when discussion turns to the war. The thing is, I read that as you sounding all hurt that he would dare do such a thing. I believe ANY dad would do the same given the opportunity and ability. I know I sure would if my son was going into harms way. And, if you think any different you aren't much of a dad. Call me a liar.

That's fine. The problem is in the hipocracy of it all. To do such a thing, then sit later on as Commander-in-Chief, well, it's a tad on the, perhaps technically not unethical side, but certanly a bit hipocritical...

Re:If this is true

[GodfatherofSoul]

Just like in CounterStrike, team killing counts as -1 so the parent is correct.

Re:If this is true

[RexRhino]

So why is it fashionable to invoke Hitler when it comes to his foriegn policy, yet it is unfashionable to point out his views on gun control, education, regulation of the media, family planning, price and wage controls, and economic central planning?

It is not that I so much disagree that certain U.S. foriegn policy Hawks don't have some similiar foreign policy views as Hitler... but at the same why don't so-called "liberals", social-democrats, and socialists want admit that they have essentially a Nazi domestic agenda?

I mean, a Nazi foreign policy would not be possible without a Nazi domestic policy to provide the propoganda, government control and regulation, taxation for military spending, and disarmament of potential dissenters. It is pretty clear that an agressive foreign policy is only possible with the type of centraly planned command economy at home that people on the left tend to support. A state with only a modest government, dependent on good relations with other countries for trade, and without a state-contolled education system or state-regulated media to push nationalist propoganda, and with an armed population who could resist the government, is unable to carry out an agressive foreign policy. A limited government and warfare state are mutually exclusive.

Re:If this is true

[Yunzil]

And where in there does it say, "The United States of America declares War on the nation of Iraq"?

Re:If this is true

[elrous0]

No, actually that makes perfect sense. "A narcissist with a Napoleon complex" pretty much describes every director in Hollywood.

-Eric

Re:If this is true

[AnalogDiehard]

Actually, in the Sun Tzu sense, nukes are the perfect weapon. They allow you to win a war without ever firing a shot

Then how did that help the US during Vietnam? Korea?

Re:If this is true

[danaris]

I've never actually believed that this is true; I think that except for a very, very small proportion, most Americans would prefer to live above a subsistence level, even if that means they have to get out and do some work. I would tend to blame the War on Drugs for the cycle of violence and poverty more than welfare.

However, I do think it's less than useful to get extra for more children. People should have to pay more for more children; that's the only way we're ever going to shift population growth from those least able to afford it to those most able...

My rough recommendation would be something like half the amount of the current child tax credit should be the amount of the tax, and if you can't pay it, after a certain length of time you get your tubes tied...or something like that.

Dan Aris

Re:If this is true

[sickofthisshit]

Not trade with Taiwan? Are you kidding me? Anybody who wants a laptop trades with Taiwan. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/2005103 1145912.html

Now, diplomatic relations, those are another topic.

Re:If this is true

[lixee]

For the record, I'm proudly non American and my comment is not linked to either Democrats or Republicans; It's about an imperial power that seem to be repeating history.

Re:If this is true

[Chris Burke]

Having seen their lackluster performance, that's not setting the bar high.

The United States Salvation Army is more elite than the Iraqi Republican Guard.

You must be thinking of the regular Iraqi Army, which was less elite than the Salvation Army because their morale was lower.

The Republican Guard was serious. No, they couldn't stand up on the open field to our ground forces. That's why after we took out three divisions outside the capital, the two divisions guarding the city itself vanished and the Battle of Baghdad never occured. But two divisions of dedicated soldiers don't really "vanish" -- who do you think formed the foundation of the insurgency that took hold days after we declared victory? The Republican Guard isn't just fanatical, they're smart, and "fighting fair" when you know you'll lose isn't very smart.

Which brings me to the NK special forces, who are even more fanatical and even more smart. First, they're rarely if ever captured. Second, they actually use their suicide pills, so it's even more rare to have a survivor to interrogate. They will be extremely bad news if there's any kind of military action against NK.

Actually, my worst fear is that NK's special forces have already been hard at work planting nuclear devices at various cities around the world.

Re:If this is true

[Jo Owen]

Any number of people can site a single example, but we are talking about a tred. which is confirmed by the avalible stats. So stop being so fucking defensive and look at the big picture.

Re:If this is true

[matt21811]

I cant respect people that put their own lives in danger to acheive less than nothing for themselves and their country. What is to respect? They are idiots. How can you respect that?

Re:If this is true

[hcob$]

The evidence I have is only what I saw with my own eyes growing up in an "impoverished" area. 20-yr olds popping out the 5th child on welfare, getting their children certified as mentally challegned, anything and everything to get more money from the government. I'ts also very telling when someone on welfare can afford a house, two cars, tv, cable, cell phone, and good quality food. Most hard working people I know have a hard time affording all that.

I started working at 15. It galls me to this day to see where my tax dollars go. I have SEEN what instituionalized welfare does to a populace. I get ANGRY when someone that I'm supporting with my tax dollars says that I (as a white male) OWE them something for what someone did to someone else decades ago. All I see welfare as now is a way for Democrats to get elected. In my hometown and surrounding area, the ONLY way to get elected is to say your a democrat. If the only three words you say when you step into town is "I'm a Republican"(or any party other than Democrat), you're immediately labeled as a bigot and get shouted down when you open your mouth on anything. When people actually have to start WORKING again (and not suing cause someone HURT YOUR FEELINGS), you'll see America start to thrive again. Until that day, we're doomed to a life of the actual WORKING class supporting all the fscktards that are mooching the system that was designed to help people because they feel that they are OWED something.

The only people OWED anything in the US were the actual Slaves, Native Americans, and their immediate children. Other than that, shut the hell up, get off you @ss, and get a fscking JOB!

And before anyone gets all up and arms about no work available, etc etc... That's just BS. I've done jobs from unloading trucks at walmart, hoeing weeds out of cotton fields, all the way up to my job now in a high tech company designing test software. The main problem is people have gotten this level of "pride" from somewhere that is unjustified. The only pride ANY American should feel is in a job well done. If you've ever not taken a job because "I'm too good for that" then you've never been really in need of anything. And in that case, I wish you would do the right thing and stop stealing from people who ACTUALLY need the money.

Next time, take your theory of how we should be kind to other people and shove it. Until you actually take the time to add up how much of your money goes into the biggest vote-buyer in US histroy, see where that money goes, then you can be suspect of my opinion. And I'm not talking about a 5 day trip down to the "impoverished region", I'm talking about spending 18 years in an area where you are immediately looked down upon, called a racist, and are told you OWE someone more money.... Just because you are white.

I'm a bigot indeed.

Re:If this is true

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Without nukes, they have no feasible deterrent against an army of superior strength (U.S., China, etc.).

A rational invader would be deterred by mountains, winter, forces that have had decades to dig in, and by 500 long range artillery tubes that could begin leveling Seoul within minutes.

N. Korea is not doing this out of rational concern for national security.

Re:If this is true

[Rakarra]

Mod me down, see if I care. If you can't stand the truth then use your modpoints but it won't make the truth go away any time soon. You can't really argue with facts.

Oh god dammit. If I had mod points I would have modded your post up... until I got to this point. Every time I see someone get up on the cross and make themselves out as the pariah in their own post, it brings out such a temptation to mod the post down just out of spite for that attitude. I never have... but oh, the temptation is there.

Why you felt the need to make such a declaration in a post with a lot of good sense that most Slashdotters would probably agree with is a bit of a mystery. Hell, I would have cheered if a Congressman read just those few short paragraphs on the floor of the House.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

They can only print a few million each year (I've seen estimates of $15 million to $20 million). They need billions to be able to come up with miniaturization. They make more from heroin sales than they do from counterfeit currency.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

The US forces have begun to pull back for a few reasons, one of them pressure to relinquish the space consumed by bases in and around Seoul, which are wanted for commercial development. The other is that the US wants to keep what assets it has there outside of artillery range. The North has seen this withdrawal as a sign of preparation for war, but then it sees butterflies in the DMZ as a sign that the US is preparing for war.

Re:If this is true

[killjoe]

"I'd die for a stable Iraq."

In that case you are an idiot.

"IT'S NOT ABOUT CONTRIES. IT'S ABOUT CERTAIN BASIC RIGHTS THAT ALL HUMANS SHOULD BE AFFORDED."

If it really was about basic rights for all humans I would be for the war. But it's not. You notice that we have let all kinds of nasty dictators all around the world continue to brutalize their people. Since you an idiot you have failed to notice that we are actually supporting some of those dictators.

"War is wrong and evil...but to argue that war is always avoidable is to ignore all of history."

Nice straw man there, did you have fun beating it up? Did I say that war is always avoidable? Did I even say that any war was avoidable?

Do you really think that it makes you look smart when you make up an argument and then argue against it (thereby thinking you are winning an argument against yourself)?

"So get over the fact that we are at war and start excepting the fact that we as a people have an obligation to make sure those people have something left."

Yes sure as soon as we punish those who caused the damage in the first place. You know personal responsibility and all that shit.

"Oh and most of those in the military that I know are damn proud to be fighting for this country."

Yadda yadda yadda. Who the fuck cares what some nitwit who could not get a job in the real world is broud to fight for. Anybody who thinks killing iraqis is "fighting for this country" is a douchebag without the brains to fight themselves out of a paper bag. The only people who think like that are chickenhawks. Go talk to the enlisted men and tell me is they think they are fighting for their country.

Fighting for this country my ass. Was my country under attack from iraq?

Re:If this is true

[killjoe]

"I don't support the iraq war, but people have the right to think differently,"

Sure but I also have the right to call them idiots.

"maybe you need to stop assuming everyone is out for their own self some people are selfless be thet far and few bettween. "

Selfless is helping the poor, selfless is volunteering at the soup kitchen, selfless is giving blood, selfless is buying a bum breakfast. Selfless is not invading a country which never attacked you and killing thousands of them for fun and profit.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. "

Well that's good to know. Now I can justify any act whatsoever by saying it's not the worst thing I can do. Sure rape is an ugly thing but it's not the ugliest thing, I could have killed her and then raped her but I raped her and left her alive. See I am being selfless and ethical!.

"The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. "

It's impossible to be moral and patriotic at the same time. They are contradictory.

"They may believe in a stable Iraq. We fucked it up, we need to fix it."

Who is "we" kimo sabe? I don't see you there. If you love it so much go there and do the killing yourself that's what I say. It's cowardly and immoral to send others to do the killing for you. You don't have to enlist either, you can go as a civillian

Re:If this is true

[RexRhino]

I didn't mention Democrats or Republicans... I mentioned "Liberals" (modern Liberals, not classical Liberals), Social Democrats, and Socialists. I specificly kept my comments non-American.

The fact is, Imperial Power requires the type of government intervention and central planning that so-called progressive Europeans support. American Imperialism is only possible because the U.S. has adopted traditionally European domestic policies such as heavy taxation, economic central planning, gun control, regulation of media, nationalized education, etc.

Had the United States stuck to it's traditional domestic policy of economic and social non-intervention by the government, it's traditional foreign policy of neutrality would have continued. The rise of American Imperialism corresponds directly with the rise of "progressive" politics in America. Each state of expanding American militarism (Wilson and WWI, Roosevelt during WWII, Kenedy during the cold war, LBJ and Nixon during Vietnam, GWB today) has been closely linked to increases of taxation powers, increase of regulatory powers and central planning powers, and media regulation and government education to promote propoganda.

People need to understand that domestic policy and foreign policy are linked. Central planning, gun control, government regulation of media, government education, taxation, etc., lead to foreign militarism. You cannot support a domestic activist state, and at the same time be against foreign militarism. You either support limited government, or you support Empire.

You support political, economic, and social conditions that make U.S. Imperialism inevitable, and then you want to pretend that you are somehow against U.S Imperialism. Europe laid the idiological blueprint for U.S. Imperialism, and to this day continue to propogate the myth of "benevolent government intervention" that continues to make U.S. Imperialism possible.

Re:If this is true

[Cigarra]

You don't start a war you know you can't possibly win.

Can you tell me how would Kim Jong Il could think such a thing? Oh, I forgot he is a MADMAN. HE is EVIL.

Re:If this is true

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.

I'm not sure about that last, see geological note below.

HOWEVER, assuming you are American, if you (and a significant majority of your countrymen) allow this to scare you and both 1) reelect jingoist pro-war politicians, and 2) support launching a 'pre-emptive' war against North Korea, things will become very dreadful indeed for the Korean peninsula.

Given the geology involved, the size of the warheads America has, and the fact that we'd probably want a "pre-emptive first strike" that leaves no hope of launching a Taepodong II at Seattle; shouldn't that be that things would get very dreadful indeed for the Island of South Korea?

Re:If this is true

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm?

I have relatives in the National Guard, and friends in the National Guard. Every single one of them has served at least one tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, and a relative was just killed about a month ago in his third tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

Not under W, who seems to think that the best way to protect Oregon is to kill all of our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Re:If this is true

[iabervon]

It doesn't matter what the US, South Korea, etc. actually care about. The North Korean government tells its people (and the world in general) that outsiders want to invade. The people accept the government in part because it prevents this invasion. (At least, the government seems to think this; whether the people actually buy it is a different matter.) So North Korea needs the deterant for domestic reasons. Furthermore, it needs the foreign attention for the same domestic reasons, so they have to elicit disapproving statements from the white house regularly while not going so far that anyone actually invades.

Re:If this is true

[kaffiene]

Your empathy overwhelms me. I'm always impressed with American's capacity for hatred of their fellow man.

Re:If this is true

[KH]

OK, the AC has some facts wrong.

Actually, the Japanese constitution (9th paragraph) states that the only use of armed forces can be for self defense. That said, there is a plethora of laws that forbid it from doing even that.

Here is the translation of Article 9 found at Wikipedia.

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

That it allows Japan to have self defence forces is a rather forced interpretation.

The Japanese self decense army is under prepared, under staffed, and does not have the necessary equipment. We have no missiles. Our jet fighters were deliberately modified so that they don't have fuel tanks large enough to fly a round trip to Korea and back.

I'm not sure if F-15s and Mitsubishi F-2s cannot fly sorties to North Korea from Japanese bases, not that I see point in doing that. It does not seem F-15J/DJs were in any way modified to reduce their range, either. IIRC, the range of the F-15 became an issue in the parliament when its introduction was discussed. Also, now JASDF has tankers.

The old Model 66 assault rifle, when dis-assembled, broke down into 30-some odd parts, including some very small springs, which my brother says would be impossible to re-build in the field. People lose parts when undergoing re-build training in the baracks!

Type 64 (not 66) rifle may have been PIA to maintain, but current infantry weapon is Type 89. I don't think it's not much inferior to any modern assault rifle. And I highly doubt small differences in personal weapons are strategically that significant.

Even the high-mobility vehicles, the Japanese version of the Hummer HMMV (built by Toyota under the civilian model name Mega Cruiser), simply resembles the U.S. Hummer, but in reality is not even close in functionality.

It's not like HMMVs did not have major problems not having armours. Japan also brought light armoured vehicles to Iraq.

Overall, the parent post reads very much like a typical sentiment of a Japanese person living in Japan. The problem I see is that they are not exposed to international media and do not know how much self-perception is different from perception from outside. Most of the Japanese see China and South Korea as some sort of bullies who always mention and exaggerate what the Japanese did during the WWII. This must come as a great shock for the Chinese and South Koreans who are genuinely scared of the Japanese behaviour in the first half of the 20th century. Just like they see Japan as the victim during the WWII (another big surprise for those who are not Japanese), they still feel that they are isolated and have no friend.

There is also a sensationalism with regard to North Korea. There are some factions of nationalists in Japan who capitalize on the actions of North Korea. They tend to overhype the danger of North Korea. I find this very dangerous.

North Korea always seemed to be seeking for attention. They don't seem to like the fact that the US is paying more attention to Iran, or a south Korean becoming the general secretary of the UN. As long as they get attention, they seem happy. I also figure that anybody, including South Korea,

Re:If this is true

[w1ll0w]

Sounds like your view is coming straight from cnn. You should trying reading all the media outlets to get a better perspective on the reality of the world.

Re:If this is true

[lixee]

You cannot support a domestic activist state, and at the same time be against foreign militarism. You either support limited government, or you support Empire.

I never saw things from that perspective! I'd be grateful if you could point me to any literature on that "inextricable link" between domestic and foreign policy.

Re:If this is true

[Harinezumi]

While that is true to an extent, I don't think that that's the biggest consideration in North Korea's case.

The problem with NK is that they have more than enough conventional weapons to turn Seoul and Tokyo into smoking piles of rubble before we can react, which would not only harm our biggest allies in the region, but also cripple the US economy since we get so much of our industrial inputs from Japan and South Korea nowadays.

Furthermore, the proximity of China, Russia, and South Korea makes nuking NK 'til it glows a somewhat less palatable option geopolitically.

Re:If this is true

[loraksus]

When Poland was under the iron curtain, you would get bonuses for having children and if you had 7 (IIRC), the government supported you completely - neither parent would have to work.
The rationale behind this is they needed soldiers to fight (and factory workers, etc) and were trying to increase the population with these subsidies.

Re:If this is true

[Cigarra]

"The only way for us to protect against a nuclear attack is to pose a nuclear threat ourselves."

Kim Jong-il, is it you?

Re:If this is true

[HolyYakker]

Your faulty assumption is that the Administration knew that Saddam had no weapons and force fed us lies to push forward the invasion. However, the logic doesn't hold up. If the democrats felt that we shouldn't invade on the chance that Iraq had WMDs then the best course of lying would be to say that they did in fact not have any WMDs and we were invading in response to the ethnic cleansing and other breaches of the cease-fire reached at the end of the Gulf War. The Administration, the Congress, and the entire world community held the view pre-Iraq invasion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we invaded anyways. My point, which you so brilliantly missed was that we would have invaded if Iraq had WMDs or not. Everyone, at the time of the invasion, thought that he did and it wasn't until several weeks later that questions were starting to be raised about where they were. Actually, it is worth pointing out that even Saddam thought he had these illegal weapons. Several reports were recovered in his palace in which his scientists claims their developments were moving right along in several weapons programs. The scientists were, as we know now, over stating their claims. But the arguement that nukes or WMDs is the only way to be 'safe' from invasion is faulty.

Re:If this is true

[DevilDoc]

First of all, how do think Lincoln felt when he stood on the battlefield at Gettysburg and delivered his famous address. You don't think he understood that it was going to take much more catastophic loss of life to win the war? I am sure that he knew families that paid the ultimate sacrifice and that the death and destruction that he encounter must have shaken him to the foundation of his soul yet he percerved because he had ordered it. You make sound as if Grant just stood up and said "OK, I'm in charge". The President recognized the facts and made the decisions that allowed the union to remain. Secondly, How do you know that the President doesn't personally know anyone in combat? Actually only about 10% of our forces are frontline combat troops. We can all thank the former President Clinton for the massive downsizing of our combat forces. We certainly could have used the 10 combat divisions that he disbanded when he wasn't fornicating with staffers, lying to grand juries or using the FBI to spy his country men. Maybe he should have spent more time worry about catching Osama, kicking ass in Somalia, catching the perpetrators of the bombings of the USS Cole and the barracks in Saudia Arabia Finally, the National Guard is a sizable component of the Army. They are on loan the the state govenors until requested by the President. I would hazard a guess that a large number of National Guard units have been activated and are serving in combat areas. And the next time you see a Guard unit training on the weekends you should pull over and wave because they are part of the force that allows whiny chicken shit liberals to nothing more than pay taxes and bad mouth their country and President on the internet (which was invented by the US military and not Al Gore).

Re:If this is true

[TroyFoley]

Actually I believe George Carlin summed up the superceding foreign policy quite well: If your country has a lot of brown people in it, WATCH THE FUCK OUT!

Re:If this is true

[xcrunner]

We won't go into the possibility of putting some nukes on ships and sailing into assorted harbors. In that case, the physical size of the devices really won't matter. Yes, be concerned and be afraid.

Considering the fact that the US constantly has submarines with nuclear weapons throughout the sea, no one knowing their exact location, or maximum depth, pointed at every possible target, I think that countries know better than to use nuclear weapons. They know we have subs pointing at them and they are almost impossible to track, having new numbers painted on them each time they dock. They are also very large, not like the subs you see in movies. They know that if they use such a nuclear weapon, they will have 5 or more pointed directly at them waiting to go off.

Re:If this is true

[workindev]

All that Kim Jong-il needs to do to get protection from a nuclear attack is to agree to the stipulations of the NPT. The 5 nuclear states would then be required to provide protection from a nuclear attack as long as NK was abiding by the stipulations in the treaty.

But if the 5 nuclear states get rid of their weapons, there will be nobody around to protect against the proliferation of nuclear weapons from a rogue state.

Re:If this is true

[jkauzlar]

Common Sense: 1) They usually need it for healthcare or to cover other costs while paying health insurance premiums, 2) They'll need it to stay afloat for the next round of layoffs, or even if they need to change jobs/move etc. Living paycheck to paycheck is a bitch if anything unexpected happens.

Re:If this is true

[Broken scope]

Certain things are worth dying for, certain things are worth fighting for that is the point of the quote. Some people realize that, most people never have to make that choice, your life for someone elses, your life for a cause. You may never be faced with dying for something. If you do then you have my respect, if you die may the cause be worthy of your sacrifice, if you don't then may that choice not haunt you till you die.

I never said we should have been in Iraq in the first place. However we need to fix what we broke. Our country did something, maybe you didn't read the fine print, in a deomocracy even the minority has to deal with the consequences of the winners actions. Did i vote for Bush? no. You don't like it? There are other places you can live? You can come back once everything is back to the clean wonderful little heaven you want it to be.

You don't know who I am, you don't know where i have been. You don't know what i have seen. You can make the same claim.

Really? So supporting a goverment that respects the rights of all people everywhere, allows them to voice their opinions, and gives them a stable place to live is immoral? Well damn, whats the point of a country then, I can't love the ideals that i hoped my country might one day achieve and still be a person who lives my life by a moral code because i can and not because i might be arrested for breaking the law?

Who did I say was selfless? Who did i say wasn't selfless. Is a rich guy being selfless when he gives away 1% of his 300$ billion fortune to the poor? "I gave him some money, what more can i do?" Damn, i must be the most charitable bastard in the world, hell where the fuck is my medal ive done all the "selfless" things you mentioned.

Selfless is doing something for someone else without thought for ones own well being. Does it have to happen in a warzone? No. Does it have to happen in a violent situation? No.

You are assuming all wars are fought for the wrong reasons. Did i ever say that Iraq was an okay situation? Once again you put words in my mouth. Its been about 60 years since we fought in a war that one could say was "just" or for the protection of freedom. Rape is never justified or justifiable. When an enemy army decides to out of the blue destroy one of your bases killing hundreds with no decleration of war, you are justified with retaliating.

I never said you couldn't call them idiots, hell the way everything is going i might have to join you at some point.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-John Stuart Mill

Someone who believes that nothing is worth more than they are is pathetic. If you cannont find something or someone you would be willing to trade your your short stint on this earth to protect then you have my sympathy, for you must live a shallow and miserable life.

Re:If this is true

[Hork_Monkey]

What is there to respect?

Those soldiers are willing to die for an opinion different than yours. Take a look at yourself and how far you are willing to support what you believe in. So far, I've only seen your words and verbal attacks on those who put their life on the line for a concept that hold closer than anything else in the world: Duty. You may not agree or understand, but they will continue to fight for a simple cause- The hope that they can bring a better life to opposed people.

I have two realtives who have recently returned from tours of duty. They don't voice their opionion about the politics. Their goal is to do the most amount of good that they can with the orders they were provided. They've accomplished setting up running water and electricity to villages that have never had those luxuary's before, organized Boy Scout troops, help rebuild schools.

What have you done with your life to make a difference? Was fucked up situation have you tried to make the best of?

Calling them idiots on a message board gives me a glimpse of your character, but that glimpse only leaves me to believe that you are a close minded and hateful individual. I encourage you to talk to a few soliders who have returned. Talk to the grunts, talk to the officers, talk to the medics, talk to the engineers. Then you might see a BIGGER picture, and that the guys with their necks on the line are doing the best they can in a piss poor situation.

Re:If this is true

[petermgreen]

an attack can be a countries best option to protect its interests without having to drain the countries rescourses to the point of "total war".

whether you call a conflict where one side clearly crushes the other a war is up to you but it seems it has certainly historically been used for such conflicts.

the problem in both iraq and afghanistan is after we achived an occupation and some other major objectives we didn't have a clear plan for cleaning up the aftermath. Estabilishing new governements that are both strong enough to hold the countries and western friendly will at best take a long time and at worst be impossible.

Re:If this is true

[killjoe]

"Certain things are worth dying for, certain things are worth fighting for that is the point of the quote."

Yes certain things. Iraq is not one of those things.

"However we need to fix what we broke."

Define Fix. And then tell me is anybody is actually fixing things.

Now I am all for fixking things as soon as the people who broke it admit that's it's broken and get punished for breaking it. According to the president of the United States iraq is not broken. It does not need to fixed. Who are you to say it's broken when the president, the vice president, the congress and the joint chiefs of staff say that it's not broken?

"Someone who believes that nothing is worth more than they are is pathetic."

How is that working out for you? You know the whole "pretend I said something and argue against it" thing? Did you enjoy beating that straw man?

Re:If this is true

[AEton]

The Wikipedia entry you're looking for is titled May you live in interesting times.

Re:If this is true

[mapkinase]

As a Russian citizen, I can tell you that Russians are bending over backwards to do something spiteful against US. That is the sole main reason of them supporting Korea, former government of Iraq, Arab countries against Israel, India against Pakistan (in the times of cold war), Vietnam against Red Khmers, Serbs, etc. etc.

You seem like a noble Japanese patriot. My advise is to ditch your pussycat constitution. Get guys like yourself together and start a campaign. You have already paid more than enough on 6th and 9th of August in 1945. The only way to be protected is to be protected.

The biggest enemy in that campaign are not the angry Chinese crowds, not Russia, not even your own peacenick government. The biggest challenge is the consumerism, the materialism of consumption that neglects all that makes human different from an animal - honor, dignity, self-sacrifice, nobility, faith.

Re:If this is true

[kbielefe]

Like most rich dads, Bush's father pulled strings to get him a safe posting.

To believe that any fighter pilot is safe from being called into active duty in a war zone is an insult to anyone who has worn a uniform during peace time.

There are actually soldiers in Iraq who WANTED to come home at the end of their service, but were forced to stay on due to lack of numbers.

For a few extra months at the most. Let me reiterate my original point: to imply that the vast majority of troops do not support the war they are fighting dishonors their service. Yes, there are a few veterans who completely disagree with the war, and I respect their opinion because they have earned it. There are a lot more who support the war in general, but are frustrated with certain decisions that were made about the implementation details.

Do you know what major event marked the major downward turn of public opinion regarding the Iraq war? Disapproval of Bush's Iraq policy rose together with disapproval about the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, even though some significant positive things happened in Iraq around the same time.

That tells me that there is a huge group of americans who don't precisely know why they disapprove of the war in Iraq other than a vague dissatisfaction and some political sound bites. All I ask is that you give our troops' accomplishments at least equal billing with the terrorists and insurgents' accomplishments (see my sig), ignore pundits and politicians of either party as much as possible, and consider why over 162,000 americans enlisted for active duty in the last year, in spite of record low public opinion and negative media coverage of the war they'd be sent to. When you can explain that, then I'll respect your opinion to disagree with the war.

Re:If this is true

[mrchaotica]

Ever hear of carpet bombing?

Yes, I've heard that it results in about the same effects as using a small nuclear bomb, but much less efficiently.

In other words, if the US was going to start bombing Iran, it would either be with precision-guided weapons (99.9999% likely) or nuclear ones (0.0001% likely). Dealing with the huge quantities of explosives and waves of aircraft required for carpet bombing is stupid and unnecessary nowadays.

Re:If this is true

[mrchaotica]

The Sacred Band was Greek, not Roman, and consisted of exactly 300 soldiers (i.e., 150 couples). And they weren't "unbeatable" (although they were highly trained); on the contrary, they were completely destroyed in the Battle of Chaeronea when they stood their ground after the rest of the army fled.

(Note: everything except for the fact that they were Greek I learned from the Wikipedia article I just linked -- I'm not a historian, but I play one on Slashdot.)

Re:If this is true

[Shadow99_1]

No one else may blame China if they backed out (though many asian countries probably would, for a variety fo reasons)... However internally it would be a big loss of face... Something chinese often do care about. It's one thing to be wrong, it's another entirely to be wrong and everyone knows it.

China backing out is like saying to the world "Yeah we were stupid for supporting them originally", they seriously don't want to have to tell the world that. Or even suggest it internally in more than the most private of forums.

That view (which is based on knowing many chinese people and their cultural take on things) would suggest they will try to distance themselves from any discussion of North Korea, it's their way of 'saving face'. If pushed who knows what would happen... For or against is hard to say, but distancing themselves right now does make the most sense culturally...

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

The number of people who sign up for a war is completely orthagonal to the morality of that war.

Evidence? People always sign up for both sides.

Re:If this is true

[Eccles]

No, he didn't. Saddam went out of his way to frustrate their efforts. How many times were the denied access to sites? How many times were they kicked out?

They were in until shortly before Bush ordered the invasion, with free and open access. They didn't find anything, to the point it would soon become obvious to anyone with half a brain that there were no WMDs. So Bush ordered the invasion before his house of cards collapsed.

I said this at the time, and I WAS RIGHT. Thousands have died because people like you believe Bush.

Re:If this is true

[Guppy06]

At least when the Israelis say it, it's a genuine, bald-faced lie, not some clever, hand-waving attempt at misdirection.

"We can't shoot missiles back into North Korea. Fuck, we DON'T EVEN HAVE LONG DISTANCE MISSILES to shoot back with!"

Japan has space launch capabilities. Putting something into orbit is a specialized subset of making ballistic weapons. Yes, Japan does not now have missiles to shoot back with, but the only thing holding them back is choice; no lenghty R&D period like DPRK. Additionally...

"Us Japanese people don't want nukes, we don't want to make nukes, we don't want to use nukes."

Again, the only thing holding Japan back is choice. Japan has been a leader in nuclear technology for decades and for most of that time has been, at most, a week away from producing their first nuclear weapon. Even with this successful DPRK test, Japan is in a better position to mass-produce nuclear weapons than Kim could dream of, maybe even better than Beijing.

Really, the Japanese position is like saying "No, I don't have a gun, just all the parts of one and detailed instructions of how to put them together."

And as for the international diplomacy aspects of your post...

"What we want the U.S. to do is stop playing "I pretend to care (but really could care less since there's no oil involved)" and actually do something."

"What we did NOT do over the last 60 years was build an army capable of anything other than rescue and evacuation operations during natural disasters. Our army (and I use that term loosely) is pittiful. But we like it that way, and would prefer to keep it that way."

"What pisses us off is that Kim Jong-Il is constantly threatening Japan, but is only doing so to drag the U.S. into talks. We are pissed off at the fact that in all honesty, we (Japan) are nothing more that a slight sore spot in North Korea's international politics agenda, and they're playing us as the pawn."

In other words, Japan wants to have their cake and eat it too. The US State and Defense Departments do not exist for Japan's benefit; that's not what we pay them for. If you don't want to put up with US terms and stipulations, you have three options:

1. Learn to kiss our ass better (but about all that's left is applying for statehood)
2. Find somebody else's ass to kiss (have you considered Australia?)
3. Rearm

You don't get to have the influence of the United States with the price tag of Canada.

Even before we started putting materiel into Afghanistan and Iraq we weren't all that keen on keeping troops in the area. The Soviet Union collapsed and took our main reason for deploying troops abroad with it. Heck, we probably wouldn't even have gotten involved in the Korean War were it not for Soviet involvement. But every time the US decides to take the hint from anti-American Japanese and ROK protesters and "redeploy" our military elsewhere, your respective governments begin to whine and snivel; apparently you've gotten all too comfortable with the idea of having the "bad cop" of the US around to do the dirty work (not that you're the only industrialized nations like this).

This attitude can be seen in both what you do and do not say in your post. You mention that the threat to Japan is because of their relationship to the United States, and then go on to say that the solution is for the US to apply more pressure in the region. You apparently never think of the other, more obvious solution: remove the Seventh Fleet from Yokosuka. Moving them to US soil like Guam would play out very well with the American voters, even with the added logistical nightmares.

Look, ever since the whole "Manifest Destiny" thing went out of style, this is how we've played empire. But the only other viable alternative (from the perspective of our domestic politics) is good ol' fashioned American Isolationism, and, for better or for worse, none of our "friends and allies" are all th

Re:If this is true

[flink]

The reality is that pure Capitalism as an economic system is pretty much a failure. It self destructed in the 30s. Every successful industrial state since then has been structured around a somewhat fascist government economy. The only difference is whether that economy is regulated primarily via military spending (US) or social programs (Europe). Arguably the average working class person is better off under European-style socialism than the Pentagon system, but neither one is ideal.

Re:If this is true

[kbielefe]

Evidence? People always sign up for both sides.

That's only evidence that people have conflicting morals. You're right that raw numbers don't prove anything, but the fact that there are strong reasons behind each individual enlistment does, and it's important to understand those reasons, because no one enlists in a war out of indifference. If you don't look at why people fight a war, then what criteria do you propose for determining the morality of a war?

It's pretty difficult to determine if one country invading another to replace the government is moral, if you don't know why troops were willing to put their lives on the line to do it. Does it matter if they fought out of patriotism, ignorance, greed, fear, hate, duty, intolerance, love, self-preservation, or a belief that it will help their party in the next election? Sure it does.

Technically, we're in a different kind of conflict now than we were in 2003. Can you determine if rebuilding, training, and fighting to support a people against an insurgency is moral, without understanding why troops are willing to sacrifice everything to do it? Why would it be moral in some circumstances and not in others? If you don't understand the why, you don't understand the war.

Why might it be moral to go to war against a dangerous leader who has unambiguously proven to have working WMDs, and not be moral to depose a similar leader who has only shown the potential and motivation to do so? How big does a threat have to be before a preemptive strike is moral? These are questions that war detractors need to have answers for.

Re:If this is true

[RexRhino]

How did the free market fail in the 1930s? I am not sure what you mean? There was an economic recession after the stock market crash of 29, but that didn't turn to a Great Depression until government intervention such as the Smoot-Hawley Act, and total mismanagement of the U.S. money supply by the U.S. central bank (the U.S. central bank literally starved the economy of cash), and the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. Most economists consider the U.S. government reaction to the stock market crash and a run on banks as a "perfect storm" of mismanagement. There is no controversy that the things the U.S. government did during the great depression couldn't have possibly been worse for the economy... except maybe if they burned factories down.

Many would consider the Great Depression to be a failure of the government run central banks, rather than of the free market.

One thing is for sure, when the U.S. did have a more free market than today, the U.S. was far less militaristic and had a rapidly growing standard of living. The more money the U.S. government has, and the more power it has, the more mischeif it seems to get into.

Every successful industrial state since then has been structured around a somewhat fascist government economy.

More successful than what? What are you talking about? I agree that most industrial societies have had a somewhat fascist government... but I would go so far as to say ALL industrial societies. There is really nothing to compare to.

The only difference is whether that economy is regulated primarily via military spending (US) or social programs (Europe). Arguably the average working class person is better off under European-style socialism than the Pentagon system, but neither one is ideal.

Only a handful of European countries spend more per-capita than the United States on social programs, and in those cases it is only marginaly more. I don't think Europeans truly understand how much money the U.S. government spends on social programs. The idea that there is more social spending or more government regulation in Europe is a stereotype. There was truth to it in the early and mid 20th century, but ever since the 1960s and the "Great Society" programs, the U.S. has been spending astronomical amounts on social spending.

Speaking of Europe though, there are countries like Switzerland, Iceland, etc., that spend considerably less on social spending, and spend virtually nothing on military, than the U.S. ... and as far as I understand it, those are the countries in Europe with the highest standard of living. Certainly, if I had to move to Europe, Switzerland, Iceland, and then maybe Holland or Belgium would probably be my order of choice, not France, or Sweden, or the places normally associated with European stlye welfare states.

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

>> why people fight a war, then what criteria do you propose for determining the morality of a war?

Why the leaders, not the individual soldiers, started the war.

>> It's pretty difficult to determine if one country invading another to replace the government is moral

Maybe I'm bitter about this because I live in a country that had a democratically elected government ousted from power because it threatened US interests in my country. I live in the southern hemisphere, this is hardly an exclusive club.

Re:If this is true

[bratwiz]

Don't sweat it-- the way ./ works is anything that hits a nerve, has a bit of uncomfortable truth, or goes against the party line-- gets modded down. BTW-- since I'm relaying one of those unpleasant truths, you'll probably see this post get modded down too. That's the way it works.

Re:If this is true

[bratwiz]

Well, we're sure as heck not spreading sunshine and flowers. What would YOU call it???

Re:If this is true

[bratwiz]

Ever hear of carpet bombing?

Yes, that's what Hillary Clinton is doing in New York

(what? really? oh.)

Okay. Sorry about that-- that's Carpet-BAGGING...

Re:If this is true

[SoulSkorpion]

That's naive. The US's military isn't quite so strong that it can effortlessly crush any and all opposition whenever it chooses. Countries can and have resisted invasions by US forces by conventional means.

Re:If this is true

[devilspgd]

Perhaps rather then sterlized, just a simple rule change. If you get pregnant while on welfare, you can choose one of the following:

1) Abortion, followed by state mandated birth control (shots, depo, something which you can't forget to take)
2) Adoption, followed by state mandated birth control (shots, depo, something which you can't forget to take)
3) End of welfare.

I'll even throw in the condoms for free when you're on welfare, make it nice and easy.

Re:If this is true

[devilspgd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the property need to be damaged by the described act of war for that clause to kick in?

Re:If this is true

[EvilCowzGoMoo]

Flame the parrent all you want on this guys, but as horrible as he sounds he is right on many things.

My father in law finaly quit his job as a welfare officer for just these reasons.

He drove a 10 year old ford that wouldn't start half the time.
His clients drove brand new BMW's.

He shopped at salvation army.
His clients all wore the latest designer clothes.

He graduated college with a major in English Lit. and spoke 7 different languages.
His clients dropped out of highschool and couldn't speak english.

He went to work every day and worked all the overtime he could to pay for a house, food for his kids, college for his son, and stay one step ahead of a 2nd bankruptcy.
His clients had gold chains and other jewlery and knew that their kids would be able to mooch off the system same as they did.

Insult the parrent all you want, but the fact is as ugly a human being he makes himself out to be, he is right.

Re:If this is true

[Eunuchswear]

If Iran gets the bomb, they will only wait long enough to build 5-20 devices and figure a way to deploy them to Israel and the United States. (They might send a few into Europe for good measure)

and your evidence for this is? How many wars has Iran started? How many times has Iran used WMD?

Re:If this is true

[erroneus]

Ever actually see the content of commercials for the military service? They are increasing in frequency, so if you are watching TV at all, you're bound to have seen a few. Not one mentions anything about dying in combat. It's all about doing something incredible or interesting. It's all about getting an education. Why is it so amazing that people actually believe it?!

Re:If this is true

[jacquesm]

check some of my other posts 'mod' history to see why I would write that, I'm sick and tired of people using moderation to express their disagreement with what they read.

point taken though, you're right and I should not let my frustration shine through so clearly.

Re:If this is true

[packeteer]

Its not a "violation of human rights or some shit" its just a regular old "violation of human rights". How do you get modded to +4 by saying that we should make compulsory sterilization part of government aid? Your bigotry and ignorance is precisly why you will never become emperor of anything other than you and your white trash trailor.

Re:If this is true

[Ash Vince]

No, you are correct I am from the UK not the US.

I am however aware that someone who is not entitled to any assistance does not count towards the low unemployment figures. This means that the unemployment figures are not worth a damn. I believe the expression used is "under emnployed". This is a great way of keeping the figures low but not actually having enough jobs for all members of society who wish to work.

We in Britain use the same system but most of Europe calculates unemployment figures by deducting the number of working tax payers from number of people between 16 and 60 (ages actually vary by country) from the national census info. This gives a much higher value for unemployment figures.

In respect of not getting the full picture, does anyone? Lets face it unless you actually research these issues for yourself what can you hope to learn. The media (especially that which is privately owned like CBS, CNN, Fox, Sky News, etc) never gives an impartial view with regards to these issues as they have their own agenda to push. This agenda is usually set by the owners of said media.

Re:If this is true

[Ash Vince]

Did all the rich kids getting spoonfed the whole way through college annoy the piss out of you?

Theres nothing like missing out on all the social occasions your friends get to go to because you work all weekend and most nights.

Re:If this is true

[Goose3254]

The above posting is dead-on right. Given the opportunity, in times of a draft, any parent would do any- and everything in their power to keep their child out of harm's way. Given the fact that W's father was a bona-fide war hero should have not impact on the issue...in fact MOST people eligible for the draft at that time were the sons of veterans of a war or conflict, either Korea or WW2. We're now at a rather unique time in history, in that a good section of the voting eligible populous need to go back 3 or 4 generations to find a direct line (parent, grandparent, great grandparent etc) to someone who served their fellow countrymen in military service, much less as a volunteer.

It would be interesting to see how the demographics overlap...several generations of non-service and instance of perpetual or serial government assistance. I'd also like to see the demographic comparison of those with familial history of being incarcerated on other than direct drug-related charges, as a third subset. These days segments of US society see prison as an equal suitable substitute to higher education or military service.

At the height of Greek civilization, service to country was so honored that Greek mothers would tell their sons as they left for war to "come back with your shield, or on it." And in the glory days of Rome a senator warned "If you despise your military, you will soon have a despicable military."

BTW I'm a vet and I joined from a sense of duty, not for what I could get out of it, yet I reaped much more than I sowed in personal benefits, mostly intangible to the untrained eye.

Re:If this is true

[wazza]

I disagree with your statement that "at least Hitler's agenda didn't completely revolve around himself."

Hitler was very much self-absorbed, to the point where his delusions included associating his own life & existence with that of the entire German Reich. He in fact planned the war to fit entirely within his lifetime (Sebastian Haffner's book "The meaning of Hitler" gives an excellent account of this).

One quote of Hitler's is particularly pointed: (23rd Nov, 1939) "As a final factor I must, in all modesty, list my own person: irreplaceable. Neither a military nor a civilian personality could take my place. Attempts on my life may be repeated ... the fate of the Reich depends on me alone. I shall act accordingly."

Hitler was an A-class, self-obsessed, delusional nutjob, make no bones about it.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

Well, actually, we wouldn't need nuclear. You can get similar yields (to smaller nukes) with fuel-air bombs, with no fallout.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

The problem with a temporary method like depo-provera or norplant is that it doesn't provide sufficient motivation not to break the rules. Someone can go on welfare for a year with two kids, get off of it, have another kid, go back on, get off of it, have another kid, go back on...

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

How do you get modded to +4 by saying that we should make compulsory sterilization part of government aid?

Well, we really have two choices; treat the illness, or treat the symptoms. It's not much of a choice, but in general in this world we treat symptoms. We give people food, so they can feed themselves and get back on track; but they produce less food because they get it for free, and they need more food next year, or they starve. Is that humanitarian action?

Actually treating the illness would mean opening the world to free trade, and I mean honest to god free trade, not the bullshit rendition we have today; it would mean (as much as I hate to say this because I am against empire building) that the world would need to be made up of democracies; it would mean that we would have to prevent nations from fucking one another over and thus starting conflicts.

The alternative is to treat the symptoms. This is, I am sad to say, a much more realistic solution in the short term. And the simple fact is that we already put all kinds of restrictions on people. We kill people for killing people; why shouldn't we sterilize people for overpopulating this planet? Reasonable estimates of Earth's carrying capacity range from about two to ten billion, but I think it's pretty clear that the truth is nearer the lower number. Also note that this is based on "modern" technology, but technology is not evenly distributed, either.

Your bigotry and ignorance is precisly why you will never become emperor of anything other than you and your white trash trailor.

That sentence would have had far more impact if you could spell "precisely" or "trailer".

Re:If this is true

[Thundersnatch]

Actually, it was largely the French and the Germans that sold Iraq WMDs... the US played a very small part in that (although we sold him some "dual use" technology during the 80s).

Obligatory Wikipedia link.

Re:If this is true

[devilspgd]

I guess I wasn't clear. #3 wasn't a temporary option, it was a opt-out-of-welfare-for-good option (or at least until the child is no longer a dependant)

Give society's leeches an incentive to not breed, and make it easy for them to do it.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

Well, you know what I mean. No unit is unbeatable; but they were highly feared and Regarded as being unbeatable until they finally got their asses kicked. (I did know they were defeated...)

Re:If this is true

[SEE]

Oh, certainly, stupidity is rife. The trouble is, it's not susceptible to analysis; if the other side is acting irrationally (or from motives you don't understand), you know you can't analyze their actions. So, any analysis has to assume they're being rational. Which is especially important in cases where "crazy" is an unusually common description of a side -- it leaves too much room for suprises that make sense only in retrospect.

That isn't to say that assuming rationality will result in conclusions that are correct; merely that it's useful as long as you don't mistake the conclusions for Truth.

Re:If this is true

[Divebus]

You get your rewards in America by working, saving, planning, acquiring, growing... and working some more. That fact that some elements choose to steal my labor pisses me off.

I call it a choice because it is. Because your ancestors 10 generations ago were oppressed slaves or something doesn't give you license to extend the pity to yourself. The Asian immigrants didn't seem to have that issue, nor did the Amish nor droves of other people who hit these shores - including a large majority of slaves. Being forced to come here on a slave ship or forced to come here because you were going to be exterminated or were starving in the homeland should wash through over time. You're here now. You're not there. Never were. Everyone started with the same handicap - they started with nothing. Now, what are you going to do about it? That's the choice.

It's a land of opportunity - your choice is to either grow and prosper or be opportunistic enough to exploit programs designed to help people startup their economic viability. Welfare is supposed to get you over a hump, not be a perpetual gratuity.

I propose this: if you're on Welfare, the Government will pay you in exchange for your labor. The Government has lots of jobs - more work needs to get done than we've got labor to do it unless you tap all the people who sit on their porch all day waiting for the next Government check. Put them to work, train them at the same time, make a real reward system and get them productive. Buildings need painting, lawns need mowing, statues need the bird shit washed off. License plates need pressing, canvas mail hampers need assembly and someone has to suck the farts out of the seat cushions on Air Force One. Half of them could probably be engineers given the right exposure. Hell, we could get some manufacturing back from China with low end labor now that we're hitting 300 million Americans. Lets make our own damned iPods.

But no, someone is going to flame me for trying to put their pet oppressed people to work. I've already been scorched for noticing they're different from the rest of us. Noticing they're different is reserved for times when you need to take pity on them, not when it's time to actually do something about it.

Re:If this is true

[jcr]

I missed the part where you explained why it's any of our concern what weapons Saddam had or didn't have.

It became the concern of the international community when Saddam attempted to forcibly annex Kuwait. Maybe you heard about it, it made all the papers.

-jcr

Re:If this is true

[matt21811]

"Those soldiers are willing to die for an opinion different than yours." So are the terrorists. It seems these soldiers are also happy to kill for this opinion, just like the terorists. You will have to come up with a far more convincing arguement than a moronic following of duty. "You may not agree or understand, but they will continue to fight for a simple cause- The hope that they can bring a better life to opposed people." This would be about the fifth reason so far we have been offered for the war in Iraq. Once again, it isn't true. The death rate of Iraqis is far worse (one estimate says more than tenfold) under our occupation than under Saddam. We are worse than Saddam. Once the die hards realise this, we will leave. Hoping to achieve something and actually doing actions that will achieve it are totally different things. "They've accomplished setting up running water and electricity to villages that have never had those luxuary's before, organized Boy Scout troops, help rebuild schools." Thats a lovely story but it doesnt reflect reality. The electricity and water situation now are worse than under Saddam. I have no idea if the "boy scout" situation is better or worse. "What have you done with your life to make a difference? Was fucked up situation have you tried to make the best of? " Sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action. I can assure you that I haven't actively participated in the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqis like your relatives. And I haven't stood at the sidelines cheering it on like you. The bigger picture for soldiers in Iraq is that by being there they make us less safe, that's the opposite of their job. Everyone should be able to see by now that they have acheived nothing and the consequences are getting worse. Any soldier with a sense of morality would conscientiously object. Only the immoral would to justify it by saying they are doing their duty. Your opinions of my character are irrelevent. It's the content of your arguement that is lacking.

Re:If this is true

[Eunuchswear]

Who do you think is their leader? The "president"? Think again.

Verification?

[Anonymous Coward]

After the tsunami panic, I'd assume that the region is absolutely rotten with seismographs under various jurisdictions. If they didn't pick anything up, I'm not impressed.

Re:Verification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Verification

Re:Verification?

[BJH]

Uh... why? The Christmas tsunami was in the Indian Ocean, which is several thousand kilometres away from North Korea. Try looking at a globe to get some idea of the relative positions.

Re:Verification?

[Xiroth]

From the CNN Article:
However, South Korean intelligence officials said a seismic wave of magnitude-3.58 had been detected in North Hamkyung province, according to Yonhap.

They don't really have a lot of reasons to lie about it, and the US monitoring stations have picked it up. If this turns out to be false, I will be very much surprised.

Re:Verification?

[Xiroth]

The real CNN article.

Check link, then post - I always get that out of order.

Re:Verification?

[CrazyDuke]

I don't know where that 4.2 mag spec on the map was at in relation to the supposed test. But, it shows as being a 0 km depth quake. I wonder if that is a glitch or a real reading...

Re:Verification?

[emjoi_gently]

Just for the heck of it.
The USGS publishes automatic bulletins on the web of any quakes it picks up. It's all there for the viewing, if you wish. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/

Japan, which has a long history of big destructive quakes has the most thorough monitoring system in the world. If there was anything to be detected, they will have detected it.

Re:Verification?

[MrNaz]

Actually, the tsunami was in the Indian Ocean. But who am I to nit pick? :P

Re:Verification?

[deviantphil]

The 0km depth would be consistant with the depth that FoxNews was reporting the underground tests would have taken place at.

Confirmed

[sholde4]

According to MSNBC, USGS has just confirmed a 4.2 magnitude tremor at 10:30 am local time Monday.

Re:Confirmed

[kst]

Yes, here are the details from the USGS. As someone else already pointed out, the depth of 0 km makes it pretty clear this wasn't a natural quake.

USGS says the quake was at 41.294N, 129.134E. According to Google Earth, it's a fairly mountainous region, at an altitude of about 4800 feet. It's within a rectangular region, about 31 kilometers north to south by 17 km east to west, that's at much higher resolution than its surroundings; I'm guessing that means somebody was already very interested in that particular area.

I've been trying to figure out the yield from the quake magnitude. One site says a 1 kiloton nuke could produce a 4.0 earthquake -- but the magnitude of the quake can be reduced considerably if the nuke is set off inside a large hollow chamber. North Korea had previously said they were going to use an abandoned coal mine. On the other hand, they obviously weren't trying to hide it.

Re:Confirmed

[acaspis]

the depth of 0 km makes it pretty clear this wasn't a natural quake.

Before someone decides to "liberate" North Korea based on this intel, please read until the bottom of that page where it says "location uncertainty: depth fixed by location program", and read what this means here.

Obvious

[suso]

The reason there was no sizable seismic activity is because it was a test, they only split one atom this time. But NEXT TIME!! You just wait and see!

Re:Obvious

[wkitchen]

The reason there was no sizable seismic activity is because it was a test, they only split one atom this time.

Was it a beer atom?

Re:Obvious

[Savage-Rabbit]

The reason there was no sizable seismic activity is because it was a test, they only split one atom this time. But NEXT TIME!! You just wait and see!

Yeah!!! And they will be using somethign muchmore sophisticated than a chisel... like... like... an electric power-tool!!

Re:Obvious

[6Yankee]

Yep - it's the dupe that worries me...

Mistranslation?

[EvilFrog]

Just making sure, the Korean words for "happiness" and "severe radiation poisoning" aren't similar, are they?

Re:Mistranslation?

[Anne_Nonymous]

No, but I'd stock up on water chips anyhow.

Re:Mistranslation?

[NMerriam]

Time to find the old Vault-Dweller suit.

Re:Mistranslation?

[ArmyOfFun]

Pfft, vault 8 is loaded with 'em.

Re:Mistranslation?

[urbanriot]

Nuts, I'm heading into Vault 13.

Re:Mistranslation?

[Selanit]

To hear governments tell it, happiness and atomic bombs go hand in hand. Have for a long time. Just a few decades ago, the Department of Defense made a brief attempt to rename the strontium unit, a measurement of how much radioactive fallout (specifically, strontium-90) has been incorporated into an individual's skeletal structure in place of calcium. Guess what our defense boys called it? That's right, the "sunshine unit."

Re:Mistranslation?

[jacquesm]

in dutch 'stront' translates as 'shit'.

very appropriate I would say.

Re:Mistranslation?

[Opportunist]

Actually, in German the verb "strahlen" can be used in the sense of "beaming with joy" and "emitting radiation".

Whoops. Didn't wanna give 'way where they got their stuff.

Sizemography

[Anonymous Coward]

At this moment, US intel claims it "can't confirm" the event. However, US geologists apparently can. Transparency is a good thing, especially when it's not intended.

Re:Sizemography

[Zackbass]

With the seismic data showing that something happened, my question now is which event happened first. Did NK perform a sucessful test which caused the disturbance, or did NK detect a natural event and declare it a sucessful nuclear test? The claim that "no radiation was released" makes me suspicious of the latter, but I don't think any of us have enough data to form much of an opinion on the matter.

Re:Sizemography

[hobbesmaster]

China says that they were informed of the test 20 minutes before it happened - this must be why that measure was taken.

(China went on to inform RoK, Japanese and US governments)

Re:Sizemography

[Zackbass]

I guess that clears that up then. I'm surprised we don't have better tools to confirm underground tests what with the whole Cold War and all. Hopefully we'll get some rock solid results tomorrow.

Re:Sizemography

[StandardDeviant]

I wondered the same thing, but the historical activity (post-1990) in that area seems to be all off the coast in the Sea of Japan and not on the north Korean mainland. It's possible they meant "no airborne radiation", i.e. an underground test.

Re:Sizemography

[StandardDeviant]

Or I'm just blind because on closer inspection there are some earthquakes reported in NK, it's just that they're all nearly the same indicator color as the mountains in that area on the map. In any case, they all seem to be sub-3.0 on the richter scale, so 4.2 would be a bit higher than normal. *shrug* Ultimately how this plays out doesn't really depend on whether they actually got something to work, but rather whether they act like it and whether the rest of the worlds believes them.

Re:Sizemography

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The US has or had satellites that can detect particle bursts from nuclear explosions. If such satellites are still in operation (though likely any current ones are generations improved from the originals), then the US intelligence system would know for certain.

As an aside, that type of satellite was the type that originally detected gamma ray bursts from billions of years ago and they were almost a total mystery until the last decade.

Re:Sizemography

[iocat]

What do you think we'd have? Magic underground test detectors? The whole thing about nuclear tests is you can't hide them; they just get picked up on standard siesmographs. Most likely the dude working Sunday at the CIA who the AP called was like "uh, no clue," because the analysts who tell the difference between nukes and earthquakes were at BBQs or something.

Re:Sizemography

[jonnythan]

Aide: "We just recorded a very minor earthquake centered somewhere just off the coast in the East China Sea."

Kim Jong-il: "OMGWTFLOL!!!!11111111 Tell CNN we just blew up our nuclear shit!!!!11111"

Aide: "But the Americans have instruments and stuff that would be able to measure the radiation released..."

Kimg Jong-il: "ROFLLLLLLLLL WE're so awesome there was no radiation leaked!!!1111~~~~~~~"

Re:Sizemography

[flyingfsck]

Well obviouslyu those bursts were alian nuclear tests from billions of years ago... ;)

Re:Sizemography

[deglr6328]

The Vela satellites only detect air bursts duh. They are totally obsolete. No country would be stupid enough to conduct an atmospheric test today. not even the "D"PRK.

Re:Sizemography

[coaxial]

The "can't confirm" part is with respect to a nuclear detonation. NO ONE is suggesting that a "seismic event" did not occur in North Korea. The question is whether it was a nuke or just a bunch of TNT. That said, no one is seriously suggesting that it was just a bunch of TNT.

Re:Sizemography

[Technician]

At this moment, US intel claims it "can't confirm" the event. However, US geologists apparently can. Transparency is a good thing, especially when it's not intended.


Even more convincing is the location of the tremmor and the location of the North Korean Missle launch facility. I did some Google searching on known missle sites and a missle site is nearby. Of note when checking the USGS data on the tremmor, note the depth in relation to other events in the area that have happened in the past.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/nodong -1.htm

Re:Sizemography

[infolib]

Danish radio reported a couple of days ago that a US plane equipped to measure radiation had gone operative near North Korea. I presume they got the data they came for. (Can't find a link, sorry)

Re:Sizemography

[Opportunist]

Dear citizen,

Please report to your local party headquarters for interrogation. We certainly would be interested how you got the transscript out, and even more how the f..k you got on the 'net!

Re:Sizemography

[TuballoyThunder]

Actually, one can decouple the shot, which would reduce the seismic signature from the nuclear test. Decoupling factors in the range of 10 to 70 are possible. I'm not saying that the NK decoupled their shot, just pointing out that it is possible.

Re:Sizemography

[thogard]

The Navstar (aka GPS) sats were built to locate the origin of EMP from a nuke.

Re:Sizemography

[Bob-taro]

My CIA to English dictionary defines "can't confirm" as "We're not allowed to tell you what we know, even though we know what you know and you think you know what we know, because we know you don't know exactly what we know and we might know more than you know we know, you know?"
Saves a lot of breath.

Re:Sizemography

[GooberToo]

I'm sorry...but according to the /. masses, if you don't have a link, you're a troll and everything you said is untrue. ;) I'm sorry, but since the masses generally can't be requested to google (or think) for themselves, they will be forced to hunt you down and kick your dog. If this behavior continues...they may even taunt you a second time.

Re:Sizemography

[Ruie]

The US has or had satellites that can detect particle bursts from nuclear explosions. If such satellites are still in operation (though likely any current ones are generations improved from the originals), then the US intelligence system would know for certain.

As an aside, that type of satellite was the type that originally detected gamma ray bursts from billions of years ago and they were almost a total mystery until the last decade.

Actually, those satellites were designed to monitor explosions in space i.e. for compliance with a treaty. Ironically, it was thought that making nuclear tests in space will pollute it with radiation (they did not know there was already lots of it there).

As you can imagine the first thing they detected after launching them were gamma ray bursts which - fortunately - were determined to come from beyound the solar system.

Re:Sizemography

[Shadowlore]

First, it is seismography. Second using seismographs for this is very limited. ALL it can tell you is that the earth moved/shook. It can not tell you if it was a nuclear blast or a conventional one, or even the collapse of a very large underground installation.

Re:Sizemography

[abradsn]

It's important (to me anyway) to point out that it could not be a bunch of TNT due to several simple principles.

It's underground -- free oxygen is need to blow up tnt and would get used up quickly. It's a big problem keeping the TNT from blowing up other TNT before it gets its own chance to blow up. In other words its chain reaction does not happen the way a fission reaction occurs.

That's not to say that there aren't ways around those problems, but personally I think it would be easier to just make a nuclear bomb in the first place. Kind of like it would be a bit on par to land on the moon as it is to fake some of the things that are properties of the moon and space.

Re:Sizemography

[fbjon]

Ah, just google it. It was in the South Korean news a few days ago.

Re:Sizemography

[GooberToo]

That was a joke/dry humor. I was commenting on the stupidity of people here that are too lazy to do something as simple as Google but will troll/reply stating that it's all lies because you didn't spoon feed them some link on the Internet, which may or may not be true/accurate.

Re:Sizemography

[ArtStone]

I am not a nuclear scientist, but...

It seems possible that the reports that the test was much smaller than expected may be an indication that the North Koreans don't quite figure how to make an -effective- nuclear explosion. Anything US Intelligence would say in public about why their test failed and/or how we know if it failed would only serve to provide information to the North Koreans to improve their next test.

Knowing that something is possible is half way to knowing how to do it.

Secrecy isn't always a bad thing.

Re:Sizemography

[abradsn]

If they have nuclear scientists, it's hard to imagine them watching the news for tips about how to make nuclear weapons. They probably have an education in nuclear physics. The test results that they gathered are enough to improve thier next text.

How the heck ...

[quax]

... did North Korea get its hands on Saddam's missing WMDs?

Re:How the heck ...

[TubeSteak]

Well... first Saddam shipped them to Syria

[Insert "Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego" theme song]

...

[Insert "Family Circus" map]

...

And that's how they got to North Korea

Re:How the heck ...

[sfcfagwdse]

My guess over the course of the next few days is it will have something to do with Clinton.

Re:How the heck ...

[timeOday]

Don't worry, we're fighting them over there so they can't attack us here. And by "them" I mean anybody, and by "over there" I mean everywhere but here, so basically we are covered.

Re:How the heck ...

[babbling]

Team America is investigating.

Re:How the heck ...

[FusionDragon2099]

AQ Khan Khaan! KHAAAAAAAAN!

Re:How the heck ...

[cold fjord]

Well... first Saddam shipped them to Syria

It's plausible some of Saddams WMDs went to Syria. Syria and Iraq were both Baathist party regimes. Syria has its own WMD program, and a well deserved reputation for brutality. After all, a large part of the Iraqi Air Force was "shipped" to Iran during the 1991 Gulf War to kick the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait.

During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border -- more than 120 left.

  I doubt that any of Saddams WMDs went to North Korea given North Korea's existing and extensive stocks of chemical (and possibly biological) weapons. Maybe some of the know-how went there though. (Iraq's nuclear program may have been within 6-24 months from developing a nuclear bomb in 1991.)

Not for use, only for SALE!

[DigiShaman]

That's right ladies and germs. This technology is for SALE to the highest bidder...along with our drugs, weapons, and counterfit US money.

Wait wait...Iran just made a deal to purchase it from them. Sorry folks, sold out of our last remaining A-Bombs. What's that? you want us to deliver it to Israel for you? That will cost extra in shipping and handling you know!

Re:Not for use, only for SALE!

[QuantumG]

That will cost extra in shipping and handling you know!

Don't you know? They're selling ICBMs now too.

Re:Not for use, only for SALE!

[DigiShaman]

I wonder if anyone got the memo that they are still in beta. But who cares when you can polish a turd and bank on it. ;)

Re:Not for use, only for SALE!

[uncle_riley]

Don't you know? They're selling ICBMs now too.

Yeah but I'd opt for the extended warrenty on those.

Re:Not for use, only for SALE!

[murderlegendre]

Now that's what I call a 'drop shipment'.

Re:Not for use, only for SALE!

[sciscitor]

I think the worry is not only about what NK could do with a bomb right now, but what may happen when North Koreans/China or some other power finally removes the government. Post-Soviet Russia was scary enough with thousands of nuclear devices all over the place - imagine how desperate many NKs would be to get their hands on any type of asset in a chaotic country after a revolution or invasion.

Another missed opportunity

[lymond01]

I guess we won't be invading North Korea anytime soon. If this is true, Pyongyang might be a psychotic dictator leading his country into chaos (sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?), but he's smart enough to know how to keep the U.S. of his back.

It's tough to be scared of your crazy neighbors when there's a crazy man in your own household.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[omeomi]

Pyongyang might be a psychotic dictator leading his country into chaos

Pyongyang is a city, not a dictator...

Re:Another missed opportunity

[dorfmann]

Did you want to invade North Korea? You do realize that the USA tried to take over North Korea in the 1950s, at a time when its military, technological and economic power was at its height, and at a time when it held a monopoly on the atomic bomb, and still failed?

The only thing that has happened to day is that it has now been confirmed that an enourmous amount of money, resources, effort, and time has been wasted on the creation of a device whose sole purpose is to satisfy the ego of a shut-in dictator. They will, of course, never actually use the bomb; if they do, their armies and, perhaps, cities, will be replaced with thin films of glass very quickly. And they know this.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[eric2hill]

No, the US can't move because the world already thinks we should keep our fucking nose out of other people's business. The only way the US is going to do anything millitarily in the next decade or two is at the behest of the UN. The people in the UN are pretty much impotent (see Darfur) so basically we're going to clean up as best we can in Iraq and go back into a cold war status just bitching about others.

The only way the citizens of the US will support a unilateral decision to invade another country is when a nuke goes off on US soil. The next 25 years are going to be a radioactive bloodbath and hopefully none of it will blow over peaceful countries.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[TCM]

psychotic dictator leading his country into chaos (sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?)

You mean Bush?

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Descalzo]

The failure of the US to win in N. Korea in the 50s was not due to a lack of ability to win. It was because of a lack of permission to win. I guess you could say the same about Viet Nam, but from what I understand, Korea was in the bag, and the UN forces were not allowed to do what it took to seal the deal, and the Chinese kept on a-comin'.

They were not allowed to block the entry of Chinese forces into N. Korea, even though they had that capability; they were not allowed to use the Atom bomb (it may not have been the right weapon to use, but it probably would have been effective); and other things, too.

Ever since WWII, the USA has hardly been able to summon the will to prosecute a war. If you believe that war is never the answer, then this could be a good thing (as long as the war is never begun). But a poorly prosecuted war is one of the most immoral things a government can do! (I think that last sentence is from Sun Tzu)

I hope you're right: N Korea will hopefully realize they can't really get anything out of this, and will not use it.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[antifoidulus]

We weren't going to be invading North Korea even before they had nuclear weapons. The reason is that half of South Korea's population as well as their political, economic, and cultural capitol is well within the range of North Korea's (relatively crude) artillery. Kim Jong Il has threatened to turn Seoul into "a sea of flames" and he can do it without nukes. There is no way that the US or anyone would be crazy enough to attack North Korea.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[antifoidulus]

You have to wonder if MacArthur is out there somewhere waving his finger saying "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Technician]

I guess we won't be invading North Korea anytime soon.

True, However our mutualy assured destruction is being retargeted as we speak. All that cold war hardware seems to have no need to be retired anytime soon. I just hope they don't try any missle tests anytime soon. It could be their biggest mistake.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[GrahamCox]

Pyongyang might be a psychotic dictator

Pyongyang is the capital of Nth Korea. The psychotic dictator you may have in mind is Kim Jong Il.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Strudelkugel]

"I TOLD YOU SO!"

Better have a look at this (scroll down to the part about the Korean War) before making that statement. If he were alive today, no doubt MacArthur would be horrified to see what his miscalculation of the Chinese response created: North Korea in its current form.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[MrYotsuya]

Pyongyang is a city, not a dictator...

That's what he wants you to think.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Jedi Alec]

The only way the citizens of the US will support a unilateral decision to invade another country is when a nuke goes off on US soil.

*cue conspiracy theories involving the military-industrial complex*

Re:Another missed opportunity

[tequesta]

That's what you get when you invade countries at will. We could need a "world police" at times, and this may be such a time. But, to stick with the metaphor, who will put their trust in a police force that will beat up random people in the street, just because they look like they're carrying a gun?

Re:Another missed opportunity

[JerLasVegas]

You mean shoot them 28 times?

Re:Another missed opportunity

[wall0159]

Could that be analogous to 'the boy who cried wolf'?

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Reziac]

That's what happens when you let megalomania get out of hand!! ;)

Re:Another missed opportunity

[MrNaz]

Ever since WWII, the USA has hardly been able to summon the will to prosecute a war.

Err... Korea, Vietnam, a dozen small skirmishes in Latin America not to mention many more covert actions, Nicaragua, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2... and that's only from memory

Re:Another missed opportunity

[jacquesm]

the usual way to deal with things not fitting conventional definitions is by changing the definitiions.

for more info see 'immediate threat', 'moral values', 'connection', the verb 'to have' and several others that have currently slipped my mind.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[mgblst]

Speak for yourself. I am sharpening up my Rambo knife as we speak. Yeah, thats right North Korea, I am coming back!

Re:Another missed opportunity

[geminidomino]

How intelligent, far-sighted, impulsive, and/or corrupt he is, on the other hand, depends largely on which side of the political fence you're on.

Actually, no.

How intelligent, far-sighted, impulsive, and/or corrupt you think he is depends largely on which side of the political fence you're on.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Opportunist]

I question that Bush is leading. Otherwise...

Re:Another missed opportunity

[cilynx]

I promised myself I wasn't going to get pulled into the political moshpit...

I don't mind the comment. Really, I don't. It's humorous. It is not, however, insightful. How much insight, exactly, does it take to make the president-bashing one-liner that you would expect to hear on some late-night monologue? F'n-A, mods. I know that Slashdot is socio-political Hell, but still. "Funny" != "Insightful". Come on, they're not even the same strln...

As for the parent:

There is one big difference between US (tm) and Them (tm). We (tm) have an organized system in place under which we elected our leader and can, if we so choose, peacefully remove him from power and put someone else in his place. It may not always go smoothly, but I somehow doubt that Bush would order nuclear self-destruction if he were removed from power. Can you say the same about Kim Jong-il?

Re:Another missed opportunity

[eric2hill]

A) I don't believe the US government lied to its allies about WMD's.

B) I do believe that the CIA, MI6, and all several other intelligence agencies said they believed WMD's were in place and a threat.

C) I also believe that Bush has seriously messed up the war in iraq - not the initial invasion, that went well, but the prolonged occupation. He (and many of his crew) believed that the "people of Iraq want to be free, and will fight for it". Bull shit.

D) If you (and the world) seriously believe that Bush *lied* before the war, you need to also attack the other countries that believed there were WMD's, and I don't see anyone saying that the invasion of Iraq was a global conspiracy.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Overzeetop]

Now we don't have to. We can nuke them pre-emptively and call it a fair fight.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[zen-theorist]

No, the US can't move because the world already thinks we should keep our fucking nose out of other people's business. The only way the US is going to do anything millitarily in the next decade or two is at the behest of the UN. The people in the UN are pretty much impotent (see Darfur) so basically we're going to clean up as best we can in Iraq and go back into a cold war status just bitching about others.

well then, the US had better STFU and stay out of iran.

The only way the citizens of the US will support a unilateral decision to invade another country is when a nuke goes off on US soil. The next 25 years are going to be a radioactive bloodbath and hopefully none of it will blow over peaceful countries.

and when, sir, was the last time your vote and support and persuasion and dissuasion stopped your leadership from executing its whims? this is another one of those typical american posts which screams "man with a gun" when nations with oil try to arm themselves. and wallow in self-pity and shrug their shoulders - "well, noone wants our help, so we might as well stay put" when said country does not have oil. in direct correlation to the american government excuses themselves. bit of advice for you, typical american poster, say no more, we can predict your responses to future issues quite accurately with the help of a reliable geologist.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[tehcyder]

The only way the citizens of the US will support a unilateral decision to invade another country is when a nuke goes off on US soil.

Er, have you been in a coma the last few years, and missed, you know, all that Iraq shit?

Re:Another missed opportunity

[jnaujok]

Err... Tie, loss, ties (at best) -- maybe you can count Grenada as a win, scrimmage, tie, quick win -- ugly post game party with sore loser fans, and Iraq 2 has the U.S. up in the 3rd quarter but facing a tenacious comeback attempt with referees (U.N.) clearly biased against the U.S.

So, I see one "win" in Grenada under Reagan, but that wasn't really a fair game, that was the Superbowl Champs vs. the local grade school J.V. team.

And a win in Afghanistan that the NATO troops seem to be losing to the reserves in overtime.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Descalzo]

...but that wasn't really a fair game, that was the Superbowl Champs vs. the local grade school J.V. team.

That reminds me of the Pirates of Penzance: for the sake of honor and nobility, they refuse to fight those weaker than themselves, but can't figure out why they are always getting the crap kicked out of them.

I have no problem if a war is fought with NFL vs. powderpuff types of odds. It's more about if there is some sort of justification or not (and there's a whole other millions of posts of discussion).

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Descalzo]

I think it's more about the will. If I understand correctly, we had North VietNam beat after the Tet offensive failed. It was about Political will. We had the will to start it, but not to do what it took to finish it.

Likewise, I think, in Iraq. We certainly have the ability and the skill to destroy whomever opposed us. But without the political will to make sure it got done (send in enough troops, etc.), it isn't getting done.

In WWII, it wasn't over until it was over: the war wouldn't end until it was OVER. We pulled out all the stops until it was over. You could say that one critical difference between that and Iraq was enough support for the war. Maybe even if the war in Iraq was justified (as I think it was), it may have been a mistake to go in without enough support.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[RexRhino]

Just to be fair, Russia, China, France, amoung others have participated in more conflicts with a larger death toll in just the last few years, than the Iraq war. There are literally hundreds of bloody wars going on in the world, and most are proxie wars for major economic powers like Germany, France, Russia, China, Japan, etc., and smaller politically modivated players such as Cuba. Not that it excuses what Bush has done (don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Other countries do it so it is OK for Bush to do it").

But please understand that the dislike or fear of Bush has more to do to his complete lack charisma, his Texan accent and declasse behavior, and that he comes off as an idiot. He makes it so easy to be tagged with the "stupid redneck" stereotype. If he had the charasma and upper-class manners of a Kennedy, or Churchill, or De Gaul, or even the personality of Castro, all who have invaded more countries and killed more people than Bush, Bush would be considered the great leader of our time.

People's fears of psychotic dictators have less to do with who is really a psychotic dictator, and more who can manage people's perceptions. Bush is an evil and dangerous man, and should not be president of the United States... but the fact that he is evil and dangerous is not why most people dislike him. In many ways, the almost universal dis-like people have for Bush, and the intense scrutiny he is under, makes him less dangerous.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[eric2hill]

My vote was for Bush. I admit it. I still say that we're better off than we would have been with Kerry, but it's always possible that's not true. This is not a typical American post. This is a post that reflects the majortiy of the silent voting base. The US is in a terrible situation right now. If we invade any other country, we're going to be ridiculed moreso than we are now, and if we do nothing, we're just "shrugging our shoulders".

The US is now visibly being torn apart by its dual-party system. In the end, the democratic/republican lines will be where the US bleeds the most. We are in serious need of a strong independent political party, maybe one called "The Common Sense Party".

Here's a question for you - what would your country do about North Korea? Would you invade? Or are you going to just shrug your shoulders and do nothing? The answer is not an easy one, and a one line answer is wholly inadequate.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[eric2hill]

The only way the citizens of the US will support a unilateral decision to invade another country is when a nuke goes off on US soil.

Er, have you been in a coma the last few years, and missed, you know, all that Iraq shit?

Er, did you miss the word "another" above? Yes, we're in Iraq now. Should the US unilaterially invade Iran, North Korea, or any other country in the next 25 years, I'll happily eat crow. In the mean time, I maintain that the US populace is generally peaceful and wants someone in power that is not nearly as polarized as both of the prior candidates were, and both of the next candidates will be. Proof of that is the razor thin winning percentages of the Bush administration.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm not sure- given this provocation, and how nuts W is, well, we do have the technology to turn South Korea into an Island with no warning. The straits of Korea may glow in the dark afterwards though....cobalt having a rather nasty half life.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[tehcyder]

Apologies, I didn't read "another" as meaning "yet another one (apart from the current one)" but just as "any other".

Re:Mr. Conspiracy Theorist here

[Harmonious Botch]

This doesn't work for Bush. Troubles in Korea only make his decision to invade Iraq look worse.

US Inundated ?

[DJLuc1d]

With the US being tied up as it is right now in the middle east, I see little that the military can do about this. I doubt political pressure is going to amount to anything either, seeing as Kim Jong-il is, to put it mildly, out of his mind. This is going to be left up to either the UN, or China-Japan.

Re:US Inundated ?

[CptPicard]

Not to admire the chap or anything (after all, his sense of style is horrendous), but I wouldn't call him "out of his mind". A dictator maybe, but clearly good at it -- he's got nukes now, and has gone public with them. He's been quite skilled in his maneuvers... much more so than, say, Saddam Hussein. And I do need to point out that not only does he seem to be brighter, he's also all the more dangerous than Saddam, and his regime is genuinely, actively being nasty to its citizens... which you couldn't really say about Saddam's Iraq of 2003.

Re:US Inundated ?

[Technician]

With the US being tied up as it is right now in the middle east, I see little that the military can do about this.

Look up cold war mutualy assured destruction.

If they launch, they are guranteed a new parking lot.

U.S. has not yet confirmed?

[caryw]

Interesting that the US has not yet confirmed such a test. In the past they have been very quick to confirm or deny purported nuclear testing by the likes of India and Pakistan. Perhaps it is a fake? Or maybe the yield was so low it was not detected?

Only time will tell I guess.
--
Need intelligent people from Northern Virginia to quell the madness! Fairfax Underground: Northern Virginia forums

Re:U.S. has not yet confirmed?

[__aaclcg7560]

India and Pakistan are a different situation since they had gone to war at least four times since World War II and the next one could easily go nuclear. North Korea been crying wolf for so many years that I wouldn't be surprised if they just shoved enough conventional explosives into the ground to fake a test.

Re:U.S. has not yet confirmed?

[Chordonblue]

The reason why the US will keep quiet and doubt this publically is because Kim Il did this for publicity to begin with - why give him what he wants?

Re:U.S. has not yet confirmed?

[cirby]

"Quick," in the case of previous tests, was "the next day or so."

Nowadays, "quick" means "we have to spend a few minutes looking at the data, some more time figuring out how big the thing was (and if it's really a nuke test, as opposed to someone just setting off a bunch of explosives off in a cavern), and then typing out the press release for somebody to read at the press conference."

That last part probably took most of the time.

Atleast they're telling us...

[Karloskar]

I am more afraid of the countries/groups who have nuclear capabilities but aren't telling anyone - should they exist.

Re:Atleast they're telling us...

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as Israel?

Re:Atleast they're telling us...

[bullshit detector]

I am more afraid of the countries/groups who have nuclear capabilities but aren't telling anyone - should they exist.

Come back to bed, George.

-Laura

Re:Atleast they're telling us...

[Frogbert]

Yeah... I heard Muroa has been secretly stashing away French nukes for years now!

Re:Atleast they're telling us...

[timeOday]

I am more afraid of the countries/groups who have nuclear capabilities but aren't telling anyone - should they exist.

Ssshhh, you know we don't talk about Israel that way.

Re:Atleast they're telling us...

[DerekLyons]

I am more afraid of the countries/groups who have nuclear capabilities but aren't telling anyone - should they exist.

It's commonly thought that they don't exist - because the list of countries with a) significant nuclear research and technical expertise, b) money and/or slave labor and, c) don't already have the bomb (or have had it and given it up) is essentially empty.
 
That being said - there is a short list of countries that don't currently have the bomb, but are believed to be capable of fielding one on short notice should they so desire - and right at the top of *that* list, is Japan. (Right behind it is Germany and few other European nations.)

Re:Atleast they're telling us...

[RexRhino]

Well, you shouldn't. Nuclear weapons are only useful if you let people know you have them. Since, the inevitable result of a nuclear attack is massive retaliation with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are more about detering a potential attack that actually attacking. If you don't let people know you have nukes, nukes are pretty useless.

Update: Seismic info now confirms activity

[ScentCone]

USGS and other international players are now reporting 4.2 magnitude (Richter scale) tremor at the indicated time of the test. China says they got a 20-minute warning, which they passed along to the US and other western governments.

Looks like it will be a busy day in diplo-land, and a noisy day in pundit-land.

Re:Update: Seismic info now confirms activity

[TubeSteak]

and a noisy day in pundit-land.

I predict a massive surge in the use of the phrase "Glass Parking Lot" over the next few days.

What a lot of people don't seem to get is that South Korea wants to have closer diplomatic ties with North Korea, because closer diplomatic ties = closer economic ties. Both countries win.

(Kinda like the U.S. relationship with China.)

Re:Update: Seismic info now confirms activity

[BJH]

Uh yeah, closer economic ties with a country where the vast majority of the population lives well below the poverty line in South Korea.

South Korea wants to get back together with DPRK for other reasons, unrelated to economic factors. Obviously the biggest is that it would remove the threat of war.

Walmart

[stinkydog]

Time to head to the 24 hour Walmart and stock up on ammo and bottled water. I think I hear the 4 horsemen of the apocolypse mounting up. I'll keep the mutants off my land.

SD

Re:Walmart

[Squigley]

Don't forget the beer and strawberry pop-tarts.

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2004/11/hurricane_ comin.html

Re:Walmart

[Reziac]

[eyeing tagline]

Kim? is that you?? ;)

Re:Walmart

[zdzichu]

Your mention of "24" reminded me that we won't have to worry. Right now, China is shipping Jack Bauer to North Korea, in order to correct this "nuke situation".

Re:Walmart

[schmu_20mol]

Don't forget the peanuts, heard famine is quite attracted to them.

Re:Walmart

[Opportunist]

Nope, I'm over here. And pissed that Walmart doesn't deliver to NK.

No unusual seismic activity

[CheddarHead]

the USGS says that it has not detected any unusual seismic activity on the Korean peninsula in the last 48 hours.

I guess I don't know that this is unusual, but here's the seismic event in question:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Qu akes/ustqab.php/

Actually, USGS did detect seismic activity

[rsargent]

While the slashdot report says that the USGS didn't detect the test, actually the USGS site does show a magnitude 4.2 "quake" in North Korea at 01:35:27 UTC. The BBC reports the test as happening at essentially the same time (01:36 UTC).

USGS site: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Ma ps/10/125_40.php

BBC news report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.st m

Re:Actually, USGS did detect seismic activity

[Change]

Here's the quake info: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Qu akes/ustqab.php

If you go to the Maps tab it gives you this Google Maps link (tinyURLized): http://tinyurl.com/ghvuy

Take a look about 4-5 miles north of the estimated epicenter, there's a large complex of buildings there. Wonder what those are?

Re:Actually, USGS did detect seismic activity

[i_like_spam]

Did this test really happen?

The USGS indicates a 4.2 magnitude event that occured at 01:35:27 UTC.

However, this event doesn't show up on any of the raw seismic data displayed on the live seismic server.

Pay particular attention to the Inchon, Korea and Matsushiro, Japan stations. Those stations seem to be reliable, and they're very quiet at 01:35 UTC.

Re:Actually, USGS did detect seismic activity

[Aglassis]

The Guangduong Province Station definately shows action measured at 0141 UTC and it was quiet for most of the day. It also doesn't show the rapid vibration you'd expect from an earthquake, but instead a slow displacement I think would be expected from a single pulse of energy. The station is located at 19.03 N, 109.84 E. The 4.2 earthquake event was measured at 41.311N, 129.114E at 0135 UTC. Using a great circle calculation (which is an overestimation, since the energy travels under the Earth's surface--but not that bad since the distances are close) I get 3076 km. Using a rough estimate of 8 km/s for a P-wave I get a travel time of 384 s, or about 6.5 minutes. Since the earthquake was measured at 0141 UTC, the USGS report of 0135 UTC is consistent.

Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist, but I watched one on South Park.

Re:Actually, USGS did detect seismic activity

[4D6963]

Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist, but I watched one on South Park.

"Yeah, Frank? It's uh, Randy. Uh-huh... Good. Yeah, listen, the, uh, the little needle's moving... Yeah, it's going back and forth really fast. What does that mean?"

Re:Actually, USGS did detect seismic activity

[i_like_spam]

Interesting. But, ...

I wonder why the Taipei, Inchon and Japan stations, which are also quite close, don't show any seismic activity.

Also, the seismographs for the Pakistan test in 1998 look different than the Guangduong station data.

We don't know that they didn't pick anything up.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did pick anything up, it's doubtful that such information would be immediately released. The politics of this situation are extremely complex, and the various parties involved will no doubt be using their influence to control the flow of information.

Funny...

[__aaclcg7560]

I looked out the window and the world is still here. Must've been a cherry bomb.

Re:Sizemography - mod parent up

[indaba]

time and location at the USGS both match the story in the IHT

not a happy day for mankind.

Re:Mr. Conspiracy Theorist here

[suso]

Utterly ridiculous.

Actually, what is utterly ridiculous is that you folks take my comment(s) seriously. I was only being half serious on the observation that this is happening so close to elections. I don't really think that there is a conspiracy here and my comment title of "Mr. Conspiracy Theorist here" should have shown you that I was being silly.

Re:Mr. Conspiracy Theorist here

[Elemenope]

You are using logic and rationality, two of many things that any self-respecting Joe who is scared shitless of the world is currently incapable. Remember, Iraq didn't have a lick to do with Al-Qaeda, but that didn't stop innumerable scared-Joes from supporting invading it to 'protect them from the scary world' or somesuch.

Take em now

[jmorris42]

I know all of the arguments why we can't do a 'regime change' in North Korea and I agree they are all good arguments. But this incident just highlights the simple truth that none of em are worth a damn for one fundamental reason. Nothing North Korea can do now would in a fit of rage would be worse than what he WILL do eventually. Delay is only making the eventual price for appeasing that insane dictatorship for fifty years grow higher.

We could play MAD games with the Soviets because while Evil (with the capital E) they were also mostly rational. North Korea (and most of these arguments apply to Iran equally well) isn't even on the same planet with sane. North Korea WILL eventually start another war. There isn't any doubt whether he has WMD anymore and he has the missles to deliver them. The only question is whether we wait for him to start the second Korean War at a time of his choosing or whether we do it at one of ours.

Unfortunatly Bush is getting his nuts handed to him on a daily basis, the Dems have at least one and probably two more October suprises set to roll meaning we are set for at least a month more of internal bickering and infighting. After the election the Demos will be too busy scheduling hearings to consider uniting to do anything in the best interest of the country and the Repubs will be in 'bitter recriminations over losing Congress' mode Both sides are getting ready for '08 already. Meanwhile North Korea and Iran keep building warheads.

This impending disaster could have been prevented just like WWII could have. Instead a billion will probably die. But fuck that, the Dems could sweep the Congressional elections and if they can help send the US fleeing a shattered Iraq they could bag the White House too! Nothing is more important that that.

Re:Take em now

[DJLuc1d]

On top of that, there is no freakin way Dems are going to let Dubya head into another war, and even if we did, the Germans had a tough enough time fighting on two fronts, America jumping into another war would only say to Iran that we are way to busy to do anything about you guys right now, please stop being crazy for a little bit. Although I think S. Korea deserves protection, the only way I see this being solved is China using it's diplomacy with N. Korea.

Re:Take em now

[Retardican]

North Korea declared the armistice ceasing the Korean War (1950-1953), "null and void" a few months ago. It made a lot of people (US, Japan) nervous, with China trying to keep everyone calm. Now that NK has proved themselves a nuclear power, Japan will definately *consider* preemptive strikes against NK facilities, and NK fearing such attacks will escalate their threats.

We should deplay some troops over there, in case things get out of hand and bombs start flying. Oh wait, most of our fleet is still looking for WMDs next to the oil.

Re:Take em now

[voice_of_all_reason]

Your compelling argument leaves out the "old dictator is ooooooold" factoid.

Everyone keeps saying north korea is dangerous because General Wing Wong Poo-Tong is in the big chair. Wait 10 years till he pops off. Done, right?

Re:Take em now

[DigiShaman]

Politically, Bush is at the advantage.

By changing the subject in the media, no October surpises can top the news of us going to war in N. Korea. And do you think people will want to vote for the democratic party in times of another war? Historically, I would say "no".

Re:Take em now

[majortom1981]

The thing is that if we continue to do this peacefully and have all the countries even china on our side then there wont be another korean war. All the surrounding coutnries would be trying to stop north lorea. We should work on getting all the other countries including Russia and China on our side before atatcking north korea.

Re:Take em now

[GoldTeamRules]

I agree...damn democracy...if only Bush were a dictator, the US would be able to defend itself properly!

In fact, this is really all Clinton's fault for being soft on them in the first place...

If the Dems would stop critisizing Bush, Iraq wouldn't be in this mess...really, we should kill all the Dems first, then go after the Iranians, then the North Koreans.

Actually, I think we can all agree that the answer to the NK problem, really, is more tax cuts! Tax cuts and getting rid of queers. If you're not with me, you're against me.

Re:Take em now

[Jeian]

On top of that, there is no freakin way Dems are going to let Dubya head into another war, and even if we did, the Germans had a tough enough time fighting on two fronts

If there's a war with NK, it's going to be the UN - not just the US.

Re:Take em now

[stinerman]

We already have troops there. Officially, they exist because the Korean war never ended; we're still in ceasefire mode. Unofficially, they are there to act as a tripwire. If Pyongyang decides to start shelling Seoul or make a move across the DMZ, our troops will die. That'd be enough to stir up the masses to support a shooting war against the DPRK.

Lets put it this way, if the DPRK does decide to go into Seoul, we're either getting out of Iraq pronto or there'll be a draft.

Re:Take em now

[Manchot]

This impending disaster could have been prevented just like WWII could have. Instead a billion will probably die. But fuck that, the Dems could sweep the Congressional elections and if they can help send the US fleeing a shattered Iraq they could bag the White House too! Nothing is more important that that.

You're right, it's all the Democrats' fault. Those poor, oppressed Republicans never stood a chance.

Re:Take em now

[lexDysic]

North Korea (and most of these arguments apply to Iran equally well) isn't even on the same planet with sane. North Korea WILL eventually start another war. There isn't any doubt whether he has WMD anymore and he has the missles to deliver them.

You realize North Korea is a country and not a person, right? Assuming you are referring to Kim Jong-Il (or Ahmadinejad, or Chavez, or Hussein, or whomever you think it is most important to be scared of today) have you considered that maybe it requires just a little bit of sanity to remain in control of an entire country? There are other people who would like the job, after all. (Note: I'm not saying that any of these people are necessarily very smart, just that they all certainly prefer being in power to being dead.)

The most likely reasons for North Korea's developing of these weapons are self-defense and, more importantly, a negotiation chip to use towards stopping sanctions. All indications are that this is what's happening. (One sample analysis, written recently, is here.)

Confirmation of NKs nuclear capabilities reduces our diplomatic power over them slightly, since it makes the threat of a direct military attack by us on them slightly less credible. This is unfortunate, but not a reason to panic, and not a reason to initiate an attack which would certainly: (a) result in many innocent deaths, and (b) damage our relationships with countries that could affect the well-being of Americans. (Make no mistake, not even Great Britain would support us on this one).

This impending disaster could have been prevented just like WWII could have. Instead a billion will probably die.

The Bay of Pigs nuclear disaster could have been prevented it too, if only we'd have had the sense not to attack until it was absolutely necessary...oh wait, we did, and it was. Be thankful.

Re:Take em now

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with North Korea has always been Seoul. A real war starts, 10 million people will die in a few hours. And it won't take nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Good old fashioned artillary will do the job. A nuclear weapon and missle puts Japan within reach. It ups the stakes for the US. Now if we want war with North Korea, it starts off as a nuclear one, and probably the United States as the aggressor.

Re:Take em now

[lexDysic]

The Bay of Pigs nuclear disaster could have been prevented it too

My bad...I just misspelled "Cuban Missle Crisis" as "Bay of Pigs" (and threw in an extra "it" for good measure.) It's definitely past my bedtime.

Good night.

Re:Take em now

[forgotten_my_nick]

I just hope to god no one in the US government thinks the way you do.

First up NK have a pact with China. You nuke NK your looking at worst a return strike from China, at best serious economic reprocussions from China (and they have the power to fuck with your economy).

Secondly doing so would make you a pariah to the rest of the world. You think the world hates you now? Killing that many innocent people means you looking at a world of hurt from everyone who can hit back.

You would set the example for every nut job dictator to strike. Heck, unless you completly nuke NK you can't guarantee that NK won't hit back.

Re:Take em now

[Grave]

If the DPRK goes into Seoul, the war will be over before you could draft and train a thousand soldiers, let alone the hundreds of thousands that you would need for a conventional ground war. It will also be over before we could pull our forces from Iraq and get them all the way to North Korea.

If it happens, there will be massive naval and aerial bombardment. The ground forces likely would come from other nations, equally angry at the North.

A simple statement to the DPRK would be quite useful right now, reminding them that we've had sixty years to perfect our nuclear systems, and that we will use these weapons in retaliation for any attack against Japan or South Korea. If the DPRK chooses to view that as provocation, so be it. When even China tells them that a nuclear test is totally unacceptable and yet they proceed, it tells me that the only solution now is to destroy Kim il Jong and his leadership. He's not as insidiously evil as Hitler, but he's clearly more mentally unbalanced.

Re:Take em now

[beh]

Twisted little thought, that...

But may I remind you of something? When your "big W" went to war in Iraq, despite Saddam claiming he had no weapons, and UN weapons inspectors not finding any - that little Korean dictator was openly threatening the US with his WMDs.

But - where did you end up going to war? Iraq...

It was your current "enlightened" (and I'm using that word in a VERY loose sense of the word here) leadership, which decided that revenge for the first gulf war was more important, than acting on actual problems. Political pundits here in Europe at the time commented on the one lesson to be learnt from this for every little third world dictator: Either get the bomb, or make sure you can make others believe in you having it - then the US won't touch you. But look weak, and they will come and invade you - no matter what the rest of the world has to say about it.

I, for one, believe this is right - by bombing down Iraq, not just did the invasion create the Quagmire there (because noone seemed to have planned what to do once the war was over), but it WILL have sent out the signals to other nations to get nuclear arms as quickly as possible, to make sure the US won't attack them. As such, NK will now have a list of potential buyers significantly longer than just AlQaeda or other terrorists.

Re:Take em now

[jcr]

It wouldn't surprise meat all if the Chinese take him out with a railway accident in the near future. They don't need a Stalinist throwback on their border any more than we do.

-jcr

Re:Take em now

[jacquesm]

thank you...

comment of the month. I already posted in this thread so no chance of modding you up, but I did add you to my 'friends' list for that one.

Simply by defining the 'axis of evil' some countries got enough of a warning to start moving before it was too late. The six party talks were sabotaged as far as I can detect and provoked this chest beating performance by lil kim, the real question now is how far they are towards miniaturization and delivery.

Another real nightmare scenario would be a vessel with a goodie like this in the hold docked in SF or so.

Not all delivery needs to be done by air, not as 'efficient' (if there is such a term when it comes to mass murder), but I'm pretty sure it would get the job done.

Re:Take em now

[voice_of_all_reason]

If that's the position, they have to stop arguing that "we have to do something because Kim Jong Il is crazy."

Let's see a talking head get up there and proclaim "we have to do something because every North Korean that can possibly come into power is dangerous and evil"

Re:Take em now

[GoMMiX]

If the Dems would stop critisizing Bush, Iraq wouldn't be in this mess...

While on one hand, I'm on Bush's side. On the other hand, I think this is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have seen written on Slashdot to date.

The war in Iraq is going to crap, and Iraq is on the edge of civil war -- clearly that is the fault of Democrats political rhetoric and gleeful politicizing of the Iraq war in the US Media....

Moron.

Re:Take em now

[jollyplex]

I'm afraid your sarcasm detector needs to be replaced.

Re:Take em now

[zoomzit]

I have to assume by your comment that you do not live in the US ("When your "big W"). That, or you do not accept responsibility for your part in the US democracy.

But, I just have to say this: piss off.

I'm no Bush supporter. I think he's a moron. I objected to the Iraq war before it went all to shit and I object to most of his foreign policies. Ultimately, I think his presidency is a complete and utter disaster.

However. I also object to the other in the world especially the EU from pointing fingers at the US for our foreign policies. Let take Iran as an example:

EU: Are you developing nukes?
Iran: Well...yes.
EU: Please stop
Iran: Mmmm....Maybe.
(a few months later)
EU: I see that you are still developing nukes
Iran: Yes
EU: We are very disappointed... if you don't stop we will have to take futher measures.
(a few months later)
EU: I see that you are still developing nukes...
Iran: Yes
EU: Did we mention that we are very disappointed?
Iran: Yes
EU: Will you please stop?
Iran: Mmmm....maybe
EU: Great! I think we are making progress!!!

In short, my argument is as such: US foreign policy is crap because we are all guns and no diplomacy. EU policy is for shit because they are ultimately a bunch of pussies and are unable and unwilling to actually take any sort of action should diplomacy fail. Because the EU is unwilling to ever use force, their diplomacy carries no effect. Diplomacy with Iran would have worked, had the rest of the world had the sactions threatened against Iran actually been enforced by Russia and the EU. Instead, Iran has the world by the balls because they know that most of the world is too cowardly to actually follow through with the threats set forth in their negotiations.

Re:Take em now

[jmorris42]

> The war in Iraq is going to crap, and Iraq is on the edge of civil war -- clearly that is the fault
> of Democrats political rhetoric and gleeful politicizing of the Iraq war in the US Media....

Actually there is a fair amount of truth in that. Is the Democratic Party in league with UBL? With a couple of possible (Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney, ya know, the real fringe of the fringe) exceptions, no. Do most of them want Al Qaeda to win? Ah, now we get to the nuanced responses. It would be more accurate to say the deepest desire of their hearts is for Bush to lose. And if America loses it is a price they are willing to pay.

Our enemies understand all too much of these internal political dynamics, having studied their enemies well, especially our loses in Vietnam and Somolia. They realize a straight up victory on the field of battle isn't possible, which is why they are waging asymetrical warfare in the first place. No, they understand the lesson of Vietnam is that the US can't be defeated in battle, we have more things that go boom and an adequate supply of skilled and highly motivated and discplined troops to wield them. But we can be defeated HERE, by exploiting weaknesses in our political system. The Democrats were carping about quagmire in Afganistan before the first boot hit the ground. They have been doing likewise in Iraq. So the enemy understands that to win they must simply give the Democrats what they need to win the political battle here, i,e. lots of blood and gore within range of friendly news crews. Given that support the Democrats will win their fight and they win as a side effect.

Still not convinced? Thought experiment. The Democrats decide that the US winning a war once entered, regardless whether they supported it initially, is more important that using dead servicemen to club their way into a majority. For real, such that the troublemakers in Iraq knew in their most secret thoughts that we were going to be there for the duration, and would ramp up troop levels if need be. If Iran knew, for a certainty, that continuing to meddle would be suicidal, the question is: Would they still fight? Almost certainly not, had we had that sort of unity the last two years the troops would be home and Iraq would be at relative peace. Therefore is it not a fair question to ask how much American blood is on Kerry, Murtha, etc's hands?

Re:Take em now

[GoMMiX]

Yeah, I figured that out after I made the post. I suppose that makes me the moron. :)

Re:Take em now

[titzandkunt]

"...The six party talks were sabotaged as far as I can detect and provoked this chest beating performance by lil kim, the real question now is how far they are towards miniaturization and delivery..."

I'm willing to belive that by beating her fists against her chest, L'il Kim could cause a quake of 4.0 on the richter scale, but seeing as the latest figures for the event go as high as 5.2, I expect that additional large-breasted hip-hop hunnies were involved in the chest pounding. Where was Missy Elliot during the test window? No-one's saying, especially Missy herself...

Talk of minaturization with respect to L'il Kim's strategic assets may seem premature, but my sources tell me that Tyler Durden is on standyby. Furthermore, Mr Durden is seeking competitive quotes from major bulk shipping corporations in order to safely retrieve and process the immense amount of byproduct that the minaturization effort would produce.

You heard it here first, off the record, on the Q.T. and very hush-hush.

I would like to be the first

[sokoban]

... to welcome our new North Korean overlords.

Re:I would like to be the first

[waferhead]

SOMETHING blew up.

Is a 4.2 quake ~ right for a small nuke, or did they just stuff some fertilizer and fuel oil in a mineshaft to make a negotiating point that's hard to absolutely confirm or deny w/o someone inside?

Re:I would like to be the first

[terrymr]

I posted a link further up that suggests that a 1 kiloton explosion would register about 4.0 .... so it sounds within the realms of possibility that they just fired off a bunch of conventional explosives.

Re:I would like to be the first

[forwardhairbrush]

That's not very funny at all.

Re:I would like to be the first

[lxs]

Actually it is.

And to revive an old /. meme:

In Korea, nukes are only for old people.

Re:I would like to be the first

[jacquesm]

I don't think the signature of the explosion matches that of a large amount of conventional explosives set off in a mineshaft. I'd expect a longer initial burst from that which would pretty much give the game away and make NK look like fools. I think they had a pretty good idea it was going to work too given the fact that they pre-announced it so widely.

USGS Reports North Korean Nuke Test as 4.2 Quake

[pkkell0]

Seismic Data from North Korean underground Nuke test registers on USGS sensors as 4.2 mag quake http://bitterplace.homeip.net:8080/modules.php?nam e=News&file=article&sid=607&mode=&order=0&thold=0

So what's the yeild amount?

[DigiShaman]

Can a fellow geek do some napkin math on this? I'd sure like to know the kiloton yeild on that puppy!

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[ScentCone]

Can a fellow geek do some napkin math on this? I'd sure like to know the kiloton yeild on that puppy!

Listening to some topical experts that appear to have been dragged out of their homes and into the cable news studios on a Sunday night, there appears to be discussion about how NK was hoping to produce a "400 kiloton" yield... which is about 20x Hiroshima, or 10klc (ten thousand libraries of congress).

A White House source is being quoted as saying they think NK got much less of a yield than they were looking for, but that's sounding a little more like spin than truly knowable (and unclassified) fact at this stage.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[terrymr]

From here: a one killoton explosion is equivalent to about 4.0. Maybe it was just a butt load of dynamite and not nuclear at all.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[terrymr]

Sounds like the yield was low from the information about yield vs richter scale i've found so far ... of course I'm not a pysicist so I have to rely on other peoples information.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[jafac]

A "dud" (or partial) sounds consistent with everything else we know.

We know that it's probably a plutonium device (using processed fuel from a reactor that had been secured and monitored until they kicked out the inspectors).

A plutonium device is an implosion device, and implosion devices are usually much harder to get right the first time (hence the need for testing).

To keep things in perspective - they're still a long way from being able to put an operationally reliable device on an operationally reliable ICBM.

But this is still very bad news.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[joe 155]

I did wonder if this was what was going on myself, partly it seems like there might be a logic for it, at least in the twisted mind of Kim. If he thinks he is under threat then he might do something like this to prove that he has nukes (even if he doesn't) so that no one will dare attack him - if you see how much the security council is appeasing Iran then it creates a climate where having nukes seems like a good thing.

personsally I'd like to see my government (the UK) and maybe the US drag their heals over this and suggest that sanctions might not be the best way as a way of creating a "we'll agree to sanction North Korea if you let us sanction Iran" - after all, it's always best in the UN to be the sticking point - you get more money/respect/favours that way

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[rm999]

2 million pounds of tnt - that, I would imagine, would be really difficult to coordinate (not to mention detonating in a way to create a single cohesive explosion).

I could be wrong, I have never worked with TNT

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[Trumpetgod2k1]

There are explosives (C-4, RDX) which are more powerful than TNT, which would require much less poundage than TNT to achieve the same explosive effect.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[tpjunkie]

Wrong. All the plutonium bombs the US has built have been implosion devices. However, any fissile material of high enough enrichment can be made into the simple shotgun type bomb of the design of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (although that one used uranium as fuel). The scary thing about this type of bomb is that while the yield is much lower, they are quite simple to build in comparison, and if one uses P239 as the fuel source, a very highly enriched fuel mass needs only to be about the size of a grapefruit.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

With a possible 1kt aftershock- thus indicating the possible dud...

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[BigFootApe]

However, any fissile material of high enough enrichment can be made into the simple shotgun type bomb of the design of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (although that one used uranium as fuel).

No. Gun assembly is not viable for a plutonium weapon, as it does not achieve sufficient assembly velocity to overcome the problem of predetonation.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html #Nfaq4.1.5.3

Simple designs which may use plutonium as fissile material, such as the flying plate design, are technically much simpler than spherical implosion designs (and even resemble gun assembly, superficially), but they are much more sophisticated than naive gun assembly.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[BigFootApe]

Two events come to mind:

Messines Ridge
Halifax Explosion

Re:Great!

[voice_of_all_reason]

Threaten to sell nukes and missiles?

Why not? What is anyone else gonna do, attack them? They have nukes!

I fear for our world.

[BaronSprite]

With nuclear tensions now reaching a boiling point, the western world may now be emboldended into use of tactical nuclear weapons. With this test that brought "hapiness" it may also bring death to many koreans. I can only hope that the last age of humanity didn't begin today. Our world is in danger, with now even more powers of our world self-justified and ready for nuclear war.

Re:I fear for our world.

[Detritus]

Even without nuclear weapons, North Korea has enough conventional weapons and soldiers to effectively destroy South Korea. What may result from this test is Japan deciding to build its own nuclear deterrent force. They could do this quickly if they wanted to.

Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[macadamia_harold]

You can see the Seismic Data here.

And a global map indicating it here.

No denying that one.

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[i_like_spam]

Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, the times don't seem to match.

The data recorded at Inchon shows an event on Sun 10/08/06 at about 14:30 UTC.

This site gives a time of Mon 10/09/06 at 01:35:27 UTC.

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[SpeedBump0619]

No denying that one.

"The US government today confirmed a seismic event on the Korean peninsula. The government of the United States has extended an offer of humanitarian assistance in this time of crisis, in exchange for the new earthquake prediction technologies employed by the government of north Korea. Statements made by the Korean government in the days preceeding this event show clear indications of a new technology capable of predicting such seismic activity days or even weeks in advance. George Bush, president of the United States, indicated that the hiding of such technology was 'double plus ungood' and would be handled with his usual delicate aplomb."

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[richdun]

If you zoom out to the northern Pacific regional map, there was also a seismic event of about 3.6 magnitude in the past 24 hours somewhere off the Aleutians - does Alaska now have the bomb too?!

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[kfg]

. . .does Alaska now have the bomb too?!

We'll try to stay serene and calm, when Aaaaaalabama gets the bomb. - Tom Lehrer

KFG

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[Breakfast Pants]

Don't forget that Don Rumsfeld was on ABB's board when they sold North Korea 2 light water reactors in 2000. No picture of him shaking Kim's hand has yet surfaced, but don't worry, Breakfast Pants is on the lookout.

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[Richard_at_work]

Nuclear events have a very specific siesmic pattern.

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[4D6963]

does Alaska now have the bomb too?!

You could tell from the seismograph. The main thing that makes that an earthquake can be told from an underground nuclear explosion is the "attack" in the seismograph. With a regular earthquake, the maximum intensity is reached in the middle of the seism, meaning the intensity increases progressively, and decreases progressively. For a nuclear explosion, it goes straight from a flat line to the maximum intensity, and then decresses progressively.

From the provided seismograph, I'd say it looks pretty much like a nuclear explosion, but IANAG and it's not like I look at seismographes everyday anyways.

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[lordmetroid]

According to USGS data blited on Google Earth the Alaskan area has quite many seismic events while this place has none other then this one.

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[tinkerghost]

IIRC there is a strip mine in the US (Kentucky/NC?) that detonates tons of amthor at a time. They actually stagger the blast because the first time they lit it off, China thought we had popped another nuke.

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[MissP]

Oh for heaven's sake! That is so misleading. The large waveform that is shown is an earthquake in the Philippine Islands that is over 100 times larger than the nuke (magnitude 6 as opposed to 4) and 9 hours _later_. The nuke is buried in the background noise about halfway up the page. The only seismic station the GSN (global seismic network) that recording anything significant is MDJ in China:

http://www.iris.washington.edu/cgi-bin/wilberII_En O_page4.pl?evname=20061009_013527.0.spyder

Re:Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[muckdog]

Siesmograph = $5000 Having NK Peon tell 'lil Kim there was a low scale naturally occuring earth quake at 10:36AM = $0 Organizing press coverage to the eargerly awaiting news media = $0 Being able to convince the world you have nuclear weapons and you tested one at 10:36AM: Priceless

Makes sense considering the brinkmanship...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq, Iran and North Korea are listed in Bush's speech as being the Axis of Evil. Iraq is monitored and disarmed to the point of helplessness, and then it gets invaded. Iran is in the process of being monitored, reports are showing it isn't an offensive force, and suddenly the drums are beating to attack it.

Nobody knows whether Kim Jong Il really is insane. But he's not stupid. North Korea already had retalliatory capabilities in case they were invaded, merely by Seoul and it's 10-million-plus inhabitants being within conventional artillery range of the border. A nuke gives North Korea offensive leverage over the Korean penninsula. When you're living in a world where it's considered acceptable for the most powerful military to essentially fabricate false justifications for invading a sovereign nation, one can't have too much insurance if they're on the same hit list.

Re:Makes sense considering the brinkmanship...

[fuzzdawg]

Figures you posted anon. LOL

Re:Makes sense considering the brinkmanship...

[TheFoolishOne]

The next step, clearly, is to invite Hans Blix. And then feed him to your sharks.

Solutions

[Famatra]

The solution is for countries that are paying off North Korea with bribe food, oil etc. to stop now and let the regiem crumble.

Re:Solutions

[rubycodez]

regimes crumble much faster when they're nuked

Re:Solutions

[icegreentea]

the whole food thing is pretty much the only thing that's keeping north korea alive. like, the people alive. cutting off the food = killing a LOT of people = mass murder = BAD!!!

Mag 4.2

[rlp]

Here's the USGS link.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[tezbobobo]

Actually, this is not so much about terrorists as residual cold war thinking. Most political scietists would treat this as either the fallout of superpower foriegn policy from the cold war, or indeed claim that the cold war is not in fact over.

America is acting no different from usual so it is not right to claim it is run by violent religious extremists. That's a comparative qualitative assessment. It is instead run by what would be known as 'realist' (not the dictionary def.) ideologists - those who would unilaterally further America's interest..

south korea was first to verify

[rubycodez]

south korea confirmed magnitude 3.6 quake at time of test, abcnews says

Get Kamiokande to verify...

[Dr. Zowie]

Seismic results can be faked with conventional explosives -- 30,000 tons of TNT is expensive but can be amassed even by a small nation like North Korea.

However, the world's most sensitive neutrino detector (Kamiokande) is under 1,000 km away. If the North Koreans detonated a 10-30 kiloton device, several times 1013 neutrinos from it should have passed through Kamiokande. I don't know Kamiokande's exact quantum efficiency, but it should be able to detect a pulse like that. After all, it detected Supernova 1987-A...

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[edwardpickman]

It's highly unlikely that it was faked. It's known that N Korea had enough Plutonium for two to three bombs so it's likely that not only this one was real but that they have at least one more ready to use and a third either ready or nearly ready. In five years they are likely to have a significant arsenal. The disturbing thing is not only was Japan the first country attacked with atomic weapons but they could also be the second. This is disturbing to the US but the Japanese are the ones at risk. A more likely use though would be to invade and reunite South Korea with the North. The decision is whether it's worth a nuclear war to stop them. What a bloody disaster.

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[Dr. Zowie]

Not so unlikely, perhaps -- the greatest value in nukes is deterrence, ie in everyone else knowing that you have them. Plutonium devices are harder to get right than are uranium devices (because of the spontaneous neutron emission rate of the plutonium, which keeps you from getting as supercritical as you'd like before the reaction heats up -- which in turn would make the bomb fizzle as it, er, disassembles itself before liberating as much energy as the owners would like).

  It's not inconceivable that Kim Jong Il might find it worthwhile to burn that much conventional explosive in a bid for credibility, if his weapons program were failing: nearly all of the value of nuclear weapons is in convincing your neighbors that you have them.

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[Reziac]

Maybe you can answer this -- assuming it *was* a nuke of the guesstimated size (all of which is, as you say, open to question), approximately how much of this very small country would it render unfit for human habitation, and for how long?

ISTM a little country like North Korea just doesn't have the land to waste. Tho I doubt the boss there much *cares*.

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[Dr. Zowie]

Well, from the other threads it was probably more like 2-3 kT than like 30 kT...

but, being underground, it's not so bad even with a larger (fully functioning?) device. One nice thing about underground nuclear testing (compared to air-testing) is that the device tends to fuse the surrounding rock into a hard, insoluble glass that immobilizes most of the fission products -- so, in principle, there's not much contamination of stuff above ground.

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[Reziac]

That's at least one positive note for the people who have to live there...

How far underground would it need to be, to be reasonably well sealed off? And how large of a glassy chamber would it create?

Considering the sad state of the country, one has to wonder about the level of competence surrounding any such tests, and whether they'd bother with even the most basic safety protocols. :(

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[darkmeridian]

There is a special kind of satellite with a device called a "bhangmeter" that detects a specific kind of double pulse only made by nuclear bombs. A nuke has a quick initial flash from the explosion, then the intial fireball is covered by the shock wave, which is opaque. Soon, as the shock wave opens up, it starts to get brighter and brigher. The bhangmeter looks for a quick pulse, then a sustained light that builds up slowly.

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[khallow]

Supernova 1987-A probably had a much higher influx of neutrinoes. It was after all only 10^15 further away (100,000 light years instead of 1000 km). That's a reduction factor of roughly 10^30 which is probably considerably less than the ratio of neutrinos produced by the two events. As I recall, about 10% of a supernova's energy is thought to be converted to neutrinos.

More compelling evidence is that the blast was around 800-3000 tons (depending on whether you use US or ROK figures). That's probably indication that this wasn't a successful nuclear test on its own. I don't think that North Korea would be capable of building a device with that low a yield without substantial help from one of the existing nuclear powers.

Re:Get Kamiokande to verify...

[Dr. Zowie]

Yah, agree.

Though making a low-yield device with lots of plutonium is about as hard as making a small fortune by starting with a large one... :-)

If I had to place a bet, I'd bet that they tried for 10-15kT and got much less. The name of the game in fission bombs is fast assembly -- you want to get the reactor core assembled and way, way supercritical before a chain reaction has a chance to start. With uranium, that's easy since its spontaneous neutron emission rate is so low -- but wherever you have a chunk of plutonium you'll find many free neutrons bouncing around, so the assembly has to be much faster. I believe that's a large part of the reason that the first U.S. plutonium bomb used expensive, tricky implosion rather than simple, straightforward gun-type assembly like the uranium bomb did.

Google Map Link Here

[nxtr]

Google Map of possible explosion site here. Fortunately/unfotunately, Google is not able to give driving directions to this location at this time.

Re:Google Map Link Here

[HarvardAce]

Completely off topic, but does anyone else say "Enhance" every time they double-click on a google map to zoom in?

Lets look at the bright side

[Toxicgonzo]

At least they're not building Battlecruisers.

map

[Heem]

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.311%C2%B0N%2C%201 29.114%C2%B0E&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Re:map

[RyanFenton]

Fixed link (Need to use hybrid mode - still no roads, but at least you get geography.

Most zoomed-in level available

Note for those easy to confuse: They have not written words on the ground - that's Google's watermark.

It's a very isolated, mountainous spot. It'll be interesting to eventually see any newer satellite photos to see how the land deformed afterwards. If, for instance, this is a ruse involving enourmous ammounts of conventional explosives or something related to create an artificial earthquake, that also would be interesting - but highly unlikely from the evidence so far.

I wonder how much energy it would take to create a 4.2 magnitude quake. The area doesn't look steep enough for some "underground avelanche" to allow for a ruse. This looks like it must be the real thing so far. What that means from here is wide open.

Ryan Fenton

Re:map

[RyanFenton]

Now, that's a little embarrasing - posted a link as a fix, and it had the same problem. You'll have to click hybrid/satellite to make both links work.

Ryan Fenton

Re:map

[Heem]

yea, I kinda figured slashdot folk would have been smart enough to figure out that they had to actually manually click sat or hyrbid.

Bad slashcode, no biscuit

[Dr. Zowie]

Evil slashcode, evil! That was 10¹³ (10^13 in ASCII)

Re:Bad slashcode, no biscuit

[lordofthechia]

I was about to say, 1,013 neutrinos... How the hell did you figure out the radiation dispertion down to the single neutrino!

Google/Yahoo Maps GPS Location of USGS event

[IdleByte]

I want my own GoogleSAT. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=41.311%C2% B0N,+129.114%C2%B0E&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=41.310864,129. 114139&spn=0.003385,0.010815&t=k&om=1 Yahoo Approx posistion, I'm sure someone can come closer.. http://maps.yahoo.com/beta/index.php#maxp=search&m vt=h&trf=0&lon=128.969879&lat=41.338669&mag=9 IdleByte

Re:Google/Yahoo Maps GPS Location of USGS event

[IdleByte]

Exact Yahoo Maps location... I didn't look at the URL completely before I posted.. http://maps.yahoo.com/beta/index.php#maxp=search&m vt=h&trf=0&lon=129.114&lat=41.311&mag=6 Idle

usgs map has updated

[circletimessquare]

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Ma ps/10/125_40.php

Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[istartedi]

The other day I read a story where they interviewed a Chinese soldier who was disgusted with the NKs. Why? Because they returned a border crosser, a young woman. This took place on a bridge over a river that divides China and NK. As soon as she was signed over, the NKs took a sharp steel wire and ran it through the flesh between the thumb and forefingers of a hand. They led her away screaming. Apparently, this is routine behavior. Other Chinese border guards related stories of NKs running the wire underneath the collarbones of returnees, harnessing them together. Needless to say, these people are not seen at the border again.

In the same article, there were stories of NKs sneaking into China, robbing banks, in general making trouble. However, most of the border crossers are coming to China to find prosperity and freedom. Yes. Prosperity and freedom. In a country that we usually associate with wage slavery and oppression. The woman at the bridge knew she would be killed. They must all realize they will be killed, yet they risk being returned. Now that has *got* to be one lousy place to live.

I don't see how the NK regime can last. It's just a question of how it's going to go down. If I were the premier of China, I'd make a secret deal with SK to put a military sqeeeze on the place, since NK would probably be overwhelmed by a Chinese invasion. The Chinese could really come out looking like good guys if they then turned it over to SK for re-unification ala Germany. I'm not that optimistic though. I think we're more likely to see the "Korean autonomous zone" or some such nonsense that's really part of the Chinese empire. Maybe real soon now.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[TheFoolishOne]

It's time the Chinese started acting like the world power they are and adopt a country to destroy and rebuild in their own terrible visage. It's the only way to really make a name for yourself on the international stage.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[kfg]

It's time the Chinese started acting like the world power they are and adopt a country to destroy and rebuild in their own terrible visage.

Been there, done that. It's called Tibet. They believed they had Prayers for Mass Peace.

I've been called a China lover here, and in a sense that's true enough, which is exactly why I have no great love for their government.

KFG

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[FatRatBastard]

I don't see how the NK regime can last.

By all rights it should have collapsed in the 90s when it pretty much lost most of its "income" it got from the Soviets. I can't find it right now, but there was recently a great article looking at the economic status of North Korea (or, as much as you could glean from such a secrative country). They were on the verge of an economic implosion until the West propped them up with aid in the min 90s. They promised not to build and export bombs, we promised to give them economic aid. As you can see, that worked out wonders.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[Zugok]

Does anyone want to believe Titor's prediction of China forcibly annexing the Koreas, Japan and Taiwan?

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[dbIII]

since NK would probably be overwhelmed by a Chinese invasion

But would they really want to be the occupiers of a country that has become a basket case and have to put a lot of effort into fixing problems in a country where nearly everyone hates them for being an occupying force? It wouldn't be peaceful and it would make their behaviour in Tibet look squeaky clean in comparison. The Chinese could never look like good guys for engaging in a brutal ground war - remember the US didn't even look good kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[bertilow]

If I were the premier of China, I'd make a secret deal with SK to put a military sqeeeze on the place, since NK would probably be overwhelmed by a Chinese invasion. The Chinese could really come out looking like good guys if they then turned it over to SK for re-unification ala Germany.

South Korea would probably pay China not to do that. Noone in South Korea - not the politicians, not the ordinary people - wants a re-unification. A re-unificatiion would be an absolute disaster for the South Korean economy. I know. I happen to live there (Seoul).

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[The OPTiCIAN]

> If I were the premier of China, I'd make a secret deal with SK to put a
> military sqeeeze on the place, since NK would probably be overwhelmed by
> a Chinese invasion.

I can't remmeber where I read this, but understand the main concern of all neighbours to be a complete collapse of the current system. If that happens there will be fifteen or so million refugees of nearly zero economic value suddenly sitting on the doorstep of two of the world's most significant economies. China doesn't want a North Korean collapse.

Even before nuclear weapons were a factor military intervention wasn't really an option as the north have artillery trained on Seol which is the second largest metro area in the world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_ areas_by_population. And South Korea is economically significant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea) - so letting that happen is not viable to anyone.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I don't see how the NK regime can last. It's just a question of how it's going to go down.

Read 1984. North Korea is the proof of concept. Expect v1.0 in a large nation near you sometime before 2050.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[zzen]

Now that has *got* to be one lousy place to live. [...] I don't see how the NK regime can last.

Well, it's been one lousy place to live for quite a few decades now. Sure - it's going to fold one day... The question is, how many more decades?

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[antifoidulus]

I think you are overestimating how much it would cost, especially if done right. Germany reunited 17 years ago, and the German economy isn't exactly in the toilet. Conditions in the rural east still aren't all that great, but Germany didn't all of a sudden tank because of re-unification. Neither will South Korera.

I understand that North Korea's economic situation is worse than East Germany's was, but the South Korean economy is more dynamic than the economy of West Germany was at that time and I believe they could absorb the shock if they did things correctly.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[Arwing]

"Korean autonomous zone" or some such nonsense that's really part of the Chinese empire

WTF? Chinese empire? Last time I checked, the last two countries that got invaded were Iraq and Afghanistan, and both were done by the hands of the Americans. What is this, the Yellow Horde theory? Just because the Chinese are not the lapdogs like the Brits, they are trying to form a 'Empire' now? I would say look at your own action in Washington before you start calling out other country like that.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[bertilow]

Germany didn't all of a sudden tank because of re-unification. Neither will South Korera.

You really can't talk about East Germany and North Korea in the same month or even year. They're really really different cases. In comparison East Germany was a pretty normal and sane country. I know, because my wife grew up there (and we have our second home there). No one went hungry in East Germany. In North Korea they are starving. There are North Korean refugees living in the South now. They have a very hard time getting used to living on a different planet. In general they don't really manage. Now think about the whole North trying to get into the South all at once trying get something to eat!

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[vertinox]

The Chinese could really come out looking like good guys if they then turned it over to SK for re-unification ala Germany.

North Korea's collapse and re-unification with the South is the last thing wanted by China and South Korea.

South Korea knows if they assimilated North Korea their economy would be ruined much like West Germany's was with East, but only worse because of the abject poverty this time around.

They would perfer North Korea stay indpedendant economically for now.

As for China... NK is a buffer state between it and the west. If war were to break out over Taiwan... Well...

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[solferino]

If I were the premier of China, I'd make a secret deal with SK to put a military sqeeeze on the place, since NK would probably be overwhelmed by a Chinese invasion. The Chinese could really come out looking like good guys if they then turned it over to SK for re-unification ala Germany.

North Korea exists today precisely because of China's backing. NK is a useful tool for China to unsettle the East Asian region for their own ends. It's their own tame joker. Your contention about what China could do and how this would make them look like 'the good guys' is very naive. The feelings of the ordinary soldiers of a nation (the disgust in the article you mention) do not have much relevance to the realpolitik games that the power-holders of that nation play.

Tough talk! Great results!

[copponex]

"I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail." -President Bush II

"I must say you don't normally engage in conversations by threatening to intercontinental ballistic missiles." -John Bolton

Hey fellas.... How is that hard-line foreign policy working out?

Re:Tough talk! Great results!

[Chordonblue]

Apparently about as well as the last administration's appeasment.

Re:Tough talk! Great results!

[OverlordQ]

So true. These people (DPRK, Iran, etc) are so batshit fucking insane, ignoring them is just letting them arm up till they finally blow their fuse.

Re:Tough talk! Great results!

[Shihar]

Thousands dead? That puts dieing in war right up there with drowning (~4000) and well below falling (~14,000). Yeah, the world is a real scary place.

As for this whole confrontation thing... last time I checked the Soviet Union had collapsed and a few dozen Eastern European and Asian nations were getting to know the joys of fun shit like not being executed for voicing disapproval of government policy.

There is nothing but bitching and moaning about the US. Once in a while it would be nice if someone was like "Hey US, thanks for sticking your shit into World War II and sticking with us during the Korean War and Cold War. We really like how you outspent the Soviets and the Germans and threw your sons into battle so that the rest of us could see what nationalized health care is like. Hey, you guys fuck up from time to time do to your lack of omnipotence, but in the end we are glad that you are around. Hey, the next round of drink is on us. P.S. Your beer sucks, be we still love you."

Jesus fucking Christ, the US is not the boogy man looking to eat you.

Re:Tough talk! Great results!

[snuf23]

BTW, how's that Blame America First working out?

Aw, c'mon you know it's Blame the GOP First right?
Liberal bastards what with their gay baiting and hating entrapment of Foley.

Re:Tough talk! Great results!

[John Miles]

That puts dieing in war right up there with drowning (~4000)

And terrorism.

i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[circletimessquare]

Contrary to North Korean propaganda, North Korea having nukes has more to do with Russia, Japan, China, and South Korea than it does with the United States. Northeast Asia is currently the most economically dynamic area of the world. And yet, in the center of this region sits a basket case. A country in a cult of personality throwback to the early 1950s, still fighting the Korean War.

While China continues its relentless march to economic modernity and eventual superiority, while South Korea has the most advanced internet culture in the world (see recent slashdot story still on the front page from the New York Times), and while Japan is pretty much the most advanced nation on the planet, according to a number of measures (GNP, life expectancy, etc), North Korea keeps its citizens in prisoner camps, rummaging for leaves to eat, while it focuses every ounce of its words to the world and every drop of its resources on military belligerence. And counterfeiting currency. And making methamphetamine. And now nukes.

North Korea can easily kill a quarter million people in Seoul anytime it wanted to with conventional weapons in a couple of hours. Its rockets could carry a number of nasty things to Tokyo very easily. And now nukes.

I really don't see North Korea's neighbors tolerating this scenario much longer. I don't see how they can. China has been reluctant to muzzle its maddog little psycho neighbor since it frightens the hated Japanese more than anyone else, but surely China can see now how North Korea's insane belligerence threatens China's economy just as much as it gives the Japanese nightmares. And North Korea, famously, when presented a line in the sand, does all it can do to cross it. But going nuclear may be a line in the sand it should not have crossed, if self-preservation was ever its goal. But self-preservation never seems to have been North Korea's goal. More like a headlong rush into self-realized armageddon.

I don't see this ending well, I really don't. Don't go to Seoul or Tokyo for awhile folks, I'm really worried about Northeast Asia right now, I don't see this ending well. North Korea has too much of a deathwish. And now nukes.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[funwithBSD]

Don't tell CNN. They immediately went for the "Aggression from the US made us do it." angle. That was 5 minutes after the story hit the newswires.

I am with you on this one, the only Americans at immediate risk are the ones on the Korean DMZ.

Scarer is who they might sell these weapons to, or who they use them on someone fails to back down from an aggression.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[emjoi_gently]

The insane thing is that NK's neighbours would pump money and industry into the place, if only Kim would let them.

If he took the reverse tactic, and STOPPED scaring the bejezus out of everyone, then it would be far more to North Korea's benefit.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[Monsuco]

Northeast Asia is currently the most economically dynamic area of the world. And yet, in the center of this region sits a basket case. A country in a cult of personality throwback to the early 1950s, still fighting the Korean War.

While China continues its relentless march to economic modernity and eventual superiority, while South Korea has the most advanced internet culture in the world (see recent slashdot story still on the front page from the New York Times), and while Japan is pretty much the most advanced nation on the planet, according to a number of measures (GNP, life expectancy, etc), North Korea keeps its citizens in prisoner camps, rummaging for leaves to eat, while it focuses every ounce of its words to the world and every drop of its resources on military belligerence. And counterfeiting currency. And making methamphetamine. And now nukes.

You forgot to mention the special administrative region of Hong Kong, the worlds freest economy and currently the only Lassie-Faire nation in the world. It is a center of trade in that area, and is one of the biggest trade nations in the world.

I suppose there is one thing the US could do militarily if it absolutly had to come to it, but it would require an invasion. We would start with using stealth bombers to attack various suspected nuclear sites, then use conventional fighters and bombers and move in battleships to strike costal facilities. We could then launch an invasion from SK. To prevent NK from firing their nukes, we would have to have very thick fighter coverage over suspected nuclear sites and hope that if a silo opens up we could bomb it's missle in time. If a missle is launched, we are in troubled. Currently, out best plan of action involves having fighters in the US launch a massive number of sidewinder air to air missles at it high up in the atmospheare and hope one happens to get lucky enough to damage or disable the missle. Someday, we hope to have sucessful antinuke missles near all US cities, but that is a ways off. I hope we can diplomatically shut them up. Hopefully we can cox China into cutting off aid and encourage resistance and unreast so that a revolution could occoure.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

To prevent NK from firing their nukes, we would have to have very thick fighter coverage over suspected nuclear sites and hope that if a silo opens up we could bomb it's missle in time.

Reality check. The DPRK does not have nuclear warheads. They are very much like India and Pakistan in that they've got a pile of fissionable material about the size of a large room. Underground. It is a lot of work to go from a room to a warhead. I'd be surprised if they could get there in less than 5 years.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[Opportunist]

Considering the relativ density of fissionable material, I'd be very scared if they got a large room worth of it. 10kg of Pu (enough for a small nuke) is a sphere of about 10cm diameter.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[zen-theorist]

it doesnt matter what the subject says.

Contrary to North Korean propaganda, North Korea having nukes has more to do with Russia, Japan, China, and South Korea than it does with the United States.

and still the us was the one doing all the chest-beating and sabre-rattling, prompting NK to test nukes. axis of evil and all that propaganda. reading bush's speech, it seems like he has too been cowed down and is frightened speechless by the psycho foaming maddog he chose to pelt with stones.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[overunderunderdone]

China has been reluctant to muzzle its maddog little psycho neighbor since it frightens the hated Japanese more than anyone else, but surely China can see now how North Korea's insane belligerence threatens China's economy just as much as it gives the Japanese nightmares.

Good point. Though NK has in the past been useful to China as a sharp stick to poke both it's regional rivals (Japan & South Korea) and the USA at this point I think China is sheltering NK now only because they are afraid of what would happen if the NK government collapsed. All those millions of starving Koreans would be streaming north to the opulent wealth of China.

Other than that fear I suspect NK has become a huge strategic liability for China. They may wants the other regional powers *distracted* by NK but not provoked into an arms race. Japan has already started to change it's attitudes and policies in response to constant North Korean provocation in ways that China can't possibly welcome: Loosening their rules on military deployments, becoming more assertive in regional power-politics, joining the USA's anti-ballistic missile program etc. (a program which would likely be used to shield Taiwan in any conflict). I'm sure North Korea's provocations aren't the ONLY reason for these changes but having a well armed neighbor who is continually voicing dire threats, shooting missiles over your head and kidnapping your citizens off of your territory has GOT to be a contributing factor for the cultural shift away from post WWII pacifism. China most fears a re-militarized Japan but North Korea is steadily pushing Japan in that direction.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[krell]

Sorry, you forgot that China annexed Hong Kong in 1997. It transferred from British imperial rule to Chinese imperial rule. (no one ever thought to ask the people of Kong Kong). Hong Kong is not a nation. It is also not "laissez fair", as Chinese control filters in. They have also been given a deadline of 50 years to have economic freedom, which is a threat that totalitarian communism will drop like a boom sometime around 2047. Hardly a situation of freedom with a threat like this.

The parent was correct in not mentioning Hong Kong as an advanced nation. It's not a nation, and China is proclaimed that it will trash the place in a few decades anyway.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[Joey Vegetables]

Hopefully, by then, there will be a firmly-entrenched history of economic freedom within China itself - contrasting vividly and sadly with some of its former Cold War opponents, which have become far less free, economically and otherwise, than in the past.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[krell]

Hopefully, yes. However, you don't really have economic freedom without political freedom and freedom of speech. How can you make informed decisions about economic matters when you are gagged?

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[Joey Vegetables]

I agree in general that freedoms are inseparable. However, in SE Asia, many countries have seen a "spiral" effect where increased freedom in one sphere has sparked demands for increased freedom in the others. Singapore is the classic example, where political freedom has always lagged behind - but has nonethless grown with - economic freedom. However, China itself may offer the best example. 15 years ago, the Chinese government was able to suppress most public knowledge of Tiananmen Square. Today however this would be impossible. The legions of middle-class consumers, with cell phones, computers, and other means of communication, have made it impossible to effectively censor information such as the spread of SARS. My hope is that not only economic freedom, but all of the others, will continue to grow there. (And I wish the decline in all of these freedoms in the West would somehow reverse itself, although frankly that seems much less likely.)

Seismic wave of magnitude 3.58 detected

[gcnaddict]

"South Korean intelligence officials said a seismic wave of magnitude-3.58 had been detected in North Hamkyung province, according to Yonhap."

Got that line from CNN

While extreme...

[ChePibe]

This measure is understandable.

Kim Jong Il had to do something about his hair. Nothing short of a nuke could truly remove all of that Aqua Net.

Desparate times call for desparate measures. We can only hope that Al Sharpton decides against similar treatment.

NKorea Would Use Them

[sanman2]

Hey, if there's anybody that would risk using nukes, it's that pudgy little nutcase, Kim Jong-ILL.

He's FatMan and LittleBoy all rolled into one.

A detached nutbag like him who's willing to let his people starve by the millions in famine, has no concerns about his people being hurt in a nukewar while he hides in some secret bomb shelter miles underground.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[gerardrj]

Before you condemn other countries for their lack of assistance to the poor, I suggest you look at your own country first. The US has a fairly high rate of poverty and starvation itself. The richest country in the world has over 10% of its population not able to meet basic needs, I consider that much more egregious.

The US government also has no real concerns about the American people being hurt in a nuclear war, but there are contingency plans and entire complexes dedicated to letting the president hide miles underground in such an instance.

Don't condemn other countries for living up to the ideals put forth by those who claim to be the model for the rest of the world.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[maxume]

Be sure to factor in that desperate people are trying to get out of North Korea but trying to get *into* the U.S. There are lots of wealth distribution problems in the U.S., but living in poverty here isn't nearly as bad as poverty in many places, North Korea included.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Rob Kaper]

Oh, please, not that statistical trick again. Poverty in the west is defined as earning less than half the average income. If everyone's wealth doubles, the poverty rate actually stays the same. Poverty in the west means "only one TV and game console, only one car, no air conditioning and perhaps skipping a warm meal once or twice a week" for the majority of "poor" people. In North Korea it often means "find edible plants and drink from puddles".

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to integrate our poor into society in efficient ways. The basic needs 10% of the US apparently don't meet, would be considered luxury in the majority of the world.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[dreamchaser]

Especially when most 'poor' in the US still seem to be able to afford TV's, cars, and DVD players. Over 70% of them have some sort of air conditioning unit too. Oh they are the highest percentage of smokers too, they seem to be able to afford tobacco as well.

Poor is a relative term. The poor in the US are richer than the middle class of some nations.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Shadow99_1]

The reason the US has that sort of poverty is because the cost of living has only increased while the basic wage has stayed the same... My girlfriend faced this directly just awhile ago... She makes a couple dollars an hour over minimum wage which equals ~$880 month. That has to cover her and her two kids (well her sons father pays ~$100/month in child support so ~$980 including that). On the other hand while she was in school (& only because of her two kids) she recieved ~$1200 a month between Welfare, SSI, & child support... All of which she lost (except child support) for taking her new job. If she didn't have kids (like me) then she would have recieved nothing other than possibly unemployment which lasts for up to 6 months (not enough time to complete post-secondary school).

It is far far more tempting to live on welfare+SSI for any unmarried, child supporting person than it is to work... and every single person on such things counts as being 'in poverty'... This doesn't include the people getting 'rich' off of having kids, I've seen people on Welfare+SSI live way better than me... But their kids look like they sleep in the gutter while the parents wear suits and drive the latest craz in luxury cars... All of which still figure into the poverty statistics...

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[eserteric]

Oh please, you can't even begin to compare poverty in America to the rest of the world. America has incredibly high standards for poverty, I used to work with a guy who was on all kinds of government assistance programs, but yet somehow managed to come into work with a new piece of jewerly or cell phone every once in a while. He would be a stastic on your poverty charts, but had a nicer cell phone than me.

Also, the article you linked to mentions nothing about starvation, so that's just an inflamatory comment. It's impossible to starve to death in America these days, there is food everywhere. People don't starve in North Korea because they're poor, they starve because there is simply no food to eat.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Himring]

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room...."

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Wylfing]

Dear Lord, my bullshit detector just pegged. Please note: I am rather a lefty and in favor of social programs to help those who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged.

The US has a fairly high rate of poverty and starvation

That "poverty level" is by U.S. standards, which means USD 4700 per person per year. That seems pretty low, but consider that most of the world is at approximately USD 700 per person per year. So our "poor" are nearly 7 times better off than the average person around the world. Also, starvation is virtually impossible in the U.S., even for homeless people. In fact, the very poor are one of the most likely groups in the U.S. to be grossly overweight.

The richest country in the world has over 10% of its population not able to meet basic needs

This is predicated on your phony insinuation about poverty in the United States. Below the poverty line it is possible in many parts of the country to not only meet basic needs but to have comforts that are totally unknown in most of the world. Hell, our market basket includes things like beer, tobacco, computers, TV, jewelry, and sports equipment.

I know it's superfashionable to bash the U.S. at every opportunity, and frankly it is embarrassing that we have a problem with health care in this country (but that spans the middle class as well, so it's not a poverty issue), but at least pick on the problems we actually have rather than make up new ones.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[agurkan]

I don't think this definition is a universal one. There are multiple definitions. In any case, poverty is a problem in the US. I lived in the States for seven years and I remember TV ads calling for help for starving people living within the US. I also personally saw homeless people, trying to find a shelter in the bitter cold of Chicago winter, and I do remember that many people died during the heat wave some years ago, because they could not afford AC or even transportation w/ AC.

People actually die in the States because they cannot afford to live properly. They are on the border already and one anomaly kills them. Just look at New Orleans, the people knew the disaster was coming and they could not leave, because they could not afford to leave.

There are many poor people in the States who are in much worse shape than the middle class of, say, Turkey. And, it is getting worse.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[metamatic]

That "poverty level" is by U.S. standards, which means USD 4700 per person per year. That seems pretty low, but consider that most of the world is at approximately USD 700 per person per year.

Without factoring in how the cost of living varies between countries, a comparison of dollar figures is meaningless.

Fact is, 16% of families with children in the USA don't manage to feed themselves adequately. Tens of millions of people seek emergency food assistance from charities every year. 46% of African-American children are chronically hungry.

Also, starvation is virtually impossible in the U.S., even for homeless people. In fact, the very poor are one of the most likely groups in the U.S. to be grossly overweight.

Yes, malnourishment can kill via obesity and diabetes as well as via starvation. That doesn't mean it's not a problem, though, does it?

Infant mortality rates for the US are worse than those of practically every industrialized nation. Cuba has better infant mortality rates than the USA. And remember that if you're black in the USA, the rate is 3x higher...

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Shajenko42]

If anyone in the US is in poverty it is of their own choice (fast food joints are always hiring), and all they have to do is work 40 hrs a week.

I have a friend who used to work in a customer support call center. She lost her job due to downsizing, and applied everywhere she could, including all the fast food places in the area. All of them turned her down.

Get your facts straight.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[blahplusplus]

"The basic needs 10% of the US apparently don't meet, would be considered luxury in the majority of the world."

You got to be kidding me, poverty in the US does not mean "one console, one tv, one car, and skipping one warm meal", if you're poor you can't even afford that most likely. Also POVERTY scale is relative to the countries over-all wealth. The truly poor and destitute (disabled, homeless, mentally ill, etc), lastly when you live in a "rich" nation your awareness of the quality of life effects your psychology in the same way as living "dirt poor" in a poorer nation.

Real poverty in the US and developed nations is a serious issue (not just the "paper defined" poverty), and it's a more complex issue then simply comparing apples and oranges (a developed nation, to an underdeveloped one).

Poverty in a rich nation is just as bad (and stressful) as poverty in a poor nation. Just ask any one of the millions of poor people, or immigrants getting paid wages lower then what can sustain them.

When you've had to deal with the truly poor in your nation on a regular basis, you know it's equally bad all around.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Binestar]

Infant mortality rates for the US are worse than those of practically every industrialized nation. Cuba has better infant mortality rates than the USA [geographyiq.com]. And remember that if you're black in the USA, the rate is 3x higher...
 
I would like to see a study which removed all premature births from the statistics on both sides.
 
Fact is, the US goes to truely heroic measures to save children born months premature, and when doctors are unable to save the child it isn't marked as a "miscarriage" it gets marked as "baby died".

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[RexRhino]

U.S. poverty rates are measured against normal standards of living in the U.S. ... Meaning that U.S. people living in "poverty" would be richer than most people in the world. The a person living in "poverty" in the U.S. would be doing better than the average European, if you include Eastern Europe.

Also, there is no starvation whatsoever in the United States. In fact, in the United States, the poorer you are the more likely you are to suffer from obecity and to eat a high-calorie diet. There is a problem with "malnutrition" in the sense that a lot of poor people eat too much fast-food, packaged foods, not enough fruits and vegetables. This is not because of money... healthy foods are actually cheaper... rather, it is a cultural problem.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[cartman]

Before you condemn other countries for their lack of assistance to the poor, I suggest you look at your own country first. The US has a fairly high rate of poverty and starvation itself. The richest country in the world has over 10% of its population not able to meet basic needs, I consider that much more egregious.

I'm not meaning to be one of the senseless America-boosters, however...

You should bear in mind that gov't statistics use a very different definition of poverty than the one you're accustomed to. According the gov't definition, 'poverty' is relative to the country in which the impoverished person lives and is a measure of relative deprivation. Poverty is typically defined as less than 25% of the mean income of a country, whatever that is. As a result, countries with incomes averaging less than $400/yr may have very little poverty according to that definition.

For example, the article you cited states that an impoverished person in the U.S. has an income of ~$9,400. That is more than 3x the world average income and more than twice the average income if you use PPP-adjusted figures.

On the other hand, North Korea has an average per-capita income of ~$500, placing the average North Korean at 1/20th the U.S. poverty level. Even if you take into account that things are cheaper in N Korea, the PPP-adjusted average per-capita income there is ~$1700, which is still 1/5th the U.S. poverty level.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[iamlucky13]

Here here.

For example, according to the US government, I grew up in a household well below the poverty level (ie, we were part of that 35% figure in the GP's linked article). My parent's owned our house and two cars. As far as the basic human needs go, we were never genuinely wanting for food, water, or shelter...or medical care. We had a TV, a computer, and internet service. heck, we even had a basketball hoop and a 4-wheeler. Of course, my parents were very smart about their finances, too. We weren't one of those families that spends $200 a week on microwave dinners.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[supasam]

America is acting no different from usual so it is not right to claim it is run by violent religious extremists.

That is unless it's usually been run by violent religious extremists and this just happens to be a war between two or more violent religious extremists. Course nearly everyone's a heretic these days anyways so who really cares? It's just as easy for them to claim that this is a religious war as it is to say it's purely political because people don't actually believe in or enforce the legal separation of church and state.

MOD PARENT UP!

[ChePibe]

Dear sweet mercy!

You mean to suggest that SOMETHING in the world occurred that was not the direct result of U.S. action! Well my stars, who'da thunk it!

Mod parent up!

So they've proven they can blow themselves up...

[glittalogik]

...but do they have reliable missiles/delivery systems that make their warheads an immediate threat to anyone important?

Against Alaska or West Coast

[sanman2]

Oh, and his Taepodong missiles can reach Alaska and maybe even the West Coast.

He can't fit the nukes on them yet, though.

Right now, he'd have to fly them on a cargo plane, if he ever wanted to deliver them onto a target. The main threat is him selling them to someone (AlQaeda??)

NKorea currently has the ability to make 2-3 bombs per year.

US either better bomb this guy back to the Stone Age, or else be prepared to have nukes floating all around the world.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Froomb]

Oh, and his Taepodong missiles can reach Alaska and maybe even the West Coast.

A claim endlessly repeated in the U.S. media and used to scare us into financing missile defense systems. In fact the whole missile program in NK remains something of a joke. When listening to *any* media coverage of NK, ask yourself what the commentator really knows about the country and its history. Running the same clip of prancing NK soldiers and making hysterical claims about them should not pass for media coverage.

Ask yourself, why are South Koreans increasingly more afraid of the U.S. than North Korea?

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[crazyeddie740]

"Ask yourself, why are South Koreans increasingly more afraid of the U.S. than North Korea?"

At a guess, I'd say it's because their main image of the US comes from American soldiers on leave. Lord knows that's enough to terrify anyone.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Froomb]

At a guess, I'd say it's because their main image of the US comes from American soldiers on leave. Lord knows that's enough to terrify anyone.

That indeed used to be the case before the mid-1990s. By now, though, especially after the 2002 World Cup was jointly hosted by South Korea and Japan, Koreans have become quite globalized, with Ban Ki-moon set to become the new UN Secretary-General. There is substantial disaffection with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and its implications for possible war on the Korean peninsula. South Koreans fear that the U.S. will readily sacrifice their own current peace and prosperity for the sake of achieving a neo-con policy goal.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Barnoid]

US either better bomb this guy back to the Stone Age, or else be prepared to have nukes floating all around the world.

Speaken like a true American. Wage wars, but plz not at home. Why care about collatoral damage, as long as it is so far away?

I happen to work in Seoul right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Bush & his friends than North Korea. NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nutcase of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of missiles down to Seoul, just to prove that NK is dangerous.

I hope that the U.S. and Japan won't push it too far.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[WalksOnDirt]

NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nut case of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign.

That reminds me of Iraq moving troops near the Kuwait border in 1990. Everyone I heard said Saddam would never actually invade, but invade he did.

Maybe North Korea will sit still and be proud of its nuclear capability without using it, but I am afraid South Korea is overconfident of being left alone.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[forgotten_my_nick]

NK isn't coming over the border anytime soon. In order to send in troops they would have to send them via the sea or air. Both well patrolled. If they threw over a nuke for the heck of it they would guarantee that all gloves would be off in relation to SK, USA and Japan. China would end up not getting involved.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[obnoxiousbastard]

>I happen to work in Seoul right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Bush & his friends than North Korea.

If I were you, I think I might pick up a history book. South Korea exists because the US sent massive military assistance to the South. If you think Bush is scary, you had better read up on you freaky neighbor to the north.

>NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nutcase of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign.

That didn't stop them before. That does not stop them from inciting frequent border clases and sending suicide commandoes fo the South

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[PetrusMagnusII]

Spoken like a true Korean? Just as long as they won't be attacking me, I don't care what they do. Jee, I sure hope the US and Japan don't do anything about North Korea starving it's citizens, putting them in concentration camps, hijacking planes and killing all on board, abducting citizens and using them to train spies to.. hijack more planes. No, I certainly hope neither the US or Japan do anything to stop one of the worst human beings in the history of time, because as of right now I'm not suffering, regardless of how many others are.

So actually, you're the one that cares about no one but yourself, cares not about what is right and what is wrong, but what is best for you and you alone. I hope you're the next person abducted and taken to the 'workers paradise'. Perhaps you'll find yourself in a concentration camp soon enough.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[1u3hr]

The main threat is him selling them to someone (AlQaeda??)

Al Qaeda had about $1 million budget for 9/11. They could probably pass around the hat for more, but anyone who could donate big bucks to them (enough for a nuke) wouldn't, they don't want a nuclear war because it would be bad for (the oil) business, and definitely would not want the US tracking the money trail back to him and stringing him up by his balls in Bagram. Despite Tom Clancy and Jack Bauer, it's not somethng to lose sleep over.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[glesga_kiss]

South Korea exists because the US sent massive military assistance to the South. If you think Bush is scary, you had better read up on you freaky neighbor to the north.

Dictators have but one objective; to stay in power. Concequently, N Korea will not be launching nukes any time soon as it'll have a detrimental effect on the leadership's health. On the other hand, Bush has only two more years left, has started an unprovoked war of aggression and has stated, several times, that the US is considering the use of "tactical" nukes (ones with a teaspoon of marketing sugar).

Now, in all seriousness, which is the most dangerous nation right now? It's because of Americas recent actions that N. Korea feels it needs to have nukes. Is there any doubt now that Bush has made the world a decidedly more dangerous place? When do I get so say "I told you so"?

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Barnoid]

Spoken like a true Korean? Just as long as they won't be attacking me, I don't care what they do.
Do you know that most South Koreans think of only one Korea? "Our country" refers to the whole peninsula, not just the south. The daily weather report on TV, for example, includes both countries, not only South Korea. It seems you have no idea what you're taking about.

Hoping that the U.S. will not bomb North Korea doesn't mean I do not care. You know, there are better means to end this conflict than military ones.

So actually, you're the one that cares about no one but yourself, cares not about what is right and what is wrong, but what is best for you and you alone. I hope you're the next person abducted and taken to the 'workers paradise'. Perhaps you'll find yourself in a concentration camp soon enough.
Thanks.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Dude, in which world are you living?

The NK regime has been in place for half a century and never has the US or Japan done anything for NK's starving citizens. What we currently hear from Washington is a sorry mix of pleas that someone else (China, Russia...) does the job and vague threats of premptive nuclear strike.

The parent was responding just to such a "nuke 'em" post. I fail to see how nuking NK will help its starving citizens. Well, besides the obvious : if they're dead, they won't starve anymore...

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[AC5398]

* Ask yourself, why are South Koreans increasingly more afraid of the U.S. than North Korea? *

Because the younger generations of South Koreans aren't old enough to remember the bad old days.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[AC5398]

* When do I get so say "I told you so"? *

When the US troops leave South Korea and North Korea disarms as a result.

Ain't never gonna happen - North Korea disarming that is. The US leaving you to deal with North Korea up close and personal - I give y'all another 10 years maximum.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Ogemaniac]

Hoping that the U.S. will not bomb North Korea doesn't mean I do not care. You know, there are better means to end this conflict than military ones

Which are? Fifty years of yapping have only brought the deaths of many millions of Koreans - probably more than sucking it up and taking a North Korean nuke or three.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Loki_1929]

"I happen to work in Seoul right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Bush & his friends than North Korea. NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nutcase of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of missiles down to Seoul, just to prove that NK is dangerous.

I hope that the U.S. and Japan won't push it too far."

Wait.. wait... this sounds oddly familiar...

"I happen to work in Paris right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Roosevelt & his friends than Germany. Germany will not attack France unprovoked because even their nutcase of a fürer knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of divisions down to Paris, just to prove that Germany is dangerous.

I hope that the U.S. and Britain won't push it too far.

That kind of thinking has gotten us nowhere in the past. A head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-the-ears policy is exactly the kind of climate in which madmen and their armies flourish. How's 50 years of doing absolutely nothing about the threat of North Korea done for Seoul and the rest of South Korea's safety and security? Oh wait, that's right, now you guys are threatened with nuclear weapons in addition to the conventional weapons. So basically, things have improved tremendously.

You do realize that were it not for the US tripwire force at the DMZ, you guys would all be living in the same horrible conditions as North Koreans currently endure, right? The US isn't your enemy, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get some real security. Every time you people bitch and moan about the US presence (which was requested) to your North, you just embolden the man who would happily strip your economy to the bone and work every last one of you people to death if it meant he could maintain his regime for another 10 minutes more than he could without doing that.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[glesga_kiss]

* When do I get so say "I told you so"? *

When the US troops leave South Korea and North Korea disarms as a result.

I was actually speaking about Bush's actions being exactly the ones that cause despot leaders to go a little crazy and paranoid. When you invade a country, others start to ask "am I next?". This is a point I've been continually making for four years now and N. Korea publicly showing off their nukes is actually worse than anything I had realistically considered as something that might happen.

Of course, "I told you so" means nothing when your childrens hair falls out.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Opportunist]

SK has investments in NK. It's kinda their Mexico. Cheap labour and pretty much no problems with environmentalists and other pesky groups that make manufacturing troublesome.

NK needs that money those plants bring or they'll be even closer to total bankrupcy than they are anyway. So, if anything, it would be highly stupid of NK to slaughter the goose laying them the golden eggs. Saddam could get the resources from Kuwait, and that's what he was after. He didn't need the land or the workforce, he wanted what's underneath the soil.

What would NK want from SK? If anything, they'd lose from going to war.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[UnixMan]

As a German, I can only say: Some of you Americans are such idiots. Seriously, educate yourself. For starters, learn how to spell Führer, what it means and why it is only a bad thing in a certain context.

This is all you have to say about the "Americans idiots"? An incorrectly spelled Führer? Boy, you really made a point... not! Stupid.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[dfenstrate]

I believe we have a blockade around North Korea to prevent this sort of thing.

If I remember correctly, Libya caved a couple years ago and swore off nukes after we intercepted a shipment of bomb production machines from North Korea to Libya.

I don't think much comes and goes from North Korea on the sea without our say so. And I'm reasonably certain China isn't too keen on land shipments of nuke material over their border.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Megane]

Al Qaeda had about $1 million budget for 9/11. They could probably pass around the hat for more, but anyone who could donate big bucks to them (enough for a nuke) wouldn't, they don't want a nuclear war because it would be bad for (the oil) business, and definitely would not want the US tracking the money trail back to him and stringing him up by his balls in Bagram. Despite Tom Clancy and Jack Bauer, it's not somethng to lose sleep over.

We know that KJI just loves to sell weapons to the mideast for money.

Once someone has got the money to pay KJI, they've got the money. It doesn't matter who doesn't give them the money, just that they've got it. And where else are they supposedly trying to make a nuke? Where else are they swimming in money because their nutball leader has talked up the situation in the mideast to drive up the price of the very oil that they sell?

Not Al Queda. Iran.

"Bad for the oil business"? When the turmoil it would cause would do nothing but raise the price of oil sky-high? Again?

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Atheose]

You're right, Kim Jong Ill was a happy little man who liked American Movies and had no aggressive intention towards the South until Bush invaded Iraq, where the children danced and played with gumdrop smiles.

Bush may not have made things better, but I think it's a little naive to think that none of this would be happening if a Democrat was in office.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[M1FCJ]

I'm pretty sure Rapture Index jumped a couple of points today. Let me check. 154 today. According to the index anything above 145:Fasten your seat belts. Holy cow Batman! I don't want to left behind when the NeoCons hit the button, where do I sign up to their Religion?

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[glesga_kiss]

You're right, Kim Jong Ill was a happy little man who liked American Movies and had no aggressive intention towards the South until Bush invaded Iraq, where the children danced and played with gumdrop smiles.

How many countries had Kim Jong invaded? None. Sure, he was agressive to the South, but that is as they were to him. Big deal. As I said previously, dictators have one objective, staying in power. Invading South Korea would most likely involve military defeat and the end of his regime. He may come off as stupid to your racist programming but to be a brutal dictator you have to be smart and tough.

Bush may not have made things better, but I think it's a little naive to think that none of this would be happening if a Democrat was in office.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? You do realise the rest of the world laughs at you with the bi-partisan nonsense? It's a great way of keeping the population asking the wrong (right) questions. The point is that it wouldn't have happend if someone sane was in power, regardless of which party they belong to. Bush/Cheney came to power with one main objective; Iraq. This has been publicly stated by them in their Project For A New American Century publications since 1998. The PNAC does not represent all republicans. This (like most things) is not a partisan issue and anytime that you people waste arguing that way is time not spend debating the actual problem.

Now, just shut up and do what your leaders tell you. Be a good American.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Anonymous MadCoe]

I think there is a big difference between NK now and in the 50s. And there is a huge difference between Germany in the 30s and NK now.

Especially Germany in the 30s was a technological power, they had a really advanced and well trained army, and a working war industry (eventough they denied it).

NK may be capable of building nukes (which is 40s technology), and does not seem to have an industry able to support a sustained war (as far as we can tell).

I want the regime there leave, and I definately find it evil, and I feel their neighbours should be helped protecting themselves. Still the comparison to the 30s appeasement is in my opinion not valid since Germany was a real threat. I do not believe NK now truely is capable of sustaining a war without outside help.

I do feel the insights of someone closer to NK than myself about the regime not being able to survive a war is interresting and worthy of looking into.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[vtcodger]

***US either better bomb this guy back to the Stone Age, or else be prepared to have nukes floating all around the world.***

It's a pleasure to welcome you to Slashdot Dr Kissinger. Without your sage advice we might never have won in Vietnam. ... No, I'm not being sarcastic. Your strategy did bring success did it not? I mean why would you and those you advise continue to advocate the use of force rather than diplomacy if it had failed there?

Anyway, I do have one question. If we bomb the bejezus out of North Korea, what will be the fate of the 35000 American hostages we have cleverly placed in South Korea near the North Korean border? ... "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" Got it. Thank you sir.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[mikerich]

He *might* not have a missile-capable nuke, but Uncle Kim has tens of thousands of tonnes of good old fashioned chemical weapons that could be launched on the DMZ and Seoul with his ancient but perfectly capable SCUD-derived missiles. Attack North Korea and the whole of South Korea and all the American soldiers stationed there are in for a nasty, fatal surprise.

Besides on what justification in international law? North Korea is a stain on the world, but it hasn't actually broken any laws or treaties in detonating this device; North Korea withdrew from the Non Proliferation Treaty and is fully within its rights to design and test nuclear weapons. The last time the US and the UK were so cavalier with international law we ended up with Iraq - a crisis that has completely hamstrung the American military so that it is completely incapable of fighting another war, wrecked any form of international concensus and destroyed the credibility of the Blair government here in the UK. The real tragedy of this is that it is another example of the bankruptcy of the current Republican administration - Iraq, Palestine, Iran and now North Korea have all been mishandled by the Administration for short-term political expediency; we're now living in a much more dangerous world because of their ideological certainties. America could have continued with the Agreed Framework as put together by the Clinton administration in which fuel oil and light water reactors would go to the North in exchange for a cessation of weapons activities; but Congress and the current White House refused to go along. Much better to have an easy 'Axis of Evil' than complicated, painful negotiations.

And I say *might* about North Korea's weapon because we have no idea about his weapon design. It's more than likely North Korea has got a bomb design that harks all the way back to Fat-Man, but there is a chance that Pakistan's Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has given them a more advanced design that will fit into a missile re-entry vehicle.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[khallow]

You know, there are better means to end this conflict than military ones.

Truer words were never spoken. Now when are we going to use these "better means" to end this?

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[1u3hr]

Once someone has got the money to pay KJI, they've got the money. It doesn't matter who doesn't give them the money, just that they've got it.

So who would? It does matter that anyone who has that kind of money is not likely to want to commit suicide. One thing Bush has shown is that he's willing to go to war on suspicion. Also, Kim himself knows that he would be a prime suspect for supplying said bomb; I can believe he'd use a bomb against South Korea if he thought he could get away with it, or the US as a last ditch "Fuck You" statement, but not that he'd hand it over to a bunch of Arabs who would use it for their own agenda. Though I did enjoy Team America, I think it unlikely that he's an alien cockroach trying to wipe out humanity so his race can take over.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Loki_1929]

"Still the comparison to the 30s appeasement is in my opinion not valid since Germany was a real threat. I do not believe NK now truely is capable of sustaining a war without outside help."

North Korea has a million man army, two million reserves, and an enormous stockpile of artillery and short - medium range missiles. North Korea could wipe out every living thing North of Seoul without one boot hitting the edge of the DMZ. Their navy and air forces leave much to be desired, but if that massive army comes flooding through the DMZ supported by rockets, artillery, and missiles, there isn't anything that's going to stop them before they take most of South Korea. They can take Japan out of the game just by managing to deliver a single nuclear warhead to a major Japanese city (those people will never support war against a nuclear-armed foe). As for their sustainability without outside help - Russia, China, Iran, and others would happily (and very quietly) supply them with all the conventional hardware they desired.

Things are never so black and white these days. We live in a world of proxy wars fought by pawns. It's chess; not checkers.

"I do feel the insights of someone closer to NK than myself about the regime not being able to survive a war is interresting and worthy of looking into."

Objective perspectives have their advantages as well. When someone has a gun pointed at your head, logic and clear thinking become difficult. Run the numbers, know the players, and then tell me North Korea couldn't do so much damage so fast that no one - save China, who won't - could possibly respond quickly enough to help South Korea. Thanks be to President Clinton for proving once and for all that missiles and bombs alone do not an enemy defeat.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Loki_1929]

"As a German, I can only say: Some of you Americans are such idiots. Seriously, educate yourself. For starters, learn how to spell Führer,"

That's what you have? A spelling error on a word that has no meaning in my language or culture? A freaking typo?

"what it means and why it is only a bad thing in a certain context."

Interesting, considering that IT WAS BAD IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS USED. If you don't understand the sentences as written, I'll be happy to explain them to you after class. In the meantime, when you get your thoughts together enough to comprehend - let alone challenge - the substance of what was written, please do feel free to compose a response. Until then, scurry back to your dictionary and look up the word 'pedantic'.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Pinkybum]

Kuwait didn't have a massive army to defend itself.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[RexRhino]

If you don't like the U.S. so much, perhaps South Korea should consider protecting itself? The South Korea government, while fond of strumming anti-American sentiment on occasion, is absolutly insistant that the U.S. military MUST stay. There are many in the U.S who would be happy to see the U.S. military leave SK, and to let the SKs fend for themselves, but then some politician from South Korea comes and tells congress that America leaving would mean certain destruction for SK. South Koreans want to have their cake and eat it too.

I think it would be an interesting experiment. The U.S. military should leave SK, the U.S. government should make it clear that the U.S. intends to stay out of Korean Peninsula no matter what happens and not take sides in any potential conflict, and we can finally see if the problems with North Korea are U.S. manufactured hype, or if NK really is dangerous. Just remind me not to visit to South Korea for a while when that happens. :)

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Atheose]

First of all, a man like Kim Jong Ill is not rational. Of course invading the South would be detrimental for him, but do you think he wouldn't do it? Invading Kuwait was an obviously idiotic move for Saddam a decade and a half ago, but he still did it.

Second, you confuse 'smart' with 'maniacal' or 'paranoid'. This isn't American propaganda, it's a viewpoint shared by China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. In a nation like North Korea the cream doesn't always rise to the top, and to say that King Jong Ill achieved power by intelligence is, again, naive.

And how is anything I said racist? Either you just felt like taacking on random adjectives that had nothing to do with anything, or you interpreted my saying "little man" as racist, in which case here http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s13771 47.htm/ he is estimated at being just over 5 feet tall. 5 feet tall = 'little man'.

Third, since you implied that Bush's actions were a direct cause of North Korea's desire to join the nuclear club, I assumed that you meant a Democrat would have done a better job. That is what I meant, I just misinterpreted what you were infering a tiny bit, and it is my mistake. But my main point was this: things would not be different if someone else was president; the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Kim Jong Ill's decision to produce nuclear weapons. I'm not a supporter of Bush, but if McCain or Kerry or anyone else was president we would have still ended up at this point (a nuclear North Korea), only maybe with a different stand on the issue.

And oh, you threw in a personal attack on the end! It's like highschool all over again.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Bimo_Dude]

whoosh

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[DesertEagleMan]

Or that N Korea operatives and simpithizers have infiltrated every level of S. korean society, particularly the education system, molding the new generation away from the the traditional pro US stance and into a pro N. Korea stance. Think its far fetched? Live there for awhile and it will make alot more sense then your typical neo-con arguments only seen through american lenses. Maybe you'll also see how equally scary the other end of the spectrum really is.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Cigarra]

Your analogy fails because you don't seem to remember that it was France who declared war on Germany.

More than 6 months passed, and NOTHING happened. Hitler had to secure it's western front before engaging in the East (since you never want to fight two fronts simultaneaously), so he attacked pre-emptively.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[glesga_kiss]

Invading Kuwait was an obviously idiotic move for Saddam a decade and a half ago, but he still did it.

Emm, no. Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq, so it's not all that idiotic or unheard of historically for a country to seek restoration of former colonies/land. Saddam was a US ally at the time and actually asked the US gov for their thoughts and they told him to go ahead. It was only after the exiled Kuwaiti sheiks hired a US PR company that world opinion changed. The PR company had a girl lie to the US congress (live on TV) about the Iraqi soldiers killing babies and the rest is history.

the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Kim Jong Ill's decision to produce nuclear weapons.

I and most of the worlds analysts disagree. Please see this article that clearly demostrates that the Bush administration have directly provoked the North Koreans. They also named N. Korea in their access of evil, one third of which has already been invaded and Iran is also under serious scrutiny. You and I know that King Jong is currently shitting himself in a marble bathroom.

Either you just felt like taacking on random adjectives that had nothing to do with anything, or you interpreted my saying "little man" as racist

That wasn't what I meant. Making the enemy leadership seem stupid is a standard tactic. "They live in caves" was the arabic equivalent. I do not accept that King Jong is stupid, but I must conceed that I don't know much about his accent to power. But it is very common for Americans to look down on the intelligence of other peoples. I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that your opinion of his inteligence was based on that.

I apologise if I was rude to you earlier. The spin and the lack of information in popular news sources infuriates me and as there is not much I can do about it, I probably take it out too much on people that don't deserve it.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Loki_1929]

The French left Paris undefended and signed an armistice with Germany. Southern France was well known to be collaborating with the Germans. Sounds like a "do whatever it takes, just don't make them mad!" attitude to me.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[obnoxiousbastard]

>the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Kim Jong Ill's decision to produce nuclear weapons.

This is correct. North Korea has been working toward developing nuclear weapons as far back as at LEAST the eighties.

While a nuke may be simple in principle, there is nothing simple about growing a weapons program from scratch.

Kim's bomb was tiny. We have conventional bombs with more punch.

tactical/sub-tactical range. 1-5kT roughly

[StandardDeviant]

This page (scroll down to the header "Seismic Energy") lists richter 4.0 as corresponding to 1kT and 4.5 as 5.1kT (richter is a log scale). So kind of a pissy sub-tactical range yield (i.e. nothing you'd want to be close to, but not a city killer either). For comparison's sake, Trinity, Fat Man, and Little Boy were all in the 12-22kT range.

Ask Rummy.

[copponex]

http://www.atimes.com/koreas/BL13Dg02.html

The Clinton Administration tried to reduce tension by getting some reactors sent to North Korea, and Rumsfeld was on the board of the company that sold reactors to North Korea (ABB). Not too long after, North Korea was part of the axis of evil. This is equivilent to shop-owner selling a gun to someone, joining the police, and then complaining about the criminal they sold the gun to. I guess when you lack any sort of moral integrity, the only important fact is whose signature is on your paycheck.

Re:Ask Rummy.

[SEE]

North Korea already had plutonium-producing reactors in 1994, which it claimed were for the purpose of making power. The deal was to sell them light-water reactors as replacements, because light-water reactors are not suitable for plutonium production without heavy modification, and have NK shut down and seal its plutonium reactors.

So what NK then did was start refining uranium to weapons-grade in centrifuges. In 2003, the U.S. officially asked them if they were doing this, and they announced they were. So the U.S. cancelled the shipment of the light-water reactors, because North Korea was building nukes anyway. That's right, the ABB reactors never made it to the DPRK.

Then, North Korea responded to this by breaching the seals on the plutonium-producing reactors, and started refining the plutonium.

So, to take your gun analogy and make it actually reflect the facts, let's assume a lunatic already has a fully-automatic AK-47, which they say they need to shoot crows that are eating their crops. The police come by, nod and smile, and convinces the lunatic to lock up the AK-47, and in exchange the police will give him a SuperSoaker to drive off the crows. The lunatic then starts making pipe bombs. A few days later, the former CEO of SuperSoaker has joined the police, and he comes by and asks the nut if he's making pipe bombs. The nut say yes, so the new officer tells him to stop it or he won't be given the SuperSoaker. In response, the nut unlocks his AK-47 and shoots off a few rounds.

You then come along, and accuse the owner/police officer of being responsible for the gunfire because he was CEO of the SuperSoaker manufacturer.

I guess when you have moral integrity, the only important facts are the ones that don't get in the way of your indignation.

Re:Ask Rummy.

[novus ordo]

That must be the worst analogy I have ever seen. Either that, or you really want to sell SuperSoakers. But quite informative nonetheless.

Re:Ask Rummy.

[Overzeetop]

You forgot the part where the board of directors of the SuperSoaker company (Republican Congress, 1994-), along with the investors (S. Korea, Japan) decided they didn't like the SuperSoaker deal and decided not to send the SuperSoakers they had promised.

That's not to say that there would have still been problems, but when you make a deal and then don't hold up your part of the bargain, why are you suprised when the other side doesn't either?

Re:Ask Rummy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton in 1994 signed a deal to sell light water reactors if N. Korea shutd down their old ones which is exactly what they did. After years of electricity shortages they figured out that those reactors were a false promise (2003 was a bit late, no?) so the deal was off. It's the US fault, clearly, that they have nuclear bomb today.

Now, imagine that Bush shuts down all reactors in country and lets his nation live in darkness for a decade :)

USGS detected a small tremor

[Knutsi]

According to Norwegian media coverage, the USGS did detect a small quake meassuring 3.6 in the Ricther scale at 10:36. Accosiated press confirms: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_as/ko reas_nuclear;_ylt=AhG0IQHL7EsN.2wrCEu.et6s0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Norwegian coverage:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/10/09/479140. html

Oblig panic quotes begin

[GFree]

Kent Brockman: "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?"

Professor: "Yes I would, Kent."

---
Get cracking people.

Big Boom

[Telvin_3d]

Well, according to this source http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter5.magn itude.html, a 4.8 on the richter scale means an explosion in the 10 kiloton range. The number that I ahve see so far for the N. Korea explosion is 4.2. So, this was one big boom and almost certainly nuclear in nature (I had heard speculation that it was a just a lot of conventional explosives).

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[supasam]

By the way, what exactly is a "comparative qualitative assessment" and how does it relate to the embarrassment that presides over this country? Those "realist ideologists" have really fscked up on the way to furthering "America's interest."


"Uh, yeah, uh, North Korea, they're evil too! Real evil! They wanna make us all commies! The Lord knows all commies go to hell!"

Re:So they've proven they can blow themselves up..

[Zordas]

You forgot about the 48 Subs they have. All they have to do is stap on on is get close to a port. Say LA, Seattle or SF bay area.

Re:Freedom of speech

[dafing]

Good Call, Now Im not going to be stupid and say "go NK" etc, But shouldnt everyone have the right to Nuclear weapons? if America (using the "only superpower" as the best example) is so against them, why dont they agree, with all other countries, to disarm all theirs? (ps I do realise "what if the other countries cheat and keep some, then we are defenseless")

On a slightly more serious note...

[ChePibe]

While filling your cart with 7.62mm rounds and Evian, you may want to consider some Potassium iodide, which can provide at least some protection against Radioiodine, which I assume would be a part of most nuclear explosions (although I am no specialist on this matter - do correct me if I'm wrong). It's dirt cheap, and a little something might be better than nothing. The odds of ever needing it are, of course, extremely low. But, hey, if you're going to stock up, stock up right.

Re:On a slightly more serious note...

[kfg]

But, hey, if you're going to stock up, stock up right.

The thing about water and ammo is that they're staples you're going to need anyway.

KFG

Re:On a slightly more serious note...

[Wilson_6500]

KI is one of those things you could probably afford to always have on hand "just in case." Still, I think that I-131, I-127, and other radioactive iodine isotopes are not the main concern from a for reals nuclear bomb. Iodine should be way down on the decay chain--don't have my chart of the nuclides on hand. That means that you won't see much iodine coming out of a nuclear bomb--not for a while.

Now, for a "dirty bomb," which could be full of medical I-131 or god-knows-what-else, or for people living near nuclear power plants, keeping KI around might not be a bad idea.

Standard warning: I'm not a Radiation Safety professional (yet), so take the advice above with a large grain of (iodized) salt.

Re:So they've proven they can blow themselves up..

[glittalogik]

Fair enough, I hadn't thought of non-aerial delivery, apart from trucking it inconspicuously across the border for an attack on a neighbour.

Incompetent Theorist

[abb3w]

I think you meant that headline to say "Bush administration secretly tells N. Korea to announce that they have conducted their first nuclear test before the November election".

Try again. If you want to do conspiracy theories, you ought to do them right.

MSNBC, via Daily Kos:

On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." [...] Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

Now, add in this report dated September 20th:

In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

It's October. "SURPRISE!!!"

Why power?

[Keebler71]

Why does this story have the battery "power" icon? I sincerely hope that no one thinks this is about N. Korea's right to nuclear power...

Re:Why power?

[Reziac]

Because it was actually a test of those newfangled exploding laptop batteries. ;)

Re:Why power?

[Sloppy]

I sincerely hope that no one thinks this is about N. Korea's right to nuclear power...

Uh, I think it's just about power, and power creates its own "rights."

... Move Along, Nothing To See Here . . .

[foleyman]

The shame is nothing will be done. I live in the US. Guess what. Fuck all is going to happen. NOTHING. There is not a damn thing that will change. Turkey Lurkey, the sky is falling . . . blah blah blah. Back to work. No gain, no loss. This is as good as it gets. Anyone's heart skip a beat here? Anyone feel intimidated? Is this how it ends? Give me a flipin break. Who really gives a rats ass?? Sorry for the no news story. What a load of crap. Game Over.

Re:... Move Along, Nothing To See Here . . .

[UNIMurph]

where have i heard somthing like that before... oh right: "oh your gonna hit me are ya". . . SMACK! I'm sorry, but to be so ridiculously arrogant about such a serious issue is American to the core. your government has led you to believe, through propaganda and 40 years of cock wavering, that everything will always be wok, that the united states has Terra ferma firmly wrapped around it's finger, that they are the dominant force. what I heard when I read your post: chattering boot rubber. H think its about time that the US (and all other "superpowers") realize that it's your arrogance and overbearing confidence that show your weakness and make you a target.

Re:... Move Along, Nothing To See Here . . .

[foleyman]

You missed the point there UNIMurph. Re-read the first sentance The shame is nothing will be done. I agree with you. I should have used my /sarcasm tag there.

Bush just entered an elite club

[edwardpickman]

Not many Presidents can boast of being asleep at the wheel while another nuclear power was born. They aren't a big threat to the US but what do we do if they invade the south? We'd have two choices, let them or risk a nuclear war. Anyone that still thinks the middle east wasn't about oil is delusional. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction yet we knew N Korean was capible of making them. Bush threw everything we had at Iraq and ignored N Korean. Do the math and you come up with controling oil supplies and prices. The ones at risk right now are the Japanese and they may have to build a bomb out of self preservation. This just became Bush's biggest disaster and that's saying a lot. Hey at least gays can't marry so we got the important stuff done! Nice to see we have priorities in the US.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Anyone who thinks that there was not ample evidence of a strong possibility of Iraqi WMD is, quite frankly, delusional or utterly ignorant of the facts - there is no third possibility. (And, contrary to popular belief, a 'strong possibility' is about as good as it gets in the intel and inspection worlds.)

Cite some of those facts please. It would be compelling if they were from a source without a vested interest in supporting the invasion, since they are facts and not opinions there ought to be enough neutral sources reporting them out there.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Lord Kano]

Not many Presidents can boast of being asleep at the wheel while another nuclear power was born.

STFU. Clinton was in office when India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons.

This just became Bush's biggest disaster and that's saying a lot. Hey at least gays can't marry so we got the important stuff done! Nice to see we have priorities in the US.

Yeah, that's it. It's Bush's fault that North Korea lied to and tricked the previous administration and didn't come clean about what they were doing until shortly before they were ready to initiate a test.

You're pissed off at Bush because "gay marriage" and want any excuse to bitch about him.

LK

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[althalus1969]

You must be delusional...

The guy leading the UN Inspection Team stepped down from office because of this scandal.
The UN Team found no evidence whatsoever of WMDs in Iraq.

Next time ask yourself where you get you information from, hopefully not Fox-News.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[49152]

Try, for example, the reports of the UN inspection team. (Here's a clue for you since you seem to live in a world without them; not one nation doubted the likely existence of Iraqi WMD in the ramp up to war. If you think all nations got their facts from 'sources with a vested interest in supporting the invasion' (whoever these imaginary people are), then you are disconnected from reality.)

Bullshit. Get a clue yourself and stop making up history as you go along.

A lot of nations (half of Europe for instance) very much doubted that Iraq posessed WMD's and many voiced concern in the UN over this. Even the UN inspectors themself wanted more time to investigate before the US invaded.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Technician]

Not many Presidents can boast of being asleep at the wheel while another nuclear power was born.

Before jumping President Bush for being asleep at the wheel, view this..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/ view/

Instead of stopping things, this goes back to the agreement made by Jimmy Carter. President Bush simply got stuck with the end result of bad decisions made way prior to his holding office. View all six parts of the video. It is a little under an hour. After watching it, look where the Korean Nuke program was when George Bush took office. They already had a nuke program. Note the year they dropped out of the Non Poliferation Treaty because they didn't want to comply and we quit giving them things. Carter was giving them tons of gifts every year. It came to an end. You always expect trouble when you stop paying the mob. President Bush decided to quit paying the mob and told them to be good and they are making noise about it.

Don't believe me... Watch the video.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/ view/

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[dbIII]

Anyone who thinks that there was not ample evidence of a strong possibility of Iraqi WMD is, quite frankly, delusional or utterly ignorant of the facts

You discounted the possibility of people who were reading newspapers at the time with articles based on reports by experts instead of only being exposed to spin and blatant propaganda on dumbed down TV news programs. Pay attention! Most of this stuff came from real intelligence agents from many countries while the other stuff even came from advertising agencies and political campaign staff. The childish response - outing an agent and "freedom fries" in revenge for opposing views.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Tsagadai]

Nations or national administrations. There were alot of polls and whatnot around the time that called the US bluff. I think you should learn some math and check up on what actual people said other than those noisy minorities (mainstream media and left-left-falling-off-the-edge-left)

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Try, for example, the reports of the UN inspection team. (Here's a clue for you since you seem to live in a world without them; not one nation doubted the likely existence of Iraqi WMD in the ramp up to war. If you think all nations got their facts from 'sources with a vested interest in supporting the invasion' (whoever these imaginary people are), then you are disconnected from reality.)

Instead of insulting me for asking a neutral question, please provide an actual citation, preferrably a URL. Just saying "the reports of the UN inspection team" is hugely broad and suggests that you yourself have not actually read them either. I just want to see the same facts you have seen that made you come to these conclusions. No need for 'clues' or 'hints' or any other snide attacks, just your facts man.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[deanj]

And not many presidents can claim they gave the technology for nuclear weapons to another country.

Thank Clinton for that.

War for oil.... That always make me think that people that say that are either (1) stupid, or (2) lying. Maybe both. That's just a blind talking point, and has nothing to do with reality. Do you have ANY idea how the oil market works in the world?

--
Liberals: We're for free speech unless we disagree with your views, then it's just fine for us to proclaim your views illegitimate and do whatever is needed to silence you.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Lord Kano]

That's as far as a I got. One is "many"?

So who was President when France(1960), England(1952), USSR(1949), PRC(1964), South Africa(1979) and Israel(1979) developed nuclear weapons? Here's a hint...it wasn't Bush or Clinton.

So keep on counting.

LK

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Shadowlore]

Not many Presidents can boast of being asleep at the wheel while another nuclear power was born

And you would have done what, exactly to prevent it? Short of invading there is little you can actually do. Are you suggesting we should have "unilaterally invaded" NK last year to prevent them from developing "the bomb"? It's easy to say someone else was asleep when you aren't in that position and have no idea what it'd take to actually stop them. Tlaks have been going on now for what, a year or two on this very subject?

They aren't a big threat to the US but what do we do if they invade the south?

Pre-nuke?
Step one: wait until they unleash their massive barrage of artillery and chemical weaponry. Otherwise you get your ass handed back to you in a bowl. A small one. Mixed with the asses of everyone within a 50 mile radius of you.

Get the point? Realistically the nuclear weapons of NK don't change the invasion/defense of SK. At all.

The ones at risk right now are the Japanese and they may have to build a bomb out of self preservation.

No they don't. We can and have pledge to bomb NK in return. Not in so many words mind you. Most of the world would rapidly come to Japan's defense if NK nuked them. Do try to go beyond the knee-jerk reaction of blame the POTUS for what other countries do, and apply a at least modicum of thought to the situation. The saying goes that one can not "win" a nuclear war. However, nuclear between US or Russia, or even the UK and NK would be extremely one-sided and probably as close as is possible. At least two of those countries would be able to eliminate NK's nuclear retaliation capability in the first strike unless the materials and equipment were already outside the country.

And do educate yourself abit on the history before posting tripe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2604 437.stm
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.as p

should be a decent starting point for you.

A few highlights:
January 1994: The director of the CIA estimates that North Korea may have produced one or two nuclear weapons.
June 13, 1994: North Korea announces its withdrawal from the IAEA. This is distinct from pulling out of the NPT--North Korea is still required to undergo IAEA inspections as part of its NPT obligations.
August 6, 1997: The United States imposes new sanctions on two additional North Korean entities for unspecified missile-proliferation activities.
April 17, 1998: The United States imposes sanctions on North Korea and Pakistan in response to Pyongyang's transfer of missile technology and components to Pakistan's Khan Research Laboratory.
June 16, 1998: The official Korean Central News Agency reports that Pyongyang will only end its missile technology exports if it is suitably compensated for financial losses.
July 15, 1998: The bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission concludes that the United States may have "little or no warning" before facing a long-range ballistic missile threat from "rogue states," such as North Korea and Iran.
December 28, 2000: President Clinton announces that he will not travel to North Korea before the end of his term, citing "insufficient time to complete the work at hand." According to a March 6 New York Times article, Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger was hesitant to have the president leave the country during the presidential election dispute, which he deemed "a potential 'constitutional crisis.'"

January 2, 2001: The United States imposes sanctions on North Korea's Changgwang Sinyong Corporation for violation of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000.*
March 6, 2001: At a joint press briefing with the Swedish foreign minister, Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the administration "plan[s] to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton le

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[overunderunderdone]

I'm confused... are you saying you supported military action against North Korea?

If (only for the sake of argument) you accept that Bush thought that both Iraq and North Korea had nuclear programs the difference in the way they were dealt with still makes sense. To date after a brief conventional war and a much longer and deadly unconventional war we have lost a little over 3,000 troops KIA. A war in Korea would result in that many military casualties in the first few hours (maybe minutes depending on the circumstances under which the war started). With South Korea's capital and most populous city within range of several hundreds of well fortified North Korean heavy artillery pieces there would be many more South Korean civilian deaths on the first day than the most pessimistic estimates of the current TOTAL number of civilian deaths to date in Iraq. The Pentagon estimated at least four months of high intensity conflict and 52,000 US military casualties within the first 90 days when they did an assessment for President Clinton in '93 and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

There is NO military option for dealing with North Korea... Sadly there isn't really a diplomatic option either. Clinton tried the bilateral give-em-whatever-they-ask-for approach that has been urged on Bush... and it failed miserably (they took the offered goodies and just continued with the program in secret anyway). When we found out they'd cheated on the program Bush tried pressure (via China) and that failed just a miserably (China just hasn't cooperated). Maybe this test will move things in our direction. China may finally decide that the risks of a nuclear North Korea out-weigh the risks of the whole place collapsing and start exerting some real pressure.

Export to Terrorists

[sanman2]

NKorea can sell to the highest bidder. That's the real threat -- not missiles/warheads launched from Pyongyang, but missiles/warheads shipped out from Pyongyang.

AlQaeda will be sending their emissaries to NKorea, along with fat checkbooks.
Because NKorea will indeed sell. They will do anything that gets them moolah and or influence.

Re:Export to Terrorists

[AuMatar]

This just in- the boogieman is in a bidding war with them.

Re:Export to Terrorists

[4D6963]

-1, FUD

I'll never get tired of people pretending that terrorists will one day use an atomic bomb. This idea is older than Back to the Future I, and sounds like it will never get old. Pure FUD tho.

Re:Export to Terrorists

[Megane]

no terrorist in the world could possibly pay what it costs to develop a nuclear weapon.

News flash: it's just been developed. NK would be happy to charge cost-plus to anyone else who wants one. Bring your own Iranian uranium and it's half price.

Il*Mart - your home of falling prices... and falling bombs!

Re:Export to Terrorists

[jafac]

A Friendly Reminder:

The US Sold chemical munitions to Saddam Hussein.

A US Company (Rumsfeld was a senior director at the time) sold nuclear power plant technology to NK in 2000.

The US Sold Israel cluster munitions, under the auspices of an agreement not to use them in civilian areas. In the last 4 days of the recent conflict, Israel dropped hundreds of thousands of these (about 30% of which remain unexploded, as "unintentional mines") throughout civilian areas of Southern Lebanon.

The US is the world's largest arms dealer.

More death, chaos, and destruction results from American arms sales than any other country in the world. With Russia and China a close second - given their massive exports of AK-47's (not to mention the bulk quantities of Chinese Machetes sold to Rwanda in the early 1990's in preparation for the massacre).

Am I worried about NK nuclear arms proliferation?
Yes.
But if we eliminated that - there'd still be just as much reason to fear.

Looking on the bright side of things...

[Baldrson]

Perhaps now the US government will reconsider the wisdom of leaving the security of US cities in the hands of the Mexican coast guard...

Re:Not worried

[dafing]

I totally agree, I live in NZ and dont see why we would be attacked by nuculear means as we only help out basically every country in peril. We have practically no means to defend ourselves, I wonder if we now made a move to go nuculear (which basically would never ever happen) if America would have a problem with that.

No unusual seismic activity

[Jarden]

..my ass

you ask how the us's hard line policy is working?

[circletimessquare]

not very well, obviously

but why do you think the us policy is the point?

the point is that there is NO policy that works well with north korea. it is NORTH KOREA'S behavior that is wrong here, not the US's. now i know, it is hard for you to imagine a world where everything bad that happens doesn't start in washington dc. and before you peg me as an american apologist, i agree that the us does plenty things wrong in the world

but how in your mind, after NORTH KOREA test a nuclear bomb, all you can think to do is criticze the usa's policy, just makes me laugh

here's a radical idea for you: when the NORTH KOREANS test a nuclear bomb, maybe you should critize... drom roll please... take a deep breath now... concentrate real hard... maybe you should criticize the NORTH KOREANS?

i know, sorry, really weird wacky far out concept there

And Iraq was the imminent threat?

[dircha]

It seems we couldn't have been more wrong in Iraq. We see now that North Korea was 3 years away from a nuclear weapon. Not to mention, Iran is now enriching uranium.

Yet we squandered our military resources chasing down militias armed with leftover 1970s weapon technology, hiding in caves in Afghanistan, and toppling a contained dictator with no active nuclear or biological weapons programs in Iraq.

I'd like to know why Colin Powell wasn't before than U.N. making the case for the imminent development of nuclear weapons in North Korea instead of the case for the nuclear program in Iraq, which as I recall even then we believed was still many years from producing a nuclear weapon?

Was this another massive intelligence blunder, or did we just not care?

Either way, now it's too late. We don't dare strike their nuclear facilities because they might retaliate by using their nuclear weapons against their neighbors. At least that's what North Korea wants us to grapple with.

I guess it's a good thing for North Korea it doesn't have oi.. er, *cough*, "strategic economic and geopolitical importance".

Re:And Iraq was the imminent threat?

[DesertEagleMan]

I'd like to know why Colin Powell wasn't before than U.N. making the case for the imminent development of nuclear weapons in North Korea instead of the case for the nuclear program in Iraq, which as I recall even then we believed was still many years from producing a nuclear weapon?

Because attacking N Korea would have meant destablizing the economic powers of China, S. Korea and Japan, which in turn would have caused massive unemployment and an economic depression in the US.

Re:And Iraq was the imminent threat?

[Lord Kano]

Yet we squandered our military resources chasing down militias armed with leftover 1970s weapon technology, hiding in caves in Afghanistan, and toppling a contained dictator with no active nuclear or biological weapons programs in Iraq.

You do realize that most of the US's military technology is rooted in the 1970's and 1960s and before, right?

M-16 Developed in the 1960s. M-9 based on firearms designs going back to the 1940s. F-16 & F-18, 1970s aircract technology with modern day avionics. I could go on and on. Our tanks, APCs and bombs are based on 30 year old technology was well. The justness of the war aside, please don't try to downplay the difficulty of the soldiers' tasks.

LK

Re:And Iraq was the imminent threat?

[slcdb]

You're assuming that in 2003, DPRK and Iraq were identical with the exception that one was actively working on a nuclear weapon and the other was not.

This just isn't the case. DPRK hadn't invaded a neighboring country. DPRK was not under U.N. sanctions. DPRK hadn't failed to meet their obligations under the cease-fire that ended a war they started. DPRK wasn't actively attempting to shoot down U.N.-mandated air patrols over their country... etc, etc.

You see, it's not as simple as "one has a nuke and the other doesn't, so we should invade the one with the nuke". And that's without even mentioning the differences between the complex balance of power in those two very different regions of the world.

Re:And Iraq was the imminent threat?

[saintory]

There's an interesting interview at Bulletin of Atomic Scientists about how North Korea "cheated" where the NPT is concerned and that reaffirms what slcdb says. An excerpt:

[I]n the case of North Korea it was a nonnuclear weapons state party to the treaty, it then withdrew in 2003 and declared itself to be a nuclear weapons state, and of course it used its status under the NPT to acquire all the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure needed to manufacture nuclear weapons. Basically it cheated -- a clear-cut case of noncompliance with the treaty -- and yet when it pulled out of the treaty nothing happened, the international community failed to take robust action against Pyongyang. It's something that gravely undermines the legitimacy of the treaty regime, when states can be seen to flout its rules, exploit the rules, and -- frankly -- cheat and then get away with it.

The end of the article also makes mention of how the seismic reports aren't really matching up to a true nuclear bomb. Either they have highly sophisticated technology, they flubbed up and/or they're bluffing, or the seismic data is incorrect for that regions geology. The last choice could be evidence for why they chose that region to begin with.

Re:And Iraq was the imminent threat?

[sdsichero]

I still don't see how that made Iraq an imminent threat. Though I am pretty dense about such things.

funny I coulda said the exacty same thing about

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush. Imagine that

Re:funny I coulda said the exacty same thing about

[xQx]

The answer to an idiot holding a bomb isn't to give another idiot a bomb.

The answer is to shoot the first idiot.

Re:funny I coulda said the exacty same thing about

[Tony Hoyle]

Reminds me there's a story about that on this week here... might be fun to watch (might just be overhyped crap though).

I don't see why theres "fear"

[xkhaozx]

North Korea does not plan to use its nuclear weapons for attacking, its merely just used for power. Countries like the US and other powerful nations have nuclear weapons as well, I don't see why North Korea should not get a piece of it.

I absolutely despise it when other countries police others for crimes that their guilty themselves of. Its either NO ONE has nuclear weapons, or EVERYONE has them. Choose.

Re:I don't see why theres "fear"

[Shihar]

Countries like the US and other powerful nations have nuclear weapons as well, I don't see why North Korea should not get a piece of it.

Because "the US and other powerful nations" have stable governments that won't fire the weapons. North Korea does not. Because "the US and other powerful nations" cares about its citizens enough to not blatantly kill them by the millions. North Korea does not.

When we talk about North Korea we are talking about a nation that has managed to kill of 10% of its fucking population in under a decade. They test chemical weapons on humans. If you want a hell on Earth, you couldn't point to a nation closer to achieving it. To top it all off, it isn't like this is a stable nation. This is a nation that is basically run by military gangsters with a cult of personality figurehead. You couldn't point a nation in this world that giving nukes to is a bad idea even if you tried.

You would be better off to simply give nuclear weapons to the mob... though I suppose you think that the mob has the "right" to nuclear weapons to. The only thing that separates North Korea from every other horrible criminal organization in the world is that North Korea inflicts far more suffering are more people and control enough territory that we recognize them as a nation.

No fucked up sense of justice justifies letting North Korea have nukes. The rest of the world is and rightfully should be doing everything in their power from keeping this insane dictatorship from swinging around more power then it already does.

Re:I don't see why theres "fear"

[xkhaozx]

North Korea does not plan to use its nukes. Using their nukes would be the same thing as killing themselves. If they used a nuke on us, for example, us would retaliate, and they would both blow each other up. Whats the point to that? Like I said, its just power. Knowing the other countries have the same ability to destroy as you, theres a little more equal respect.

Re:I don't see why theres "fear"

[Shihar]

Did you know that the original plan for the US/NATO defense of Western Germany did NOT call for nuclear weapons? Why? We didn't want to start trading nukes with the Soviet Union. It was hoped that the fear of nukes would keep any East/West German war "limited" in scope.

This brings us to the first danger of a nuclear armed North Korea. North Korea could see nuclear power as its license to conduct military operations. With a nuclear missile held over the head of a few million Japanese, the US would have to think very long and very hard about involving itself with a militant North Korea. The math might very well involve giving concessions to North Korea rather then losing a few million very close and very dear allies. The US would be VERY hard pressed to ignore the demands of Japan in dealing with North Korea. Nuclear weapons make very effective blackmail for anyone willing to play that game.

Funny enough, the Soviet invasion plan called for the use of tactical nukes which almost certainly would have been met in kind. Another story from the Cold War is from right before it ended. The Soviet knew that they were fucked. They had two options. They could either surrender like they historically did, or launch an invasion of Western Germany and a desperate and futile attempt to keep pushing forward. The planned invasion of Western Germany was basically a suicide pact. There was no hope of defeating NATO. At best, they could hope for a draw... and by draw I mean nukes get fired and every is dead. Thankfully, cooler minds won out and we got our slightly less authoritarian Russia of today.

This brings us to a second and very real danger of a nuclear armed North Korea. North Korea is run by a fanatical cult of personality. The brainwashing going on in North Korea makes the days of Mao and Stalin look like happy fun time. A North Korea that is internally collapsing could very well do something stupid if the wrong military leader decides he would rather go in a blaze of glory then follow the path that Russia went down. It doesn't even need to be a high level leader. One idiot in command of a bank of artillery pointed at Seoul could launch enough chemical weapons to turn Seoul into a wasteland and provoke a South Korean response that would surely provoke the rest of the North Korean military. In such an encounter, it would be far better to only have to deal with chemical weapons then it would be to throw nuclear weapons into the mix.

Simply put, a nuclear armed North Korea is a bad thing for all parties and should be avoided at all costs. This is a nation that has managed to kill over 10% of its population in the past decade. These are not cool rational thinkers. These are not people you want splitting atoms.

Quick!

[Timbotronic]

Someone log on to World of Warcraft and let the South Koreans know about this!

Fox News: "Bush administration official confirmed"

[reporter]

According to a news flash from Fox News, "North Korea successfully tested of a nuclear weapon late Sunday night, a senior Bush administration official confirmed to FOX News." Several news organizations are reporting that Washington has not yet confirmed the nuclear test, but apparently Fox News just received confirmation from a senior official in Washington.

We are entering dangerous times, and the Bush administration made a tragic mistake in its dealings with India. Washington has signed the NPT, and by the terms of the treaty, its signatories agree to ban the transfer of nuclear technology to any nation that refuses to sign the NPT. The NPT further stipulates that any signatory which has not yet developed nuclear weapons shall not pursue their development.

New Delhi has long refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has aggressively pursued the development of nuclear weapons. Despite this fact and despite the fact that Washington is a signatory to the NPT, Washington has agreed to give nuclear technology to India. (New Delhi refused to support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy unless Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to India and (2) greatly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.)

How can Washington demand that Pyongyang refrain from developing nuclear weapons when Washington enthusiastically ignores Indian nuclear ambitions? The point of the NPT is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to any and all nations, irrespective of their form of government.

Learning to count

[SuperKendall]

And who is the only country, EVER, to have launched nuclear bombs onto another country, knowing they would kill hundreds of thousands?

You mean the ones that prevented millions of deaths in a land invasion?

You need to learn to count it seems.

Re:Learning to count

[dafing]

LOL, thanks for your comment.

Thats a different matter though, I am meaning how you (presumably) Americans go about telling others what we CAN and CAN'T do, supressing the rest of the world of things like Nuclear weapons etc, despite being the only one to have ever used a nuke on your fellow human beings. You can argue all you want about "America had to use the nuke to save lives from an invasion" like I had to in History class, but when push comes to shove, you are the only ones to have subjected people to the horrors of Nuclear weapons and here you are trying to stop NK from giving you "revenge". To be truly silly, imagine how many of their "million man army" North Korea will save if they use their new Nukes on their enemies! (Note, I do not agree with any country launching war on another, just using your point against you in an attempt to sound like a nutter)

Re:Learning to count

[calidoscope]

You are aware that Japan was planning to use bubonic plague infested fleas against the US force invading the Mariannas in June 1944? It was damn lucky for Japan that the submarine carrying the jars of fleas was sunk en route - otherwise the US would have gone into all out chemical and biological war with Japan with chem and bio weapons that had already been developed tested and stockpiled. You are also aware of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during their prosecution of the war - as for example what happened in Nanking in 1938.

Truman did the right thing when he ordered the bombing - it probably saved millions of Japanese lives.

Re:Learning to count

[SuperKendall]

LOL! Millions of deaths are so funny! LOL! Your ignorance is pretty hi-larious as well. Truly a demonstration of the quality of whatever second rate educational system you attended.

just using your point against you in an attempt to sound like a nutter

You succeeded, I pretty much have you pegged as a nutter now. As an "American" I magnanimously grant you the right of last rebuttal, though I can't say who'll read it - I have better things to do then argue with people who decide that history is safe to ignore or re-write to suit their own narrow-mindedness.

Re:Learning to count

[lowe0]

No, the second bomb was absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Japanese response would have been "Nice trick - betcha can't do it again!"

Re:Learning to count

[dafing]

Go be an arsehole somewhere else. Its also HILARIOUS silly.

Your numbers don't seem quite right.

[abb3w]

If the North Koreans detonated a 10-30 kiloton device, several times 1013 neutrinos from it should have passed through Kamiokande.

Assuming it was a nuke, the chemical explosive component should be neglectable. According to Wikipedia, 1 kiloton-TNT is 4.184 TJ. According to a quick search (matching what I recall from NE301 a decade back), average fission energy yield is around 200 MeV per. This gives about 4E24 fissions. Assuming you get on the order of 1 antineutrino per, at a radius of 1000 km and assuming even sterradial distribution, gives on the order of 300 billion antineutrinos per fission.

Anyone who wants to find the detector capture efficiency and make a guess at its cross-sectional area is welcome to refine the numbers further. I have some sleep to not-get.

Re:Your numbers don't seem quite right.

[tonged]

The reports of a 4.2-magnitude seismic event seem to suggest that this was rouhgly a 2 kiloton device.

Re:Your numbers don't seem quite right.

[Dr. Zowie]

Sorry to say it, but your units aren't right. I have attempted to reverse-engineer your mistake.

300 billion antineutrinos per fission is just wrong, as are 3e11 antineutrinos per steradian. I think you meant 3e11 antineutrinos per square meter at 1Mm distance, which is right in line with what I calculated. (I assumed twice as many neutrinos per fission as you did, and used the published size of Kamiokande to estimate its cross section at 200 square meters -- which accounts for the factor-of-400 difference between our numbers.)

Re:Your numbers don't seem quite right.

[Jamu]

I suspect that the device they used was designed for a higher yield than the 2kt they got. Compare this with Trinity, for example, which gave a yield of about 20kt. Korea's attempt wasn't nearly as good. I wouldn't be surprised to see further nuclear weapon tests in Korea.

USGS has detected it

[Anonymous Coward]

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Qu akes/ustqab.php

Earthquake Details
Magnitude 4.2 (Light)
# Date-Time Monday, October 9, 2006 at 01:35:27 (UTC)
= Coordinated Universal Time
# Monday, October 9, 2006 at 10:35:27 AM
= local time at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 41.311N, 129.114E
Depth 0 km (~0 mile) set by location program
Region NORTH KOREA
Distances 70 km (45 miles) N of Kimchaek, North Korea
90 km (55 miles) SW of Chongjin, North Korea
180 km (110 miles) S of Yanji, Jilin, China
385 km (240 miles) NE of PYONGYANG, North Korea
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.9 km (9.3 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters Nst= 9, Nph= 9, Dmin=369.4 km, Rmss=1.13 sec, Gp= 97,
M-type=body magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID ustqab

Looks like we're back to 2 minutes to midnight

[spamster]

I'm sure the bulletin of atomic scientists are wringing their hands right now. I sure as hell am.

Can we say "October Surprise"?

[gmezero]

Not that being I'm cynical or anything. They caluded with the Iranian terrorists that held American's hostage in 1980. I really don't put anything past these POS fools in office.

Most Important Data: Depth 0km

[IanDanforth]

A clear indication this wasn't natural.

-Ian

Hey South Korea and Japan, Fuck Off and Die

[Shihar]

There will be no 'regime change' in North Korea except the kind that comes quasi-internally. The US will not invade, and it certainly will not wipe NK off the face of the earth with nukes. It is stupid beyond comprehension to suggest doing so; here is why.

First, North Korea's power has not changed. If you think it has, you don't understand the military capability of North Korea. True, North Korea might now have a nuke, but infant sized nukes are pocket change compared to what already has. North Korea already has a MASSIVE chemical and biological weapons supply. In fact, I would not be terribly surprised if they actually have better chemical/biological then anyone else in the world. Technical skill helps, but having live human documented live human dissidents to test on in the most cruel and inhuman ways possible can make up for skill. The simple truth is that NK already has the capacity to wipe out entire cities. A few low yield nukes is not going to change anything.

Second, forget the thousands of missiles chemical weapon armed missiles aimed at South Korea and Japan; Seoul (that would be the capital for South Korea for anyone not keeping track) is in artillery range of North Korea. The second war broke out the capital of South Korea would be an inhabitable wasteland. Japan would also be hurting more then a little as chemical and biological armed missiles rain down on Tokyo. While I doubt that North Korea could effectively hit the US, it might even be able to get a few missiles all the way to the US armed with chemical weapons. Sure, they would not do any real damage compared to what South Korea and Japan would feel, but it would certainly sting.

At the end of the day, the US could put North Korea out of action if it decided it didn't have any compunctions about slaughtering North Korean civilians in the millions with nuclear weapons. That still would not change the fact that South Korea would be a wasteland and Japan would be missing a few cities. The losses to allies would reach well into the millions, and that says nothing of the poor civilian North Korean bastards whose lives some how managed to get worse.

The entire concept of striking North Korea is stupid and never going to happen. If we did, the South Korea and Japan would rightfully become mortal enemies of the US. Hell, any self respecting nation would inflict retribution on the US. Sure, no one would be stupid enough to attack the US for the loss of millions of allied lives, but you can bet your ass that the economic retribution exacted by the rest of the world would make the cost of a war look like pittance.

I don't know what the proper strategy for dealing with North Korea is. I don't know if it is better to isolate and starve the nation in the hopes that someone internally gets fed up enough to launch a coup, or if it is better to negotiate for stability. Whatever the case, a preemptive military invasion is rightfully not considered so long as Japan and South Korea are considered close allies whose civilian populations we don't want to see massacred. Thankfully, say what you will of Bush, he (or at least the military minds in charge) clearly also recognizes that an assault on a weapon bristiling with chemical and biological weapons a stone's throw away from two close allies is stupid beyond comprehension.

woah boy, slow down for a sec there

[Anonymous Coward]

a nice post filled with half truths and innuendo and name calling. Iran is nuts and North Korea is nuts and they are all nuts and "we" need to tkae them out?
I wont go over all the fine points of your bullshit, except ask you one question:
if you are so eager to go to war with all these nuts cases, have you enlisted yet??? if NOT, WHY not? After all USA needs to be protected against all those nuts cases!

Why is the S. Korean seismic data quiet?

[i_like_spam]

Anyone want to explain why the seismic station at Inchon, South Korea appears to be quiet at the time of the blast (1:35 UTC)?

Here's the raw seismic data at Inchon.

I see an event at Inchon at about 14:30 UTC on Sunday, but it's 11 hours earlier than the reported blast.

Re:Why is the S. Korean seismic data quiet?

[maxume]

Refresh the chart!

Re:Why is the S. Korean seismic data quiet?

[GoinkBoink]

The graph displays what I would believe is a significant event now. But that still leaves the problem of the timing.

I have been tracking the graph for a few hours now, and it seems to be updated regularly. The times on the left are in the GMT/UTC time zone.

The question is, why does it suddenly display an event at about 10:06 UTC?

Does anybody know if there is a major delay in the pulication of these data?

Possible military installation 6km north of test?

[dsanfte]

Open up Google Earth and have a look at: 4122'18.02"N by 129 5'19.85"E

The USGS earthquake location says it has a horizontal error of +- 14.5km. This installation is about 6km north of the calculated site of the earthquake (test). It is composed of uniformly drab small "homes" and several large structures in the mountains, along a river, with no signs of real activity and few roads leading in or out.

Dollars to doughnuts that's where they keep their nuclear scientists.

For reference, the USGS calculated location is: 41 18'41.04"N by 129 6'51.84"E

Why is this filed...

[hereschenes]

under hardware?

Nuclear Fallout?

[enzo_romeo]

I haven't been able to tell from the news if the test was above ground or under ground. If its above ground, what sort of radioactive fallout would the world have to worry about with wind patterns and drift?

Good Idea... Except For One Small Piece...

[Shihar]

North Korea is armed to the teeth with chemical weapons. Any invasion into North Korea is a quick way to turn all the cities within artillery range of North Korea into dead zones. North Korea also has a vast array of short and mid range missiles that will also certainly hit your capital and any major city. In the first hour of any North Korean war, sure as shit, Seoul will be wiped out and Tokyo will be short a few million people.

China wants a North Korea it can control. China doesn't mind North Korea being a pain in the ass for the US and Japan from time to time. What China does mind is a nuclear/chemical/biological war in its back yard, and it minds a few million starving North Koreans throwing themselves at the border trying to escape. China wants a stable North Korea that occasionally acts up.

That said, what North Korea is doing is NOT what China wants. China is probably going to respond, but no one is going to take military action. Military action is not going to bring down North Korea unless a North Korean leader goes (more) insane and starts something. Otherwise, North Korea is going to collapse in an internal military coup. The only thing the rest of the world can do until that day is keep North Korea from making any trouble until then... which is exactly what everyone is trying to do.

Re:Good Idea... Except For One Small Piece...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

North Korea is going to collapse in an internal military coup.

Well, a coup of some sort. Chances are, China will be a major backer of any such event too.

From the analyses I've been reading, it is likely that this nuke test was a military coup of sorts, as was the missile test a few months ago. The military is the largest power structure in the DPRK and shooting off their weapons as a show of strength against the perceived threats of just about every other country is a big goal of theirs, big enough to override the concerns of the rest of the government regarding sustainability (foreign aid has dried up to a trickle in the last few years, and their recent efforts at counterfeiting US dollars have not gone over so well either).

Despite the typical demonization of western media, 'dear leader' Kim certainly understands that these tests are not likely to improve relations with any other country and are not in the best interest of maintaining his dictatorship and his role has chief party animal. So in that sense at least, the fact that the tests have occurred suggests that his grip on control of the country is not iron-clad.

Re:Good Idea... Except For One Small Piece...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Sooo.... your trying to say that he has people in his military setting off experimental nuclear weapons without his consent? Somehow I doubt that, especially considering his "mercy" when it comes to punishment.

I am saying that a lot of political power within the DPRK rests with the military and that Kim essentially has the choice of either gracefully agreeing to some of their plans or face a military coup. It is not a simple matter to just execute high-ranking officers in the military, for one their troops are loyal to their commanders, not necessarily to Kim.

YIELD=small

[Retardican]

They are estimating 550 Tons (0.5 kilotons), which is the smallest "milestone" nuclear tests so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template :Milestone_nuclear_explosions

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[hero_or_what]

I do agree that by cutting a deal with New Delhi, the US govt essentially squashed the NPT. But then, that's what happened to the Kyoto treaty as well.

The NPT by itself is a relic of the cold war and extremely biased. What it basically says is that 5 countries can build and maintain as many Nuclear weapons as they want while the rest of the world should not. Ideally, if Nuclear Non Proliferation was to work, the NPT should have contained a timetable for the reduction/removal of all nuclear weapons, including those stockpiled by the big five. The NPT isn't about reducing the risk of a Nuclear Winter. Its about maintaining a military advantage and is purely political in its framework.

I'm all for reducing the risk of Nuclear Proliferation, but I'm not convinced that NPT is the tool to use. What we need is for the big 5 to show the way and reduce their stockpile and then enforce the NPT.

North Korea's action makes sense from their POV

[Froomb]

As a state whose major allies have disappeared since 1989, facing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the U.S. for two generations (the U.S. based nuclear weapons at Osan and Kunsan air bases until around 1991 and maintains South Korea under its nuclear umbrella via submarines thereafter) and branded as a "rogue regime", a member of the "axis of evil", headed by a leader who is a "moral pygmy", North Korea's decision to test a nuclear weapon was not without reason.

Largely forgotten now, the U.S. bombed North Korea relentlessly during the Korean War, destroying literally every major structure in P'yongyang, Wonsan, Hamhung and and elsewhere, bombing dams and dikes and killing over 1 million civilians in the process. Why should NK not fear the U.S. to repeat this act?

What NK wants more than anything is normalized economic relations with the U.S. Kim Jong Il even visited the Buick factory in Shanghai four years ago and has told a succession of visitors he wants constructive engagement. However, what the U.S. government appears to want is regime collapse. Of all the NATO countries, only France and the U.S. do not have formal relations with NK. And by policy the U.S. will not negotiate directly with North Korea, as if to do so would be somehow rewarding them, even as South Korea, which has the most to lose in any war, moves ahead with cultural exchange and business development on many levels.

The test today is a sad confirmation of the failure of U.S. policy toward North Korea.

Re:North Korea's action makes sense from their POV

[cunina]

Why should NK not fear the U.S. to repeat this act?

North Korea has a massive, distributed array of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. For this reason alone, the US has no incentive to attack North Korea. They are well aware of this, as is everyone.

What NK wants more than anything is normalized economic relations with the U.S.

Wrong. What Kim Jong Il, who represents the sole will of the NK government, wants more than anything is to stay in power. And that isn't as easy as it might sound. If NK were really interested in normalized economic relations with the US, they could halt their massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations, for starters.

However, what the U.S. government appears to want is regime collapse.

And rightly so. Few regimes are as richly deserving of collapse than Kim Jong Il's.

And by policy the U.S. will not negotiate directly with North Korea, as if to do so would be somehow rewarding them

Unless you believe that the US is the sole stakeholder in the region's security, there is no reason why it should open direct bilateral talks with North Korea. Granting such talks places an undue burden on the US for addressing security issues raised by NK, without much added benefit for doing so.

Re:North Korea's action makes sense from their POV

[Froomb]

North Korea has a massive, distributed array of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. For this reason alone, the US has no incentive to attack North Korea. They are well aware of this, as is everyone.

And yet in 1994, prior to Carter's visit, we were on the verge of a bombing attack on NK. Just listen to any of the so-called "experts" trotted out by talk shows when NK comes up as topic. They know not a word of Korean, nothing of the history, may not have ever been there, but they're willing to discuss "our military option." If you were the NK leadership and saw such a combination of ignorance from a nation that had demonized your own country for decades, would *you* trust the U.S. to act rationally? (Quick test: What country killed by far the most U.S. soliders in the Korean War? What country *chose* to attack the U.S. during the Korean War? What country has thermonuclear weapsons? And what country do we trade with and portray with cuddly images such as Pandas and tea houses? -- it's not NK).

Wrong. What Kim Jong Il, who represents the sole will of the NK government, wants more than anything is to stay in power. And that isn't as easy as it might sound. If NK were really interested in normalized economic relations with the US, they could halt their massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations, for starters.

And you know of these "massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations" how? Could it be the U.S. Treasusry deparment? Strange that SK denies any such counterfeiting is occurring. Try to find a condemnation of NK on these counts by any other country. The silence is a mite suspicious, no?

Unless you believe that the US is the sole stakeholder in the region's security, there is no reason why it should open direct bilateral talks with North Korea. Granting such talks places an undue burden on the US for addressing security issues raised by NK, without much added benefit for doing so.

By that logic, we should never negotiate with anyone bilaterally! The sad fact is that the U.S. could have forestalled both their missile and nuclear programs anytime during the past 15 years, but while negotiating the Agreed Framework in the 1990s, the U.S. was convinced that the regime would soon collapse, as did the Congress, and so it went. Madelaine Albrigt was in Pyongyang in 2000, but time ran out on the Clinton administration. As far as I can tell, NK is afraid and mistrustful of the Bush administration, and rightfully so in my mind.

And rightly so. Few regimes are as richly deserving of collapse than Kim Jong Il's.

Such rhetoric is precisely why NK was rational in building a bomb. They are becoming the very country that the U.S. wants them to be, created through hatred and ignorance.

It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

It's not a nuke.

Compare the purported "nukular test":

http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/telemetry_d ata/INCN_24hr.html

Notice how long this lasts.

To a _real_ nuclear test

http://can-ndc.nrcan.gc.ca/recent/980528_e.php

Again, notice how long this lasts. Hint: look at the scale of both graphs.

One of these things is not like the other.

I'm sure that you can figure it out for yourself.

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Did you look at the time scales?

Doh!

That's his point. The test in Pakistan had mostly settled down within 20 seconds. The event in the DPRK was still shaking after 5 minutes, that's more than 10x longer. I have no opinion on why they are different, if it indicates the DPRK are faking or if it is just a side-effect from the different geology or type of device involved.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

For those like the anonymous coward I am replying to who still can't read time scales:

The Pakistan nuclear test entire time scale of the graph itself is a minute, with actual P wave length measured in a couple of seconds. There is no discernable S wave that I can see.

The Korean event lasted roughly 15 minutes if you look at both P and S waves starting at 14:29 local time.

Political shit follows. If you don't like it don't read it:

Unfortunately, I cannot trust this administration to tell the truth about _anything_. I am not a seismologist, but I can compare graphs, and use what God supposedly gave me. I was totally sucked into Gulf War 2 in 2003, and I'll be damned if I'll take _anything_ this administration says at face value any longer. Earlier this week I read some of my usenet postings from 2003 supporting the invasion and I am embarrassed by my own gullibility.

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[caulfield]

Um, how about looking at where the measurements were taken?

The NK test results were recoded in South Korea. Your Pakistan test results were taken in Canada! Gee, I wonder if a seismic event might not last as long, or be as strong when measured from across the frickin' world as opposed to a couple of hundred miles away.

Asshat.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"Even if it's not a nuke, it's a lot more sad: it's the desparate attempt of a nation to protect itself against inevitable invasion from hostile forces."

No, it's the desperate attempt by a nutcase to somehow prove to his slaves^W constituents that he's still relevant.

Kim Jong Il says more to keep himself from being assassinated by his own people than anything.

I thought this was bloody obvious. Apparently not.

Cue the Freeper brigade.

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"The NK test results were recoded in South Korea. Your Pakistan test results were taken in Canada!"

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you couldn't measure earthquakes without being on top of them!

"Asshat."

Well, EXCUSE ME for not taking this at face value. Whatever.

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[FishWithAHammer]

Zero meters depth, dude. SOMETHING went boom.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The NK test results were recoded in South Korea. Your Pakistan test results were taken in Canada! Gee, I wonder if a seismic event might not last as long, or be as strong when measured from across the frickin' world as opposed to a couple of hundred miles away.

Well then, how about we take a look at the measurements recorded at a similar distant station, say Corvallis, Oregon?
Other than a reduction in the magnitude, they don't look all that different to me.

If I had the time to poke around the USGS website, I would dig up the results as reported at Corvallis for the two pakistani tests in 1998 to really have like compared with like.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"other than a reduction in the magnitude, they don't look all that different to me."

It looks like the whole planet rings like a bell, doesn't it? The distance has certainly stretched the signal.

Thanks for the link.

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"Zero meters depth, dude. SOMETHING went boom."

Going by your logic...

Someone back up there had a map of Korean seismic events. There were events in SOUTH KOREA between 35 and 0 meters according to the map. SK has nukes now?

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"How about the North Korean administration?"

You really had to ask that question? What, exactly, is the title of this thread? Who started it?

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[jmv]

Couldn't the difference be due to reflections, refraction and dispersion?

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"Forgive my seismology expertise but, if one is measured in Canada wouldn't the S waves be cancelled because they'd go through the core (the test was in Pakistan)? P waves propogate, S don't ... right?"

S waves _do_. They just don't make it through the outer core back to the mantle. Whether you see S-waves depends on where you're standing and where the quake is.

PSU link:

http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/I ntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[GauteL]

The Russian defence ministry has confirmed it as a nuclear detonation:
"Russia's defence ministry said it was "100% certain" that an underground nuclear explosion had taken place, ITAR-Tass news agency reported"

Until other nuclear experts tell me otherwise, I'll believe their conclusion rather than your explanation. As a complete layman it is not impossible for me to think that the time scale can depend on lots of things, including type of rock surrounding the underground explosion, how far underground it was, etc.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"Russia's defence ministry said it was "100% certain" that an underground nuclear explosion had taken place, ITAR-Tass news agency reported"

Funny, that carries a bit more weight with me, and I'm old enough to have been afraid of the Russians nuking us - complete with reading articles in the newspaper about what might happen if they dropped the Bomb on the Quonset Point Naval Air Station.

Yes I'm a layman. No, I don't surrender my brain to the first thing that comes across on the wire.

I know it's entirely possible for North Korea to pull it off. The Bomb is 60 year old technology. We did it with slide rules and people with the _job description_ of "Computer" let alone electronic computers. Since it's looking to be real, maybe China will get off its duff and do something about the basket case in its back yard.

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[glesga_kiss]

It is a nuke. It's been known for some time that N. Korea have nukes. They were just rattling the sabre with this test, stirring things up somewhat. They feel threatened and they just gave their enemies a glimpse of their arsenal in the hope that they won't be attacked.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

"in the hope that they won't be attacked."

We're stretched so thin that we're losing Afghanistan. We can't afford to go invade North Korea. That's what's crazy about all this because I'm sure Kim Jong Il has access to western news and media (not that he lets his slaves see it) and knows it. What's even crazier is that if he stopped the stupidity we'd probably send a crapload of aid and all the bondage porn he could handle.^1

The only ones with the resources to invade North Korea happen to be to their _north_.

--
BMO

1. I heard that somewhere. Add it for spice. *cough*

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[Ancient_Hacker]

Well, you get points for actually looking at the data. But I'd subtract the points as you didnt think things through:

Is is it likely they set off a bunch of conventional explosives over a period of several minutes? What would be the point? And how to syncronize them so their waves add up at a particular point far away? Not bloody likely.

More likely you're looking at the raw seismograph output. Seismographs are usually a weight on a spring, so even a sharp step impulse results in lots of after-ringing. To get the original signal back, yo have to put the boingy-boingy stuff through three integrators (analog or digital) to reconstruct the original signal. I have an old analog op-amp schematic around here somewhere that shows the input (looks much like your damped sine wave boings) and the reconstructed output (looks like a cliff with just a minor bounce).

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[maxume]

It's worth noting that for your real test the station is essentially on the other side of the globe and for the North Korea data it is essentially local.

At the very least, the vertical scales will be unrelatable to the naive observer. Worse, the characteristics of the events are difficult to compare, because of the much shorter time window for the Pakistani blast, and because of the rather different relative locations of the recording stations.

Unfortunately, data from the Inchon station for the 1998 Pakistani event does not leap out of google.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[glesga_kiss]

We're stretched so thin that we're losing Afghanistan. We can't afford to go invade North Korea.

Not true. It's political forces restricting the deployment, not logistical. If they wanted to send more men to either warzone they could, but it would look bad in an election year. Should N. Korea hit the fan, not only will you have your own troops ready, you'll have the rest of Nato at your side.

What's even crazier is that if he stopped the stupidity we'd probably send a crapload of aid and all the bondage porn he could handle.

That doesn't help him stay in power. Repressing his people does, as he can blame us for all of their problems. It was exactly the same with the Iraqi sanctions; they only strengthened Saddam's position. Ditto islamic extremists and the west; we are collectively blaming each other and using this as a justification for whatever takes our fancy. It works out well and neither side wants to destroy their enemy as their followers would start to look inward for things to get upset about. Federal deficit? Fuck that, there are dirty bombs and WMDs to be worried about!

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[0123456]

"If they wanted to send more men to either warzone they could, but it would look bad in an election year."

Only by starting a draft, and it would take months to get 300lb teenagers out of their parents' basement and into a state where they're ready to charge screaming across the DMZ into North Korea.

Maybe you should read some of the things the US military has been saying about its own readiness after years of occupying Iraq. The troops are worn down, the equipment is worn down and recruitment standards have hit rock bottom as no sane person wants to join up to be sent to some godforsaken country to get their balls blown off for Bush.

"Should N. Korea hit the fan, not only will you have your own troops ready, you'll have the rest of Nato at your side."

NATO in North Korea? LOL.

That's the funniest thing I've read in quite a while... yeah, Europeans will be just queueing up to send their troops to die in Korea so Bush can gain a few percent in the polls. Not.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[glesga_kiss]

That's the funniest thing I've read in quite a while... yeah, Europeans will be just queueing up to send their troops to die in Korea so Bush can gain a few percent in the polls.

Well, it depends on the objective. Many Euro nations signed up for Afganistan, which did have a valid(ish) reason for invasion. The lack of support for Iraq was basically them saying "what WMDs?" and "what threat?". Should N. Korea kick off you'd get a similar response to 1990's Kuwait. Provided they hire the correct PR team that is... ;-)

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[Trailer Trash]

I'm sure that you can figure it out for yourself.

Let me try: real nuke tests use php, whereas fake ones use plain html, right?

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[Goffee71]

Will you believe it when Golem comes crawling out the mountains, patchy skin, missing hair, clutching his ring... One bomb to rule them all

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[Joey Vegetables]

Unfortunately, I cannot trust this administration to tell the truth about _anything_. I am not a seismologist, but I can compare graphs, and use what God supposedly gave me. I was totally sucked into Gulf War 2 in 2003, and I'll be damned if I'll take _anything_ this administration says at face value any longer. Earlier this week I read some of my usenet postings from 2003 supporting the invasion and I am embarrassed by my own gullibility.

But in the process you've learned something that will help you not to be fooled again. And also demonstrated the integrity and honesty to admit that you had been wrong. Traits from which our so-called "leaders" could learn a lot, if they were inclined to do so.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[OsamaBinLogin]

I remain unconvinced that it's a real nuke.

The russians said it was... they also said 300k people died in Dresden. The real figure was 30k.

The whitehouse said it was a nuke. Same guys with the WMD in Iraq. They're facing an election and fear has worked well in the past for them.

I have not yet seen a credible scientific source say it was a nuke.

Jim Lehrer's Newshour said it was like 1/2 to 1 kiloton. The technical nerd they had on was useless and gave no sense of how lame that is. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were like 10kt to 20kt each. The biggest nukes ever tested were 20 and 50 MEGAtons. US & Russian icbms are like a megaton apiece. Tactical howitzer shells are more like 1kt to 10kt - don't want to hurt the home team on the battlefield. In the atmosphere, 1/2kt is a fireball a fraction of a mile in size.

OK so 1/2kt is either a pretty lame nuke, or else Kim managed to scrape up 500 tons of TNT and bury it and set it off.

Putting this onto a warhead is a different issue. It's got to be lightweight, unlike an underground test. And it would be nice if the missle could get farther than the other side of Japan. With some accuracy - most of the US is still rural.

It should be reliable - how many devices did Kim set off the same weekend that were duds? They don't show up on seismographs.

OK so they're far away from having a missle lob onto Seattle.

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[fbjon]

A few points:

• There are better targets for a bomb than the US.
• They informed China 20 minutes before the blast, that there will be a nuke going off.

Re:Not worried

[calculadoru]

dont see why we would be attacked by nuculear means as we only help out basically every country in peril. We have practically no means to defend ourselves, I wonder if we now made a move to go nuculear

Mate. If NZ ever went NUCLEAR, perhaps it would be a good thing if the US invaded - they would be sure to bring some Brits along (as they do these days) and they would be able to at least teach you how to spell that bloody word, NUCLEAR.
Grrrrrr.

It is time...

[Mantrid42]

Quickly! TO THE VAULTS!

Re:So they've proven they can blow themselves up..

[Shihar]

It doesn't matter. What North Korea does have is the worlds biggest arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and the capital of South Korea in artillery range. To top it off, they have a tens of millions of Japanese in missile range. Nukes are just frosting at this point. A North Korea on a rampage is a few tens of million of allies dead within a few hours.

If anything, this nuke thing is GOOD for the rest of the world. A nuclear armed North Korea is not that much more of a danger then it already it is, but it might be just the thing to send a swift kick in the ass of China. A swift kick in China's ass might get them to take better care of their rabid dog.

Well, here's what I did...

[Dr. Zowie]

I assumed 2 neutrinos per fission (about 100 MeV per neutrino) and 200 m^2 for the cross sectional area of Kamiokande (to find the number of steradians it subtends). It's sort of awkward to write it all out, but heres the whole proportionality thing with all the units, so you can check that they all cancel and the 4pi is in the right place...

30 kT * 4e12 J/kT / (200e6 eV/fission) / (1.6e-19 J/eV) * ( 200 m^2 ) / ( 1e12 m^2 ) / 4 / 3.14159 * 2 neutrinos/fission = 12e13 neutrinos

Found the link

[istartedi]

Story I read in The Australian

what happened to this?

[lazd.net]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/nkorea .tests.ap/index.html

"North Korea informed China it may drop its plan to test its first atomic bomb if the United States holds bilateral talks with the communist country, a former South Korean lawmaker said Sunday."

Re:Not worried

[dafing]

lol, joking my northern neighbour, lol, Having fun with the accent! Lol, glad to see someone anal about spelling! You must be new here!

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[Compuser]

May I ask: how does this help Bush? As people above said, this just makes
it obvious his campaign against WMDs in the hands of dictators is in shambles.
The decision to invade Iraq looks even worse now, and the inability to
wrap up the war, if it keeps up much longer, may lead to him being thrown out
of office (assuming democrats gain control of both houses).
This will also destabilise Asian markets, something Bush really does not need
right now. Bush cannot say: "those North Koreans have nukes - we need a
strong man at the helm", simply because he was at the helm when North Koreans
got nukes in the first place. There is no upside for Bush, unless he and everyone
at Haliburton shorted Asian markets.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[immerrath]

How can Washington demand anything while still increasing the US nuclear stockpile?

Sorry, I'm revoking your slashdot license

[aiken_d]

You have violated a number of important slashdot rules.

There is no "blame" in your post. This is clearly against the slashdot AUP ("all posts shall contain angry, bitter, and/or whiny assertions, accusations, and/or innuendos that blame lies squarly upon the party of your choice").

Worse, you are also clearly violating the certainty clause of the AUP ("all posts shall express absolute certainty of position; any acknowledgement that the facts are ambiguous shall result in the immediate revocation of your slashdor posting license."

And, finally, you have not expressed smug superiority, used excessive jargon to support an incomprehensible point, or displayed a willful ignorance of the context of the situation -- also violating the AUP ("All posts shall express smug superiority, use excessive jargon, and/or display a willful ignorance of the context of the situation").

Slashdot cannot tolerate posts like this. If word got out, people might think that some of the users were over 20 years old, or (worse!) had some actual life experience and knowledge of what they're talking about.

-b

PS: Yes, I was careful to stay within the AUP myself.

you're assuming something

[circletimessquare]

you're assuming the government of north korea exists for the benefit of the north korean people

as far as i can tell, the government of north korea exists for the benefit of kim il jong's ego

his people? they eat leaves while he sets off nukes

of course north korea would get better for its people if kim il jong wasn't so belligerent

as if making north korea a better place for its people was anyone's goal in the government of that country

Re:you're assuming something

[808140]

Captain periodless, the guy's name is "Kim Jong Il", not "Kim Il Jong." If you're going to comment on the politics of another country's leader, it's good form to actually remember his name.

But what do I know?

Re:you're assuming something

[Reziac]

Anyone else find themselves reminded of Idi Amin??

I once saw a documentary that was made with his blessing -- it followed Idi Amin around for several weeks. Even on his best behaviour for the international cameras, the man was a complete raving loon, whose only real interest was his own paranoia and aggrandizement. Probably the worst thing that ever happened to Uganda. (Wikipedia is far too kind. http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/amin.html is more to the point. I see Kim has a page there too.)

DEFCON

[EvilBrak89]

Looks like someone's been playing too much DEFCON.

Images of Test Site (Google Earth Req)

[IanDanforth]

The following is deduction based on the following information:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Qu akes/ustqab.php

That page puts the event at 41.311N, 129.114E, with an error of 9.3 miles.

That exact location is extremely mountainous. Most tests are conducted in flat areas for a number of reasons, but mainly NK will have wanted us to see this clearly.

A review of the area provided by a circle starting at the estimated coordinates and with a radius of 9.3 miles finds this location:

4123'8.07"N 129 5'51.38"E

Enter this location into Google Earth (Fly To), it is approximately 5.4 miles north west of the estimated location and is a plateau which shows heavy scarring from past bomb craters.

I have no idea how long it will be before we see an updated sattelite image of this area, but it will have a huge new crater as of today.

GE is free and available here: http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html

-Ian

Re:Images of Test Site (Google Earth Req)

[TheFoolishOne]

The explosion is underground, chief. No craters, sorry. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea. nuclear.test/index.html

Re:Images of Test Site (Google Earth Req)

[cheese-cube]

Well that really depends on how deep they did it. Here is some footage of American underground nuclear tests for comparison: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1870730456 324813920

Clever catagory

[tr0p]

I love how this news post is cleverly filed under the "hardware" category =)

Re:Clever catagory

[NitsujTPU]

I would mod you up, but I just had to chime in personally (sorry) to say that I agree.

Re:Clever catagory

[ScentCone]

I love how this news post is cleverly filed under the "hardware" category =)

Hey, I submitted the article. There wasn't much to it at the time I did (it had just hit the cable news channels), so I found a couple of links, and type up a couple of words... and then I sat their and stared at the list of categories trying to find something suitable. I opted, at the time, for "Security" since it seemed appropriate. Zonk, though, thought "Hardware" was more fun, I guess. I mean, it was a hardware test, I suppose... but only in the context that "having a tantrum" tests the hardware holding together the stroller in which a two year old is having a hissy fit.

Is it just me, or does Taco really need to add some fresh categories? I suppose that would be giving into the reality that many things here are only peripherally nerdly, and we can't have that!

Well

[jb.hl.com]

Isn't it lovely to know that in the time we've spent poncing around in Iraq looking for nukes that don't exist, and bringing a lack of running wanter to those who didn't have it before, North Korea has built a nuke and tested it, and will apparently build many more, while everyone else pussyfooted around the issue.

Shame on you North Korea for building these disgusting weapons, completely immoral on every level. Shame on you USA for ignoring them doing it.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[metlin]

Maybe - just maybe - because India is the world's largest democracy?

While India has not yet signed the NPT, they do have a no first strike policy.

They are surrounded by a communist military dictatorship on one side (China) and an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship on the other (Pakistan - one supported by US).

You can hardly blame a nation-state for doing what is necessary for survival.

Secondly, the transfer of technology has only for the purpose of energy and power. India has also agreed to let international observers to ensure that the plants do not enrich weapons-grade fissile material but use them only for energy.

And btw, comparing India to NK is a nice troll there - the H1B bit was a nice add, too. One is the world's largest democracy that's been making economic progress by leaps and bounds, and the other is a military dictatorship run by a crazy person.

Way to go, combining Slashdot's racist prejudices and logical fallacies all in one go.

Happiness?

[Stonent1]

In NK, I suppose happiness would be food on the table, not millions/billions spent on making a nuclear bomb. Kim Jong Il will go down with Hilter, Pol Pot, and others in history.

Why don't we just...

[toQDuj]

You know, with all the tests performed by the americans, french, english and russians, why don't we just evaluate their type of bomb and other parameters, and Tell them what the outcome will be.
You know, like: "We've got 20 kg's of enriched plutonium, we wish to set it off in rocky ground, what does the result look like?" and the Nuclear powers go: "KaBOOM!"

B.

The problem with reunification

[sheepathon]

Every country officially says they are in favor of reunification, but in reality: South Korea doesn't want reunification because obviously their government would become the legitimate one and have to foot the bill. This would likely bankrupt SK and lead to a depression in the area that would be felt all over international markets. Not to mention most South Koreans are quite racist (no offense, it's just how it is), even towards their Northern brethren. Think of it like...the way educated Americans see rednecks who paint confederate flags on their cars and think the South won the Civil War. Japan doesn't want reunification because the SK govt (well, just the Korean govt, since we're talking about reunification) would now have nuke tech in their hands. This will make Japan nervous, seeing as they don't have nuclear weapons and having their Korean neighbors next door in possession of nukes is a bit unsettling. China doesn't want reunification because then US troops would have free access to more than just the 38th parallel - they could wander about the Yalu river (right on China's border with NK). The United States doesn't want reunification because of the insane hit to the SK economy that will accompany reunification, and a few other reasons I can't recall...I studied this in a class a couple of years ago so I need to go dig up my notes. But the official stance of all the countries is that they support the reunification of these divided Korean peoples...heh.

Re:The problem with reunification

[gbdc]

SK does want reunitifaction, but in a managed fashion over time. Reunification is about the only long-term growth driver for SK to compete with Japan and China. Also, the thousand years of common history and language should not be discounted. You are right that instant reunification would be way too costly, though.

Re:The problem with reunification

[antifoidulus]

You could have said the same thing about Germany 20 years ago, but really despite the cost I think Germans wanted their country to become one(though lots of West Germans still gripe about all the tax money flowing eastward). As per re-unification if it ever does happen the Koreans have in Germany the perfect model of what NOT to do. Years later the East German economy still lags behind the rest of Germany(especially out in the countryside, places like Berlin, Dresden and Leipzig are doing alright). The well-intentioned but misguided investment incentives given to West German companies at the time actually rewarded them for buying up all the industrial infrastructure in the East then scrapping it, exacerbating the economic situation.

Re:The problem with reunification

[coaxial]

The ROK does want unification with the DPRK, as seen for their support for the Sunshine Policy. However they do realize that an instant unification would be an economic disaster. Germany likewise took an economic hit when it unified. Even today, the east still lags behind the west in economic growth. With the DPRK being in a much worse situation than the GDR was in 1990, we could expect the impact on the ROK, both immediate and lasting, to be far greater.

I don't believe Japan sees the ROK as a military threat. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a nuclear democratic unified Korea, would remain nuclear for long. The ROK does have a nuclear weapons program., however it is primarily focused at countering the nuclear threat from the DPRK. If unification would occur with the ROK absorbing the DPRK, that the ROK would denuclearize.

Japan's nuclear intentions are much more indoubt, since it would require a constitutional amendment. The Japanese like Section 9 of their consitituion. However, it many ways it has outlived its purpose. Japan is not a militant culture anymore, and the region has become much less stable. Japan's purpose for a nuke would to counter the DPRK nuclear threat. Once the DPRK nuclear threat is eliminated, then the need would be eliminated, and I suspect Japan would denuclearize.

The truth is, if Japan wanted a nuke, they could have one in a year. The question is whether or not they want one. Even the Japanese don't have an answer to that question.

The key mistake in your nuclear analysis is that you assume that the only consideration for a country is who in their neighborhood has a nuke. It's not. It's who in their neighborhood is likely to attack them with a nuke. The ROK isn't going to attack anyone, let alone Japan, so there's no reason for Japan to nuclearize in light of a a nuclear democratic Korea. There's already a parallel to this with Japan's historic rival, China. China already has nuclear weapons, and yet Japan has failed to nuclearize. Why haven't they? Because, they know China won't attack them.

Re:The problem with reunification

[necro81]

Yes, all that even considering East Germany had a halfway functioning economy and infrastructure at the time. How difficult will it be to rehabilitate a country like north korea, where infrastructure is crumbling and there are annual famines?

Re:The problem with reunification

[Bueller_007]

Saying that Japan doesn't want reunification is nonsense.

There already IS a nuclear "Korean government". The North. And the weapons are currently in the hands of a madman. Japan may have problems with South Korea, but they would much see nukes in the hands of the somewhat reasonable South than the batshit-crazy North.

In addition, reunification would mean the withdrawal of most American forces from the Peninsula, increasing the strategic importance of the American military holdings in Okinawa. A stronger military relationship with America in the Far East means Japan is safer from potential attack by either China or Korea.

In addition, North Korea also has in its possession a number of Japanese abductees, who were kidnapped to be brainwashed and trained as anti-Japanese spies. That's a HUGE political issue, and the prime minister who can finally resolve this issue will be made out to be a national hero. That's simply not going to happen until reunification. Reunification will be a political blessing for whatever Japanese prime minister is around to try to take part of the credit for it.

Also, when sanctions against Korea are lifted, Japan will have a new trading partner, poor though they may be. Because the North Koreans can't afford to buy Sony just yet, the Japanese government will do the same thing with them that they've done with all of their poor South-East Asian neighbours. The government will send Japanese construction companies overseas to do "charity work". The Japanese government will pay for the majority of it, making it little more than corporate welfare, but at the end of the project, they'll erect a sign saying "This ~~ was built with funds donated by the Japanese government." That's part of the way that they build good will amongst their neighbours.

IMHO, there's no way they *don't* want reunification.

Re:The problem with reunification

[FishWithAHammer]

Not a year. Try six months, tops.

Of course, they could also drop hundreds of thousands of Sony laptop batteries...

Well

[valkabo]

That was retarded of N. Korea.. "We can defintelly make nukes if you give us enough time world.." So how will the world react? My guess is swiftly and violently in the following fashion: "Fuck you. *BOOM* we won."

A crater is nearly assured.

[IanDanforth]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1870730456 324813920

That is footage of numerous underground tests. Please take a moment to watch it. A large majority of tests produce craters.

If you check out Yucca Flats, where we do many of our underground tests you will see the ground is covered in craters.

37 8'0.60"N 116 3'14.80"W

So, I must respectfully stand by my statement.

Insecure Individuals That Posses Power

[thunderland]

Kim Jong il, for the record, is known to be an insecure individual. Among other things he resents his short stature. An idividuals insecurity can come out in any number of ways, but it would be suspected that Kim Jong ils upbrining in which people would have had to be suvmissive towards him, would make it more likely that his insecurity would come out as agression.

It was clear that years of being ignored by the international community would only make him go to further lengths to get the attention that he wanted.

Re:Great!

[Raelus]

I hope the US is brushing up their skills at Defcon...

Nukes AREN'T worthless!

[Lactoso]

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Nukes AREN'T worthless!

[VAXcat]

Come on! Mod this guy up! It's the most appropriate quote possible!

Re:Nukes AREN'T worthless!

[Lactoso]

Thanks, I couldn't agree more. :-)

China

[caitsith01]

North Korea, unlike Iraq, has China and to a lesser extent Russia, backing them up. Both of whom have serious quantities of nukes.

Why the hell do you imagine the US, South Korea or Japan hasn't gone in and cleaned up North Korea long ago? Because the potential for a full scale regional war is frighteningly high, that's why.

"Unfortunately Bush is getting his nuts handed to him on a daily basis."

It's not unfortunate, it's what happens when you lie and go after enemies that are no threat whatsoever at the cost of tens of thousands (minimum) of lives and all of the international goodwill that September 11 created towards the United States.

It will be fortunate when the US has a president who can make intelligent, informed decisions to deal with genuine threats rather than impotent middle-eastern dictators. I suggest this might be John McCain or (gasp shock horror) Hillary Clinton, who is no dove herself.

I, for one...

[CrimsonBadger]

welcome our new Korean overlords.

Wrong Country for Pre-emptive Strike

[Hoolala]

So, out of 3 countries, Iran, N. Korea, and Iraq, Bush decided to invade Iraq, the one country with no WMD to speak of. Out of 3 choices, of which 2 would be right and 1 would be wrong, Bush managed to pick the 1 wrong choice and created a mess out of Iraq. N. Korea now has Da Bomb, and Iran is not too far behind. Talk about screwed up insights and Bush'ed priorities. Vote this November!!!

Re:Wrong Country for Pre-emptive Strike

[k_187]

nah, of the three the country with the fewest physical consquences would be Iraq. NK has enough guns pointed at SK to make Charlton Heston orgasm and Iran is a much more cohesive and larger physical threat than Iraq was 3 years ago. Bush had it in his head to invade somebody, and Iraq was the most convient target. AND they had oil, wheee.

Re:Wrong Country for Pre-emptive Strike

[slcdb]

Do you really think that nobody in the White House ever believed that DPRK might be capable of producing a nuclear weapon? The U.S. has known about DPRK's ability to construct "Da Bomb" since at least October 2002, when the North Koreans all but admitted they were enriching weapons grade uranium.

The decision to deal forcefully with Iraq was not about whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon. If you'll recall, Iraq had actually invaded a neighboring country. You might also remember that Iraq never met its obligations under the terms of the cease fire that ended the war they had started. Iraq was under U.N. sanctions all the way up to the start of the war. They repeatedly kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors. Clearly there was justification to deal with Iraq, even though they did not have any nukes.

DPRK? They haven't invaded anyone. They're not under U.N. sanctions. Where's the justification to deal forcefully with them?

Remember how big of a stink most of the international community made about the U.S. proposal to deal with Iraq? Russia, France, Germany, and China? Remember how strongly they resisted the Iraq war? What makes you think they would have welcomed a proposal to deal forcefully with DPRK?

Even after this nuclear test, Russia, France, Germany, and China will probably not even consider the use of force. Maybe they will grudgingly accept imposing sanctions, but that's about it.

Those are the facts. That's the reality of the situation. But I guess if your main motivation is to just bash whichever politician you dislike the most, then you don't care about facts and reality.

Re:Wrong Country for Pre-emptive Strike

[Hoolala]

The fact of the matter is that Bush boy made the wrong decision when he decided to invade Iraq. Iran and N. Korea is now laughing in the face of U.S threats. You talk like there was no other options but to invade Iraq. Hell, in that case, why not just put a monkey in the Whitehouse and let a reserve captain and another dude with 5 deferrals take care of business...oh, wait... Cheney ran away from his duties 5 times, no? And Bush, the intreprid flyboy was courageously patrolling Southern US sky to prevent the mighty Mexican airforce from invading the US during VN war of course qualifies him as a "security" leader, right? Those are the facts dude!

Re:Wrong Country for Pre-emptive Strike

[slcdb]

Hell, in that case, why not just put a monkey in the Whitehouse and let a reserve captain and another dude with 5 deferrals take care of business...oh, wait... Cheney ran away from his duties 5 times, no? And Bush, the intreprid flyboy was courageously patrolling Southern US sky to prevent the mighty Mexican airforce from invading the US during VN war of course qualifies him as a "security" leader, right?

You've got to be kidding me! You're falling back on the Chebacca defense that quickly? LOL! Next time, at least you could try to put up a little bit of a fight before just folding.

You got so owned.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Actually, this is not so much about terrorists as residual cold war thinking. Most political scietists would treat this as either the fallout of superpower foriegn policy from the cold war, or indeed claim that the cold war is not in fact over.

Something that a lot of Americans do not know or understand is that the DPRK believes the Korean War is not over and they have a pretty valid reason to believe that. They signed an armistice which, despite the name, was not much more than a glorified cease-fire and a long way off from an actual peace treaty. The rest of the world moved on, but the DPRK did not. They have been engaged in a very real cold war for over 50 years now.

When you see all the irrational, self-destructive shit that the US is doing to itself in its "war on terror" the behaviour of the DPRK starts to make a little more sense. Instead of returning to a civilian-run peace-time government, they allowed their military to retain control of the country and the result has not been very pretty. They aren't alone in that, even South Korea was essentially a series of military dictarships up until the early 80s when the assasination of their 'president' in a failed coup attempt finally started the chain of events that lead to the current democratic government.

What the hell are US troops doing in Iraq?

[viking80]

Stop North Korea instead

Seems like IRAQ
1. Had no wapons of mass destruction.
2. Were actively fighting Al Qaeda
3. As a secular state, did not contribute (much) to international terrorism,

While:
North Korea
1. developes nuclear arms and missiles, and
2. spreads this technology to Iran
and Iran
1. Supports international terrorisam
2. Develops nuclear weapons.

Again, Iraq?????

Re:What the hell are US troops doing in Iraq?

[Detritus]

How about giving money prizes to Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists?

bluffing

[john_uy]

though i am not discounting it, how about the north koreans were just waiting for an earthquake to happen and just coincide that to say they have tested a nuclear bomb. i just would like to know if there are other ways of verifying such test aside from earthquake data.

Re:bluffing

[Apocalypse111]

There apparantly was a 20-minute warning given to China about this test. Kimmy claims to be many things, but prescient is not among them (last I heard, anyways).

It is true -- get used to it

[bratwiz]

  If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?

The question was actually whether he stlll had them. His use of chemical weapons and his program to develop nukes was not in doubt.

Well neither is Kim Jong-il. What are we doing about that??

Nothing.

North Korea doesn't have anything we want.

No oil.

Too bad, so sad.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[OrangeTide]

It is more complicated than that. N. Korea (among other countries) have territory disputes with Japan. Japan's hands are tied because of Article 9 forbidding Japan from using threat or use of force to settle disputes. And it's unlikely that Japan could defend itself successfully against N.Korea if a hot war were to erupt. Part of the agreement with the US is that the US provides defensive forces, and works as a proxy to lean on nations that have disputes with Japan.

But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic. Saddam Hussein was not a lunatic. That is the biggest difference between a war with Iraq and a war with N.Korea. Also Saddam's military was quite small, while N.Korea's military is the fifth largest in the world. (roughly the same number of troops as the US)

I think everyone agrees that a war with N.Korea between any nation (Japan, US, S.Korea) would be an utter nightmare. And the nightmare has only gotten worse with the progress N.Korea has made with thier nuclear arsenal. We cannot entirely trust Kim Jong-il to simply use nukes as a negotiation strategy, he may actually use them (and claim that somehow he was provoked).

What better way to assert N.Korea's sovereignty than to lob a nuke on one of the disputed islands in the Sea of Japan? Sort of an "if I can't have it, then nobody can"

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[malsdavis]

Although it's well known he had chemical weapons back in the 1980's I don't think they can really be called Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sure, theres a ton of evidence that he killed many tens of thousands with them, but individually, the chemical shells probably didn't kill as many as our own daisy-cutters and cluster bombs can kill. So if you call Saddam's old chemical weapons WMDS, then it means we have been dropping hundreds of WMDS in Afghanistan and Iraq which kind of makes a mockery of any ethical arguement for the wars (if there even was one).

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[salec]

But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic. Saddam Hussein was not a lunatic

Bullshit! You were talking differently before you've got that other guy. Whoever is next in line is "a lunatic".

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[maxume]

Chemical weapons are essentially only useful on human targets. Bombs are at least able to destroy infrastruture and equipment.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[operagost]

Your argument is ridiculous because cluster bombs, as you might guess, detonate in a cluster. WMDs, by definition, cause destruction in a large area. Cluster bombs do not emit radiation, nor are they carried on the wind to sicken and kill friend, foe, and neutral alike.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[OrangeTide]

I was talking differently about whom? You aren't making any sense.

please specify who you mean by the pronoun "you"

ps - you don't have to be a lunatic to be a bad guy.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[Eccles]

I was talking differently about whom? You aren't making any sense.

The poster was using "you" in the general sense of those favoring war, lumping you in with people like George W. Bush, who repeatedly referred to Saddam Hussein as a "madman." (Google "Hussein madman Bush" for a few samples.)

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[RobertLTux]

if you ask any real South Korean (and if you can find a north korean to talk to) Kim is ceritifable as insane FULL STOP heck anybody that comes from that region knows that Kim is a NutJob With a Full Blown NERO complex. If there was any way of taking him out and making sure that the dice roll would go OUR Way he would be dead by the next meal time.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[malsdavis]

Do you actually know what cluster bombs are?
They are bombs which - while high up in the air - detonate a small charge which shoot out hundreds of even thousands of smaller bombs which reign down over a large area. Yes they are carried by the wind somewhat and they definatly will kill "friend, foe, and neutral alike" but then so will any bomb so I don't understand what you mean by that. They are called "cluster" bombs because they contain a "cluster" of bomblets, not because they detonate close by each other, they are specifically designed to do the exact opposite with many capable of dispersing over an area of several thousand feet, which is greater than the predicted area of effect of the chemical weapons that were likely used during the Iran-Iraq war.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[kisielk]

What good are infrastructure and equipment without people to operate and maintain them?

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[astralbat]

It is more complicated than that. N. Korea (among other countries) have territory disputes with Japan. Japan's hands are tied because of Article 9 forbidding Japan from using threat or use of force to settle disputes.

I read in the Economist that Japan is thinking of increasing it's military and wants to remove the ban placed on them. But the magazine also considered strongly that this will further unite South Korea, China and Japan against North Korea, so I don't see how the nightmare will necessarily get worse.

But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic. Saddam Hussein was not a lunatic.

Where did you get this from? Was it just your humble opinion? I don't think anyone can say they know Kim Jong-il and what his true intentions are.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[Arcturax]

Actually, Japan has a large and highly advanced military still. It is constrained by their constitution for defensive purposes. That could change very quickly as they can do as they wish with their constitution now and have been slowly pushing the US out of Japan militarily, asking us to close bases, which we have done to save money. The fact they are mulling their own atomic bomb now shows just how bad things are. WWII happened long ago, but they still have the stark reminders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So for Japan to mull their own nukes and not set off a riot in the streets shows how tense the situation between them and North Korea has become.

North Korea may have nukes now, but how many? I doubt more than a handfull. If we struck pre-emptively with our own nukes, even small tac-nukes on military sites, we could probably cripple them so they couldn't launch even one. The danger then would be nukes left in a large city and detonated once we rolled in militarily. The North Korean government would have no qualms about killing their own people just to get back at us if they were losing a war.

The best bet may be a quick and decisive decapitation strike against their leadership.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[maxume]

Blowing up infrastructure and equipment impacts your enemies ability to wage war without the neccesity of taking lives. It is arguably better to try to blow up power lines and kill a few people incidentally than it is to kill people on purpose with poison.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[dwarfking]

Think back to the 70's and 80's on the discussions of the Neutron Bomb.

One of its purported purposes was to kill people, but leave buildings standing. Then an occupying force could come in days later with infratructure intact.

Many argued the buildings would be unusable, but some thought it was viable.

So to answer your question, there would be people to use the infrastructure, just not the people that built it.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[salec]

Not You(capital Y - singular) personally, but you (in all small caps - plural) - the pro war(s) crowd.

It had been a general truism - "Saddam is mad dictator". We mocked him for years in comedies and cartoons. And now, (just a moment to open the "Babushka" doll and reveal...) ohhh, this guy Kim Jong Il is EVEN MORE wacko then Saddam! Look at his name! He's 'Ill' - there you go!

(Allegedly he was such for years, but he evaded our atention until now...)

ps - If you are a bad guy, you have to be a lunatic or else our hands are too tied! If you're not, never mind, none will ever notice.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[lurker4hire]

If we struck pre-emptively with our own nukes, even small tac-nukes on military sites, we could probably cripple them so they couldn't launch even one

Just like Iraq was probably going to be a cake walk eh?

fucking hell, 10000 to 1 odds that US military planners actually think any preemtive plan like that is even feasible. Political planners on the other hand, well, they don't actually pay attention to reality so I wouldn't be surprised, only really fucking sad.

l4h

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[swillden]

Chemical weapons are essentially only useful on human targets.

Further, they're really only effective at killing civilians and very ill-equipped military forces (like insurgents). In the context of military operations, chemical weapons are considered harrassing devices, useful only to make the enemy move more slowly and operate less effectively.

In practice, the primary application of chemical weapons is to kill large numbers of non-combatants. That makes them WMDs in my book.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[vertinox]

Chemical weapons are essentially only useful on human targets.

Like FMJ bullets?

Bombs are at least able to destroy infrastruture and equipment.

Like nuclear bombs?

The point of the grandparent was that weapons kill, but some have taboos while those with greater destructive capability are still in use.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[sulimma]

There are special bombs for special purposes. There are bombs designed solely agains human targets. Most countries agreed not to use them, but some countries insist that they need them. The US are among those who use them. So is Israel. Don't know about N. Korea.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[maxume]

And my point was that is an insane way to look at it. As another reply pointed out, chemical and biological weapons are not particularly effective military weapons, but they are great against civilians.

Also, note that FMJ bullets are more likely to injure without killing than other bullet types, and have the military advantage of better armor penetration and that nuclear weapons have only been used once, mostly for political reasons.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[tubs]

In 1992 Japan had soldiers in Cyprus, protectng the North/South from the South/North.

I think that was thier first outside deployment since WW2.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[jav1231]

"I think everyone agrees that a war with N.Korea between any nation (Japan, US, S.Korea) would be an utter nightmare. And the nightmare has only gotten worse with the progress N.Korea has made with thier nuclear arsenal."
Disagree. This what everyone said about Iraq....twice. N.Korea won't last long in a war with the U.S....period. Let all of the "uh-uhhh you don't even know!'s" follow, but it's a myth that we'd be dragged into a mire with N.Korea. Unlike the middle east, N.Korea isn't surrounded by people who are likely to pour in and start an insurgency. Besides, we don't have to go to war with N.Korea. We simply smart-bomb their silo's. Threat gone. With any luck, we will soon.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[Ihlosi]

In the context of military operations, chemical weapons are considered harrassing devices,

I think the exact term is "area denial weapons" - the same term as for other similarly harmless devices like land mines and delayed-fuse cluster bombs.

The thing is that ADWs and civilians usually don't mix.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[sydres]

who's side do you think china and russia would come out on certainly not our's. invading and defeating north korea would be a good thing except that the chinese would back fellow commies. even if all they did was supply nk they'd bleed us to death

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[zen-theorist]

The best bet may be a quick and decisive decapitation strike against their leadership.

haha. incase you didnt know, the US government is having a hard time handling the aftermath from the last quick and decisive decapitation strike.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[Perl-Pusher]

We are not the solution. North Korea is China's dog. The Chinese leadership have allowed North Korea to survive because they share communist idiology. But China's patience is wearing thin, China has a large ethnic korean population near the border. The Chinese military has quite a few generals who are openly disgusted by the way North Korea treats it's people. This statement openly condemning them is a very positive sign. China needs to find a way to get rid of Kim Ill Jong while keeping North Korea as a country intact. The last thing China needs is hundreds of thousands of impoverished koreans flooding their country. China would also not be happy with the prospect of North Korea united with a prosperous South Korea. That whole democracy thing might give their own people ideas. The US doing anything unilateraly in China's backyard would be foolish. This is a problem that Asian countries needs to fix not the US. If anyone is going to take out pyongyang it needs to be asian. I'm retired Air Force, I spent 3 years of my life in South Korea, they have a great culture and country. I would hate to see any war there.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[jav1231]

Damn! And I was so certain until you're brilliant rebuttal convinced me otherwise. That AND I'm an idiot!

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[hyfe]

Chemical weapons are essentially only useful on human targets. Bombs are at least able to destroy infrastruture and equipment.

Yes, and killing killing soldiers with as little damage to the civilian community as possible used to be an considered more etical than the opposite. I guess times change.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[walt-sjc]

I'm not worried about NK using nukes in missles against us. I AM worried that they will smuggle them into the US and use them here. It's not like it's hard to smuggle stuff into the country - just ask any drug lord...

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[frank_adrian314159]

And the nightmare has only gotten worse with the progress N.Korea has made with thier nuclear arsenal.

Yes. And a large contributor to NK continuing to work on their "Happy Atom Fun Bomb" was the last five years of diplomatic foot dragging by the Bush administration. Do you remeber the first year after the "Axis of Evil" SotU when we'd only talk to them in multi-lateral talks? It looks like they took advantage of that time because they told us shortly thereafter that they had nukes when they did agree to multilateral talks. Their two major demands during the six meetings over the next nine months? Energy assistance and a request for non-agression from the US. The second seems reasonable to me, what with us attacking Iraq and all. Of course, we said no, causing the talks to (again) collapse in Septmber of 2004. And so, since then, there have been no meaningful negotiations.

Granted, KJI *is* crazy whack. But we have a long history (back to the 1950's) of treating the NK with no respect, threatening them at every turn with sanctions and force of arms (even more so than we do Cuba, and look at how well that's worked), and keeping large numbers of troops massed on their borders (We see them as defensive only, but with the last four years or so of American activities, would *you*, as a leader of a nation seen in an unfavorable light, see them that way?). If you were in KJI's shoes would you turn down the chance to build "The Great Equalizer"?

All I'm saying is that our foreign policy hasn't worked too well in this case. It will go down in history as one of the great diplomatic failures of our time. And, whatever you think the chances were of keeping NK non-nuclear, they dropped precipitously once this administration started their sabre rattling and invasions in 2002.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[DavidTC]

The real failure of Saddam was nepotism. If he'd just kept his damn sons in line, or even better entirely out of the government, there would have been a lot less insanity going on in Iraq.

If you look at the history of how the governments of Iraq and the US interacted with each other, it is quite clearly the US that behaved in completely irrational and nonsensical ways. Saddam wasn't crazy when he thought the US would back him in Kuwait, the US merely had flipped its bipolar mind again and decided to defend Kuwait.

I lie. The US behaved in exactly whatever way whatever administration thought would be the best for the long term goals of the US, or at least the long term goals of their wallets. However, what these goals were and how to reach them changed almost randomly, whereas Saddam's goals didn't, except he gave up on some of them because they were clearly unreachable.

Saddam being a lunatic was always just PR, and was basically the only way to square the fact our 'friend' became our 'enemy' without changing at all. If anything, his interaction with the US had a moderating influence on him, where he at least paid lip service to human rights.

The leaders of Iran aren't lunatics, either, for future reference.

Kim Jong Il, OTOH, quite possibly, is a lunatic. He, however, isn't who we have to worry about in N. Korea. We have to worry about the military, who are not lunatics.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[jfengel]

Cluster bombs are banned against civilian targets because they are generally anti-personnel weapons. You can use regular bombs in civilian areas to take out infrastructure, but deliberately targeting the people is forbidden. A cluster bomb is useless against buildings; each individual charge is too small.

Also, so many fuzes will contain some unreliable ones. So individual armed bomblets have a tendency to hang around causing damage after the war, creating a kind of minefield.

All of these rules, of course, were designed for the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, where large armies moved around and shot at each other, generally away from their own civilians. Civilians were killed, especially those who lived near military infrastructure, but usually it wasn't strategically profitable. It remains to be seen if new rules will be developed for the new asymmetrical wars (if "war" is even a good name for it).

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[Ana10g]

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq used to have the fourth largest army in the world.

Yes, this is in fact true. The problem here is that, no, size doesn't matter in this case. As we proved, the difference between the largest army in the world ("U.S." or "us", whichever you prefer) and the next largest opponent is huge.

Iraq's army fell on its back faster than a prom date, but that's not where the problem lies. As we've come to find out, the difficulty in invasions in this day in age is not the invasion and conquering itself, but the occupation and rebuilding. I have no doubt that North Korea's army is undisciplined and poorly trained, and in a conventional fight, will falter, just like Iraq's did.

Whilst I have no doubt that, much like the Iraqis did, the North Koreans would be overjoyed to be rid of their oppressive dictator, about a month after we've conquered, attempted to start rebuilding, and totally screwed it up, they'd start to get pissed. We then have another guerilla war^H^H^Hinsurgency on our hands, which is far more difficult (if even possible) to control. So, in this case, size doesn't matter.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[ClamIAm]

So what you're saying is that bombs are less evil because they can destroy non-human targets. By this logic, nuclear weapons are the least evil, because they can destroy and hurt non-human targets the most efficiently.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[StreetStealth]

We cannot entirely trust Kim Jong-il to simply use nukes as a negotiation strategy, he may actually use them (and claim that somehow he was provoked).

Unless North Korea were to make its claim of provocation in the ten minutes between its launch and the impact of the retaliatory strike, how would anyone ever hear such a claim?

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[ClamIAm]

hundreds of even thousands

200,000? 400,000? 600,000? OK I'll stop.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[AndersOSU]

I can't speak for the OP, but I was saying Kim Jong-Il was a lunatic before we invaded Iraq. In fact, I remember saying to quite a few people when we did invade Iraq, that somebody did a risk-reward analysis or the 'axis of evil,' and Iraq came out waay ahead.

As dumb as not having an exit strategy in Iraq was it would be much, much dumber to attack N. Korea or Iran. Iran is looking for an excuse to "wipe Isreal off the map," and nobody knows what Kim Jong-Il would do if provoked, but it would probably involve a mushroom cloud.

Of the axis of evil Iraq was the least threatening, but it is no wonder we didn't go after the other two.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[maxume]

Only if you apply it sloppily.

Besides, one excellent measure of the destructive efficiency of a weapon is how few lives it takes per unit of destruction. Nukes are a bit of a bummer there, short term, long term and every other way around.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[maxume]

When? Raping the citizens and pillaging is pretty much characteristic of every invading force ever, except maybe starting in World War I, and it's not like everything has been hunky dory since then.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[jav1231]

You can't let any of that deter you from doing the right thing.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[OrangeTide]

Thanks for not bothering to be rational about all this. I'm not sure why you lump me of all people in with the pro war crowd. I'm a libertarian and believe the US really has no business in any international affairs. But if we are bound by past agreements than there is little we can do. (NATO for example forces the US to defend its allies, even if it includes bombing aspirin factories)

Obviously not being able to interview Kim Jong-Il directly, or even being a psychologist I cannot say with any amount of certainty of his mental state. But I think his behavior has always been pretty erratic. if it's just an act to scare everyone, or if he's just an eccentric. it could be. Or he might just be nutty as a fruitcake.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[mqduck]

But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic.

I keep hearing this. It seems that this is one of those things people believe because they also keep hearing this. Is the "Kim Jong-Il is crazy" theory based on the fact that he's short and wears sunglasses or is there something more to it?

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[J.R. Random]

Cluster bombs are useful for just one purpose -- killing people. Israel has recently dumped loads of U.S. made cluster bombs on Lebanon. Tell the Lebanese that they aren't weapons of mass destruction.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[DamnStupidElf]

Chemical weapons are essentially only useful on human targets. Bombs are at least able to destroy infrastruture and equipment.

There are numerous anti-personnel bombs. Basically any cluster munition with fragmentation into small shrapnel is only useful against human targets. Poking little holes in machinery rarely does much long term damage. The fuel air bombs the U.S. dropped on Afghanistan caves were directed primarily at human targets as well. Don't forget that war is still primarily about removing the human adversary since it's often the easiest to remove and the most effective. Destroying infrastructure is often a secondary goal when fighting guerilla warriors because they don't need much of the infrastructure, but the remaining civilians do.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[meringuoid]

And it's unlikely that Japan could defend itself successfully against N.Korea if a hot war were to erupt.

Japan spends only a very small portion of its national wealth on defence, but the Japanese economy is so large that this adds up to some serious firepower. I gather they're roughly comparable to Britain or France. Sure, the North Korean army is huge, but I very much doubt any of it would get across the sea to Japan alive. And although Japan isn't nuclear-armed, the whole country runs on nuclear power, they've got no shortage of fissile material, and there's no doubt of their ability with robotics and fine manufacturing; they could probably put together a serious nuclear arsenal on short notice.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[AtomicBomb]

The movie star kidnapping event is a pretty conclusive case to illustrate Kim Jong-il is clinically a psychopath. Anyone in the society who did that will send to the mental ward.... Saddam Hussein etc are just despot: they may torture people, they may be brutal, they may indulge themselves with luxury, women etc. But, not in the same way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1907 197.stm

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[AtomicBomb]

The Bush administration has failed twice in military action: invade a country that has little point for the action, and leave a lunatic free to buy his bomb (and possibly sell that in black market). If US bombed the North Korea nuclear facilities in 2003, I have strong doubt whether NK can rebuild them (consider its isolation and weak industrial base). A lot of these facilities are modification to the original Soviet research reactor built in 1960s....
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/NK/index.ht ml

Of course, people would talk about the China factor as if China really wants to protect NK. Let's face it China has zero reason for a NK armed with nuke (as this triggers Japan, S Korea or even Taiwan to have nuke). The fact is China just does not want US Army to station right next to its border. It is the sort of communication that can be established before hand. For a surgical operation like the one in 1981 in Iraq (Israel bombed Iraq reactor), no one will really care. In fact, I don't think it is too late to do something like that now...

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[cartman]

"But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic. Saddam Hussein was not a lunatic." Where did you get this from? Was it just your humble opinion? I don't think anyone can say they know Kim Jong-il and what his true intentions are.

Personally I see little evidence that Kim Jong-Il is a lunatic. Thus far everything he has done suggests he is a rational actor, as was Saddam Hussein.

However, Kim Jong-Il presents enormous difficulties despite being a rational actor, insofar as he's a desparate rational actor. Let me explain. Right now North Korea's economy is in such disarray that it doesn't come even close to providing subsistence for its population. As a result N Korea is reliant upon subsidies from other countries, otherwise the regime may collapse. If the regime starts to collapse, what will the "rational actor" do?

That's the problem. Unfortunately it's very difficult to predict what N Korea will do if the regime starts to tumble, because it's impossible to deter a rational actor who's convinced of his own imminent demise anyway.

What North Korea has repeatedly said to the world is: "If we go down, we're taking some of you with us. On our way down, who KNOWS what we may do." Of course, the purpose of that gesture is to give everyone else an incentive to prop up the regime. As long as we prop up the regime, they remain non-desparate rational actors and can therefore be deterred.

In other words, N Korea knows that as long as they have nukes, it's in our interest to prevent N Korea from becoming desparate and therefore undeterrable. Perhaps that's why they acquired nukes.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[WeAreAllDoomed]

>> But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic.

there is an article on NK and KJI in the last (or previous) issue of Atlantic Magazine that makes a pretty good case that he's not a lunatic. an untrustworthy liar and despotic dictator? obviously.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[WeAreAllDoomed]

>>Is the "Kim Jong-Il is crazy" theory based on the fact that he's short and wears sunglasses or is there something more to it?

the hair. look at the hair!

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[DevilDoc]

Amen to that. Actually there are quite a few countries that statements such as this would earn a midnight visit. For the most part Iraq and Afganhistan are not 2 of them any more.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[salec]

All of them (islamic war-tune musicians) say they will "wipe Isreal off the map" it is a PR stunt to get attention of other their co-religious brethen. Well, it is a shouda' wouda'if only they coulda' but they know the price very well so it is all barking, no biting. The dictatorships and theocracies rot in the times of good living, so Iran leaders may be feel an uneasy lack of tension and they are going around begging to be slapped in the face, to regain grasp over their own folks. Israel has no place to go, and wiping is not going to be successful either way. Some of the islamic leaders dream about uniting and becoming a world superpower by sheer number but they forget one thing: Hitler may have lacked oil which they don't, but he had access to steel mass production and heavy industry, which they don't have and won't have if they confront the rest of the world. They are very short breathed. North Korea is one man's "private mansion". With their proclaimed isolationist policy I don't see them expanding any way in near future. The question of "if provoked" is out of place. The bomb is there exactly for the purpose of preventing anyone from provoking them. Isolationism and "self-reliance" has the effect of hurting economy and especially weapons production. You cannot do it all yourself and on top of that wage the war aside. Actually, once that they have the nuke under their belt, they can lower their expenses for classical warfare and put more into general production (well ... that could become a source of problem later).

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[ClamIAm]

Only if you apply it sloppily.

Not really. But hey, logic can be a drag.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[salec]

It seems my apologies to You are in order. I didn't intend to "pick on" anyone in person, Your post was first one that triggered my objection to widespread simplifications and propaganda in general, not related to the any particular living, dead, relativised or even completely rehabilitated and glorified in history, real or fictional "crazy dictator" from left or right (or "mad scientist" and/or "evil genius" subspecies, for that matter).

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[ghc71]

North Korea may have nukes now, but how many? I doubt more than a handfull. If we struck pre-emptively with our own nukes, even small tac-nukes on military sites, we could probably cripple them so they couldn't launch even one.

The major drawback to an offensive war against the DPRK is the effect on South Korea, the staunch US ally. Seoul is within 122mm range of the DMZ, and a strike on the North risks massive damage to the ROK capital from a large number of conventional rounds. And that's assuming that the US nuclear strike successfully accounts for the DPRK's WMD arsenal.

Last but not least there is the question of fallout from such a pre-emptive strike drifting South, or over to Japan, or into China. What would be the use of an ally who is willing to poison you with radioactive clouds? Maintaining US relations with other powers would be more than difficult after such a scenario.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[swillden]

I think the exact term is "area denial weapons"

That is the correct term, but it doesn't apply to chemical weapons. Properly-equipped and trained troops can operate safely in the presence of biological and chemical weapons, though at reduced effectiveness because the gear is hot, heavy, uncomfortable and inconvenient.

the same term as for other similarly harmless devices like land mines and delayed-fuse cluster bombs.

Those are much more dangerous to troops than chemical weapons.

The thing is that ADWs and civilians usually don't mix.

Unfortunately, this is also not true. Many civilians are killed every year by land mines, a large percentage of them children.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[sgt_doom]

Well said, citizen salec. The "lunatic" Saddam created a secular country, where women weren't allowed to marry prior to the age of eighteen, and forced marriages were officially against the law (not always followed, but still illegal).

Now, under the US-rewritten Iraqi constitution, pedophilia has been legalized. Now, little girls 9-years-old can be entered into forced marriages.

Food for thought, given this Foley scandal....

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[kisielk]

That wasn't the point of my comment. Someone above argued that it's better to destroy infrastructure than to target people with something like chemical weapons. I was just pointing out that going after the people alone is just as effective, if not more so, just as you point out.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[mrchaotica]

Saddam wasn't crazy when he thought the US would back him in Kuwait, the US merely had flipped its bipolar mind again and decided to defend Kuwait.

I lie. The US behaved in exactly whatever way whatever administration thought would be the best for the long term goals of the US, or at least the long term goals of their wallets.

You didn't lie, you repeated yourself! Think about it: with a two-party political system, how could the US government be anything but bi-polar (or, more accurately, afflicted with multiple-personality disorder)?

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[DavidTC]

You...honestly don't know why he'd think that?

Because we encouraged him to invade Iran and overthrow their government ten years ago in a war that ended slightly less than two years earlier, you moron.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[OrangeTide]

fair enough.

Why are there no crazy dictators who are center-moderates?

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[feronti]

First, none of DPRK's missiles are in silos. The Nodong is launched from a mobile platform like a Scud. In fact, it pretty much _is_ a Scud. Mobile launchers are extremely easy to hide in the rough terrain of North Korea. Not that it really matters, since there's no way a Nodong could mount a first-generation nuclear warhead, nor does the Nodong have the range to reach the US, so it's no threat (to us). Second, as has been mentioned elsewhere, North Korea has the 5th largest army in the world. They don't need to be surrounded by people pouring in to create an insurgency... that army combined with the terrain is quite capable of creating a quagmire on its own. Or perhaps you never heard of the Korean War? Third, the main strategic reason to fight North Korea is to protect South Korea and Japan. The moment we attack North Korea, shells start dropping into downtown Seoul from the thousands of fixed and mobile artillery emplacements on the border. We can't possibly hit all of them in a first strike, and each individual emplacement can put several shells a minute into Seoul. The South Korean government is destroyed, the economy collapses, and no matter what we do to North Korea, we've lost the war. Oh, and remember those Nodongs that can't hit us and that we can't find in the rough terrain? Well, they're perfectly capable of hitting Japan, including Tokyo. Again, Japanese government collapses, along with its economy, and we lose the war. And that doesn't even require North Korea to use its chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. Oh yeah, and (for now at least) China has agreements to protect the North in case of an invasion. In addition, as other posters have mentioned elsewhere, even without those agreements, China cannot accept an American presence in the North. We definitely can't win _any_ kind of conventional war with China.

Now, if China renounces its defense commitments to DPRK, and then invades, then we could conceivably move from the south to support such a move. In fact, we would almost have to move north, to prevent China from gaining all of North Korea. However, for the past 50 years, the North's entire defensive plan has centered around an attack from the south, with Chinese reinforcements from the north. In addition, China can cross the Yalu near the eastern coastline, and move quickly through the lowlying coastal areas straight to Pyongyang, while we'd have to cross some of the most difficult terrain in the country. This means that effectively China could move further south faster than we could move north thus gaining a large portion of the most populous parts of North Korean territory, including Pyongyang, which it most likely will not let go. That's bad for the South Korean economy, since (again, others have mentioned this... I'm just bringing it all together in one place) South Korea needs a slow, controlled reintegration with the North to fuel its own economic expansion in order to compete with China. Again, our primary strategic interest in the area is to protect trade with South Korea and Japan. We need to be able to play both of them economically off of China, to keep China in check. Again, we lose in this scenario.

When it comes right down to it, the only way for us to win a war in North Korea is not to fight it, and to prevent (through diplomacy) China from fighting it for us.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[salec]

There are... but we generally don't recognise them as such. We call them "eccentric" instead of "crazy", "charismatic" and/or "strong" instead of "dictators", etc. , until they refuse to give us what we want from them at "fair" price. Then it is time to put the coloured glasses on, pick a sticker, send reporters...

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[salec]

You know, the problem with all dictators worldwide is that they do whatever they can to make themselves essential to stability in their own countries.

The chaos that ensued after fall of Saddam was not a misfortune, it was designed by him, a sort of political "doomsday machine". Over the time he deliberately raised internal tensions in the country to make his removal expensive and regretful. One of the ways dictators do that is by favorising those oponents they believe will be less acceptable to West then they themselves are, while erradicating "nice" ones.

Perhaps a more careful approach was in order. Apparently, "who cared, anyway?"

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[OrangeTide]

it is probably difficult to make a profit selling nuclear weapons you produced. The necessary infrastructure to produce them would be quite high.

now the ability to covertly give someone else a nuke with a good idea who they are going to use them on, to detact yourself from an actual attack could be useful. although we now know that the US is willing to attack a nation even if private citizens performed an attack in an unofficial capacity (Afghanistan). so this technique is perhaps not so appeal as it once was, but maybe Kim Jong-Il can come up with something clever to do with his nukes.

Likely the DPRK just wants nukes as a status symbol to possibly get into some of the exclusive world organizations. Also Kim Jong-Il makes a lot of noise about the US potentionally invading DPRK, it seems unlikely to me but he is certainly convinced of the possibility. The possession of a significant nuclear arsenal could preserve the sovreignty of North Korea, or at least hold off future military action for a decade or so.

If I were religious I'd be praying that Kim Jong-Il is crazy like a fox and too smart to actually use a nuke offensively. It's a nightmare scenario simular to that of a realistic worse case of the early cold war standoff.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[isorox]

Just like Iraq was probably going to be a cake walk eh?

Taking Iraq was, as invasions go. Keeping it is a different matter, but there's no reason to stay in North Korea after taking it, there's no oil.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[megaditto]

ideologists - those who would unilaterally further what they mistakenly believe to be in America's interest.

Kind of like that TX mom who drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub to save them from the devil.

The moment I hear politicians speak of God I reach for my 12 gauge...

Kamland is better

[msevior]

The Kamland experiment, which confirmed neutrino oscillation by detecting the flux of neutrinos from nuclear power stations in Japan is a better detector.

Assuming 4x10^22 neutrinos from decay of short-lived isotopes within 1 second of the explosion, 1000 km to the detector, we can estimate the flux at the kamland detector to be = 3x10^9 neutrinos per square meter per second or 3x10^5 neutrinos per square cm per second.

The reaction used to detect anti-neutrinos is nu + P => nu + e+

The cross section is for this process is approximately 10^-40

kamland is about 2000 tonnes of scintillator so we can estimate the reaction rate to be:

5x10^5 * 10^-40 * 2x10^9 * 6x10^23/12 = 0.005 interactions

The factor 12 takes account of the mass in carbon nuclei, the 6x10^23 is avagadro's number.
So the explosion would not even show up in Kamland.

Re:Kamland is better

[msevior]

Damn! A few corrections.

The reaction is: anti-nu + proton => neutron + e+

The cross section is for this process is approximately 10^-40 square centimeters

Re:Kamland is better

[jackbird]

This is why I go to slashdot. I don't comprehend a frigging word of the debate, but two people slapping each other with equations over the exact number of neutrinos from a North Korean nuclear test makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

If I were Rupert Murdoch, you two would have an hour-long show on Fox News.

Re:Kamland is better

[Dr. Zowie]

Hmmm... Super-K has 50,000 tonnes of water, so the total Super-K interaction cross section is something like:
      5e4 tonnes * 1e6 g/tonne * 6.022e23 amu/g * 2 protons / 18g * 1e-44 m^2 / proton = 3e-11 m^2

So with a few x 10^13 particles intersecting Super-K one would expect something like a few x 30 events. Large enough to
see, if the quantum efficiency of the detection isn't too low..

Re:Kamland is better

[abb3w]

It would be nice if something like this would at least show up on PBS....

Re:Kamland is better

[overunderunderdone]

...two people slapping each other with equations over the exact number of neutrinos from a North Korean nuclear test makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Which is much better than neutrinos from a North Korean nuclear test making you all warm and fuzzy inside.

Re:Kamland is better

[habig]

The problem is the energy of the neutrinos. Fission neutrinos are below the energy threshold of Super-K, which is why they built Kamland to look at the reactor and geo-neutrino signals. It's smaller but more sensitive to tiny signals.

Japan Responds

[bmajik]

Hundreds of pink, purple, green, and blue haired middle school girls have reported to the secret under-mountain bases where their enormous transformable robots (using alien technology, no less) have been meticulously maintained by bespectacled scientists in labcoats.

North Korea doesn't stand a chance.

(As long as the pilots don't get too involved with text-messaging their awkward love interests during battle)

Re:Japan Responds

[plasmacutter]

Well.. I thought it was funny.. : )

you need to consider the concept of scale

[circletimessquare]

for the sake of argument, i'll take every criticism you have of the us, the solid ones and the specious ones, and flat out accept all of them

at which point, however bad the usa looks, by the exact same measurements of failure, north korea is many orders of magnitude worse, according to the most careful and neutral of estimates

in other words, to go an inch down a road is not the same as going a mile down a road

it's called scale

if i shoot someone, i'm bad

but i'm not on the same scale of bad as say pol pot, who ordered the deaths of millions

so to excuse north korea with the words you say above in any way is not right, if you appreciate the concept of scale

"yes, north korea starves its citizens to fund its military, but prisoners in the usa don't get cable tv, so north korea and the usa are morally equivalent"

not your points or your words in the quote above, but you see what i'm getting at with that example quote

the point is: i'm not excusing or apologizing for the bad the usa does: the usa DOES do bad. again, the usa DOES do bad

BUT: by the same token, you should be careful not to excuse north korea for doing far, far, far worse

get it?

Re:you need to consider the concept of scale

[Opportunist]

Scale only matters so much. At a certain point, it doesn't anymore.

It's like asking who was the bigger asshole, Stalin or Hitler. Does it matter? Both of them were despicable monsters that deserve death billionfold. Does it matter how one scales to the other one? Whether you kill one person or ten does (usually) not matter, your sentence is the same. How do you execute someone twice?

Going ahead and claiming that someone else is worse doesn't make the first one better. It doesn't take away the blame, just because someone is dumping whole tankers of oil into the sea doesn't mean I should be allowed to dump the old oil from my car next to it. It's just a li'l, doesn't matter...

As far as I understood it, he didn't try to excuse NK for doing what they do. I think he only wanted people to see the pole in their own eye before trying to poke at the splinter in others.

Re:Mr. Conspiracy Theorist here

[smilindog2000]

What we need right now is George Bush Senior, or Bob Dole, or John McCain, or Bill Clinton, or Nixon. An old fashioned foreign-policy wise leader, not a neoconservative self-righteous ignoramus. I strongly recommend the following 3-hour documentary:

        http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmare s

International Relations theory:

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

If all nations/states have nuclear capibilities, there will be a permanant peace between nations.

Re:International Relations theory:

[LakeSolon]

"If all nations/states have nuclear capibilities, there will be a permanant peace between [remaining] nations."

There. Fixed that for you.

ah, confirmation from the White House

[sgant]

the White House apparently confirms a nuclear test.

I usually wait until a legit source confirms it instead of taking anything that comes out of the White House seriously.

Re:ah, confirmation from the White House

[Qzukk]

Why, Fox News, of course!

You make it sound so partisian, like there exists a major party that doesn't lie through its teeth.

Re:ah, confirmation from the White House

[sgant]

And I said "the White House"...I don't take seriously anything that comes out of it no matter who's running the show there. Democrat or Republican, when they make a statement you can rest assure it's always filled with hyperbole and propaganda to make their side look strong and in charge. It's important to listen to what they say of course, but your BS filter should be working full-time to weed out what's actually being said.

I wasn't attacking the Bush administration per-se...just the White House in general.

Which makes the U.S. look pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Like no one saw this coming?

Iraq. Big, Expensive Invasion. No Weapons. Yet...

North Korea. Nuclear Weapons. Run by a sociopathic madman. A criminal spy service.
And a U.S. cowled into sniffing and blubbering across the Pacific.
Why? Because China scares them. They won't let the U.S. lay a finger on North Korea.

Remember North Korea has previously shot ballistic missiles over Japan.
A matter of time before the madman nuclear tips one to make a point.

Bush. When are you going to pull your head out of your ass and do your job?

Re:Which makes the U.S. look pathetic

[rewt66]

And just what do you want Bush to do? Tell them to stop? Tried that. Get everybody else to tell them to stop? Tried that, too. Make them stop? That means military force. That means, almost certainly, the death of millions of people in Seoul (and possibly Japan as well). And if Bush did that, you'd be on Slashdot, whining about how Bush was an out-of-control cowboy who had just killed several million people by his stupidity.

Assassinate Kim Jong-Ill? That's against the law of the U.S., and would leave you whining about the out-of-control cowboy Bush again.

Well, then, what else is left? Asking them nicely? Riiiiiiight.

So just exactly do you want Bush to do? Or do you just like blaming him for everything?

I'm glad

[Feefers]

it was only a test, in the event of an actual Nuclear typing just now would probably be hard.

Could one

[xstaytruex]

Reach Los Angeles?,because that would be the only thing that would make me move.

Re:Could one

[Tony Hoyle]

LA? Wouldn't need to. Backpacker with a small weapon detonated on the fault line would probably enough (better if you could dig it deep rather than a surface detonation.. so maybe a backpacker with a potholing hobby).

Re:Could one

[xstaytruex]

crap.........im dead.

Untrue

[gbdc]

"South Korea would probably pay China not to do that. Noone in South Korea - not the politicians, not the ordinary people - wants a re-unification. A re-unificatiion would be an absolute disaster for the South Korean economy. I know. I happen to live there (Seoul)."

Only a person without understanding of Korean history and sentiment would make such a wildly false blanket statement.

Totally untrue.

Re:Untrue

[bertilow]

Only a person without understanding of Korean history and sentiment would make such a wildly false blanket statement.

Oficially the do want re-unification. And there are lots of sentiments in that direction. But from a practical point of view (that's the only that counts), re-unification is the last thing they want right now. The South Koreans have had an incredible economic upswing, and they now lead very comfortable lives. They don't want any re-unification sentiments to interfere with that economic paradise. Especially the young Koreans see the North as a different world. They want their DVDs and Computer games, and they want to have fun. A re-unification would destroy all that.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[cunina]

When you see all the irrational, self-destructive shit that the US is doing to itself in its "war on terror" the behaviour of the DPRK starts to make a little more sense.

The DPRK's hostile and irrational behavior, bordering on paranoid, far predates the "war on terror."

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[smilindog2000]

Well said.

However, Bush already won the last election of his life. What we need now is a better leader to begin cleaning up the mess. I don't see any strong Democrat candidates. My personal favorite for 2008: John McCain. However, neoconservatives have hijacked the Republican party. I'm very strongly hoping for a change of control in both houses this election. If not, I'll have to vote against John McCain next election. We've got to get rid of this neoconservative "Axis of Evil" FUD that threatens the entire world.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Detritus]

What planet do you live on? The US has been reducing its stockpile for decades.

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[louisadkins]

**FEAR! FEAR! TERROR! TERROR! FEAR! FEAR! TERROR! TERROR!**
WE CAN'T CHANGE OUT LEADERSHIP AT A CRITICAL TIME LIKE THIS!

                                Vote Republician in 2006.

That's my take on it, anyway.
This admin has made a habit of trying to keep the people too scared
to allow a changeout in the driver's seat.

New War coming.....

[jonfr]

My best guess is that this is going to lead to war. None of the nearby countryes are going to allow this pysicopath in North Korea to have nukes. It is also worth noticeing that the North and South korea wars didn't end, they just have been on a ceasefire for last 50 or 60 years. I would guess that this test means end to that ceasefire, in worst case serano.

Why is this filed under "hardware.slashdot.org"

[MadLep]

Wouldn't it be more relevant under http://politics.slashdot.org/ ?

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[dodobh]

New Delhi has long refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has aggressively pursued the development of nuclear weapons.

The Indian government has only been asking that the treaty be fair, and everyone disarm. An unfair balance of power is not acceptable.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, courtesy of Fox News

[Sub Zero 992]

So, apparently the blast in North Korea is approximately what you would get from blowing up 550 tons of TNT. Wowee. Such much.

That is definitely a clear provocation, which will requrie the world to invade and conquer North Korea, killing hundreds of thousands of oppressed peaseants in soldier's uniforms. Just think - those evil people are capable of buying and exploding enough fertilizer to fill an aircraft hangar - they must be stopped.

Say no to "regime change", say yes to direct democracy.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The DPRK's hostile and irrational behavior, bordering on paranoid, far predates the "war on terror."

If I was a clever guy, I would make one of those jokes about the point going way over your head.
Instead, I will do it in SAT form - North Korea is to the open-ended Korean War as the US is to the open-ended war on terror.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[MrNaz]

What planet do you live on that you'd trust the US govt when they say this is what they are doing?

Hans Hans Hans

[spacefight]

... we've been frew this a dozen times....

Gotta love CNN.com's coverage!

[cunina]

Their breaking news graphic is of a television in South Korea tuned to CNN breaking the news of the test. Not just self-referential, but self-promotional: now that's journalism!

Re:Gotta love CNN.com's coverage!

[Sub Zero 992]

Didn't you know that all serious news channels can back up their claims with reputable citations?

Re:Mr. Conspiracy Theorist here

[MrNaz]

Must... not... make... Foley... missile... joke...

Re:I guess it's time...

[Sub Zero 992]

North Korean capital

I believe the word you are looking for is "Pyong Yang".

Hey, why don't you go there yourself and send us back an eyewitness report?
http://www.koryogroup.com/ will help you.

Where are the "no fallout" Nukes?

[Ka D'Argo]

Ok, call me stupid (kidding..) but obviously as many have pointed out traditional nuclear weapons are useless. If we use them someone else does in response. If someone else does we might use them in response. And of course the nucler winter/fall out is the main concern etc right?

So, shouldn't we at this point in technology after like 50 years of having nuclear capabilities, have developed a bomb that has the destructive force of a nuclear weapon without the 30-40 years of radioactivity?

Re:Where are the "no fallout" Nukes?

[Alioth]

Because it's not possible. The only way to get that kind of explosive force in a deliverable package is a nuclear weapon, and you can't design a radiation-less nuclear weapon because it's against the laws of physics.

In the case of North Korea, nuclear winter isn't even a concern. The Soviets and United States EACH tested in excess over 1000 nuclear weapons in atmospheric tests. A limited nuclear attack on North Korea wouldn't cause much of a problem, worldwide (the political fall out would be another matter). Air burst thermonuclear weapons are relatively clean for the amount of power they punch.

Nuclear weapons aren't useless - they ensure you won't get attacked because the consequences of any retaliation are pretty fucking terrible. That's why it's called a nuclear deterrent - because it's there to deter other nations from attacking in the first place. The real problem is when the irrational or those with nothing to lose get hold of them - and North Korea is in both categories.

Re:Where are the "no fallout" Nukes?

[Sloppy]

So, shouldn't we at this point in technology after like 50 years of having nuclear capabilities, have developed a bomb that has the destructive force of a nuclear weapon without the 30-40 years of radioactivity?

We do. They're called smart weapons. A dozen GPS-guided conventional-explosive bombs can usually kill the targets that you want killed, instead of lobbing a nuke "close" to the targets and hoping the targets happen to be within the rather large radius of destruction.

Precision guidance is what makes high-yield weapons nearly obsolete. You want a technological solution to nuclear fallout? You got it: use something other than nukes to achieve the results that previously would have required nukes.

An issue of trust

[Dobeln]

Two points:

One: The article linked above relies heavily and unquestioningly on statements from... hold on... North Korean officials. These are, reliability-wise, probably some of the least trustworthy people in the world, not the least because they will be dragged off and shot if they say anything that is not officially sanctioned by the Dear Leader.

Two: North Korea has happily thrown every agreement ever signed overboard, pushing ahead with nuclear weapons development at every turn and during every "agreed framework", etc. simply because they want nuclear weapons. Which is a good move - instead of being an ignored backwater basket case they are top of the international newscasts. Even the mere threat of nuclear development has enabled them to serially blackmail the US, South Korea and Japan (among others) into providing extensive and much-needed relief.

In short, the bomb has been a good move for North Korea, and it would be foolish to believe that they will get rid of it, unless offered *very* substantial concessions from the South, Japan and the US. Threats of intervention on behalf of Bush are not credible, both because a war would be unacceptably costly to the US, and because Bush has burned too much domestic and international political capital in his Iraq misadventure. (If he does not realize this himself, his advisors do.)

So, what to do? Sit pretty and keep handling North Korea using a mix of sanctions, threats and concessions. The leadership of the North, though screwed up, occupy a materially and socially privileged position that they are unlikely to sacrifice in favor of certain death, unless pushed to believe their reign is about to collapse.

Re:An issue of trust

[Qzukk]

Sit pretty and keep handling North Korea using a mix of sanctions, threats and concessions.

That would require Bush to concede that Clinton's original plan was right. Back in the 90's, Clinton faced a North Korea that wanted but didn't have The Bomb. So Clinton told them that if they allowed inspectors to make sure their plutonium plant was shut down, they'd get some nuclear reactors (engineered to not produce nuclear grade material) and food and oil. North Korea agreed.

Then Bush got in power and decided that concessions were for wimps and cut off NK's food and oil, talking big about appeasement and not caving into threats from North Korea. NK talked big about "acts of war", threw out the inspectors, reopened the plutonium processing plant, and here we are.

So now what is Bush going to do? It's almost certain that Kim Jong-Il will not accept the same concessions he did in the Clinton era since how he has The Bomb and therefore "deserves" much better treatment. Will Bush admit to making a mistake and go the diplomacy route? Will Bush go to war? Will Bush do nothing and hope that the rest of Asia will take care of his problem for him?

Re:An issue of trust

[Dobeln]

"North Korea agreed."

Indeed. And they kept their nuclear program running covertly at the same time (which they later admitted). Which nicely illustrates why merely striking deals with them is not much of a fix. Without real inspection access you risk merely end up subsidising the nuclear program you are trying to stop.

Re:An issue of trust

[sickofthisshit]

It's fair to say the Agreed Framework might not have been workable long-term; however, the covert uranium work probably did not lead to the nuclear device in question.

"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaganda

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sure it helps to have real weapons that work, but so often weapons of dubious ability get unwarranted iconic status, mainly in the war of the minds to convince friendlies that they have the edge. This is nothing new and dates back to shamans claiming they have the gods on their side.

Recently we've had the Patriot Missile BS where pretty hopeless systems were claimed to be invincible. During WW2 there were carrots (gave the British superior night vision) and the Americans had the Norton Bombsight - both of which have over-hype PR which exists to this day. No doubt this will continue as long as conflict of any sort exists.

Ok, so what can the rest of the World do about it?

[Quatermass]

Right so everyone here is debating pretty pointless on it. And the world is saying 'tut tut how awful'. So just what can the UN and other bodies actually do about it? It's not as if they're going to invade the country is it? Maybe they'll apply 'sanctions'. Which always take 5 - 10 years to actually do anything, if at all. So whilst the World moans about it, the NK will just get on with building more of these weapons and no doubt we'll see a few more tests.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Richard_at_work]

Actually all the NPT does is recognise the holders of nuclear weapons as such, it makes no allowances for them - under the agreement those countries should work toward disarmament.

Google Map of the test site

[sd790]

This is the Google Map of the test site according to the USGS.

Japan is my real fear

[SlappyBastard]

The Japanese have been slowly hedging toward remilitarization, and this is a shining excuse for the Abe government to do it.

The Japanese have done studies before about converting their civilian reactor program into a weapons program and believe it is feasible to turn around a few nukes in a couple months and a major arsenal within a few years.

Also, many conservatives in Japan think the time for the post-WWII pity party is over. They will see an assertive, anti-DPRK militarization as a return to Japan's proper place on the international stage. And, frankly, many Japanese believe that this is good cover to prepare for an inevitable conflict with China.

Now are we going to try and negotiate?

[blackdropbear]

Or are we going to continue with the bully boy tactics against both North Korea and Iran? Threatening sanctions will have bugger all effect on either country. Funny about that, when you don't have anything a country wants it is very hard to bully them. If you do have something they want (eg food) but you impose a long list of conditions that are impossible for them to meet and still maintain face, you shoot yourself in the foot. How much easier would it be to open both nations up using trade and to ensure that their citizens become a vibrant middle class who no longer want to lose their lives for their leader(s). Oh, I forgot, that might eat a tinsy little bit into the corporate profits, too bad for the rest of the world.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Sub Zero 992]

The "Bush Administration Official" quoted by Fox probably a former Fox employee.

As of now: Seven Minutes To Midnight

[Wilson_6500]

Does anyone know what effect this test might have on the Doomsday Clock?

Re:As of now: Seven Minutes To Midnight

[Arwing]

It's now one second past midnight.. ..

Re:Ok, so what can the rest of the World do about

[Tony Hoyle]

If China cut of its support then it wouldn't take 5-10 years. More like 5-10 weeks. NK is utterly dependent on chinese aid to prop up their government.

China is reluctant to do that because it'd cause a refugee problem on their border and NK might become a western friendly nation. However if NK pushed *too* hard it's a possibility.

Hey Kim!

[AndroidCat]

In Korea, only old people have nuclear weapons!

Go ahead and moderate this down as 'redundant'.

[RoffleTheWaffle]

Meanwhile, in South Korea...

"Nuclear launch detected."

Inchon

[Anonymous Coward]

MacArthur's Inchon landing was a good example of how to flank fixed lines.

The Inchon landing was a gamble. It was a two phased operation that relied upon the speedy capture of the fortified island of Wolmi-do followed by a pause to wait for the tide to rise before the rest of the operation could continue which was not a good idea since there was no way to know if the island garrison would fall quickly and because the pause would give the forces ashore time to react. The Americans were lucky in several ways, firstly they only had to face some 3000 N-Korean troops who happened to have a commander of low quality, the garrison on Wolmi-do was under strength and didn't die where it stood to buy time for their comrades ashore and the local N-Korean commander didn't make any significant use of the forewarning and the time he had to react from the time the attack on Wolmi-do started and until tide rose and the rest of the American attack went ahead. An American present at the time commented that if the garrison on Wolmi-do had resisted more than it did to buy time and if the troops ashore had fought with the same determination as the German and Japanese troops he had encountered during WWII (and which the N-Koreans were fully capable of) the American forces at Inchon would have been slaughtered. Basically Inchon could *very* easily have become a compete FUBAR like operation 'Market Garden' did during WWII. It was a great success because fortune happened favor MacArthur that day but Inchon is hardly the best available study in how to plan and execute an amphibious landing, the allies set much better examples of that during WWII.

In other news, China is erecting a fence..

[viking80]

..along the border to North Korea.
Chinas president, Il-Bush sung stated:
1. A country without secure borders can not control it's destiny
2. All these illegal aliens from Norht Korea must be deported.
3. We need this fence to control terrorist infiltration from N.K.
4. The north koreans should just fix their own country so we don't get all these illegal immigrants here.

NORSAR

[hoyd]

the testing was registered in north norway this night. have a look at the graph.

Re:"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaga

[cptgrudge]

No doubt this will continue as long as conflict of any sort exists.

Which is to say, likely forever.

Crap.

I hate carrots.

Typical...

[Hurricane78]

you simply CAN'T say "no, we don't want you to have nukes", when you own them yourself. ;P

I guess us government is quite happy about this. Now they can spread tons of new FUD, to scare the stupid poeple, so they can transform their country elen quicker to 1984, nazi-germany and some religious fundamentalistic state all at once. :(

Big microwave oven...

[one_red_eye]

I thought I smelled something cooking.

Let's get one thing straight

[clickclickdrone]

North Korea is not the US, it is an independant country. We may not like what it does or the people who run it but that does not mean we can tell them how to behave, arrange a regime change or threaten them. If they invade someone, sure we can help the invadee but until then they are just another country doing their thing and not our problem.

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[dlhm]

So someone standing on the street corner swinging a sword is doing his own thing, we shouldn't react until he's actually hit someone with it.. ??

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[clickclickdrone]

Bad analogy. What you are perhaps talking about is someone owning a sword at home and after they've had a bit of practice waving it about, someone from a street nearby takes umbrance, smashes their door down, beats them up, slams them in jail and takes all their posessions.

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[mimio]

They are swinging the sword in their house...

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[MrPink2U]

On three, on three...ready...BREAK!!!

blue forty two - blue forty two

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[slcdb]

That is the kind of attitude that results in millions of people getting killed. Basically, your argument says, "Let's wait until things get really obviously bad before we do anything. Until then, it's not our problem."

Well, we've tried that approach before. And some 60 million people died as a result. So we've changed our policy to be proactive in the future. I think this is a good thing.

All indications so far are that fewer people die when those who are able to, take proactive measures to prevent things from getting "really obviously bad". And this doesn't necessarily mean military action. It just means having the attitude that it is our problem too.

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[Money for Nothin']

Yeah, that totally worked in WWII for Britain, didn't it? Or for the U.S. at Pearl Harbor (which FDR knew about beforehand, but he didn't do anything about it or warn anybody because he needed a way to drag otherwise-isolationist Americans into war with Hitler. How nice that Presidential politics winds up deliberately killing 2,400 of the President's own military; like pawns in a game of chess)?

Goddamn Right

[PopeRatzo]

And now, while George Bush is playing the same "run-up-to-war" with IraN (because they have oil after all), a maniac with Don King's hair is playing with real nukes in North Korea. How bad does an administration (and an entire party of lickspittles) have to be before a country says "Enough" and boots them the hell out?

Of course, we'll hear tough talk out of Bush today. His inner cowboy will again emerge and he'll scratch another line in the sand for young Kim and it'll be Dear Leader vs. Dear Leader for a few news cycles, but in the end, we're just going to have to live with the REAL fear that an insane guy in North Korea can whach Tokyo (while standing on his balcony singing "I'm so Lonely"), instead of the trumped up fear that Bush himself and his Own Personal Jesus have carefully cultivated because of 19 guys with box cutters.

But tough talk is going to do exactly jack shit. This was a situation that required someone who actually knows something and has a cabinet who actually thinks things through (and a congress that doesn't enable bad bahaviour - in many ways). We won't have that until Bush is gone and Cheney has a stake in his heart.

November 7. "Do a thing." - Macho Man Randy Savage

Re:Goddamn Right

[rbochan]

...His inner cowboy...

Cowboy?
There are no cowboys born in Connecticut.

Re:So they've proven they can blow themselves up..

[Alioth]

And how do they sneak these 48 subs (or one sub) past the US Navy?

It must be Clinton's Fault (TM) right?

[PopeRatzo]

I dislike posting twice to the same article and posting URLs, but if you want to read what someone bright has to say about Kim's Nuke, read this very short article before the "Clinton's Fault" crowd gets going full force:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010275.php

Re:It must be Clinton's Fault (TM) right?

[killjoe]

Everything is clintons fault. Every time clinton takes a breath a hundred mosquitos are created somewhere in the world. Clinton is responsible for the darkness and cold. The boxing day tsunami was caused by clinton when he farted. The other day I tripped and fell, that was clinton's fault but it was hillary clinton's fault not bill, when she has her period she causes people to trip. When chelsea has her period she causes people to break out in pimples.

The whole foley thing was clintons fault too.

Re:It must be Clinton's Fault (TM) right?

[deanj]

Clinton had nothing to do with giving North Korea nuclear tech?

That picture of Albright and Kim Jong Il toasting each other is a fake?

Re:It must be Clinton's Fault (TM) right?

[brsmith4]

Whoooaaa... as soon as a picture of two people implies anything about nuclear technology or the acquisition of such technologies, then someone might take that seriously. As a picture of Albright and Kim Jong Il toasting each other, it proves only one thing: that at one point, the two of them clanged some glasses together at some political function. That sir, was a leap over the Pacific.

MOD PARENT UP.

[TapeCutter]

The parent makes an excellent point: Any weapon can be considered a WMD. (eg:box of matches).

Saddams use of chemical weapons in the 80's was a crime against humanity but the same can be said about the use of Napalm by the US in the 60's & 70's. None of the actual events could realistically be described as "using a WMD". A credible example of "using a WMD" would be something like the nuking of Hiroshima, Holocaust gas chambers, firebombing Dressden, carpet bombing Cambodia. A WMD is characterised by how swiftly it can kill large numbers of people, "nerve gas" cannot be used as a WMD without a great deal of infrastructure, planes, rockets, ect).

In the middle ages 10,000 longbows firing a dozen arrows a minute was the pinicale of WMD technology, control of such a "weapon" commanded inter-fifedom "respect". Here in the atomic age, a nuke on top of a long range missle is the only weapon that commands international "respect" (eg: Pakistan). In other words, international politics is mearly inter-fifedom politics wearing an expensive suit.

And yes, it is very difficult to use a box of matches as a WMD. OTOH: Arsonists still get their kicks by deliberately lighting massive bushfires here in Australia, and the energy released by some of those fires dwarfs the yeild of the largest H bombs ever built.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[dbIII]

a nuke on top of a long range missle is the only weapon that commands international "respect" (eg: Pakistan)

Pakistan doesn't get much respect for it's nukes - remember Powell threatened to bomb them back to the stone age if they didn't support US forces in Afganistan. That's the same Powell that let Iraqi troops COME BACK into Kuwait for their tanks so they could put down the rebellions in Iraq that were rising up in response to US radio broadcasts. The Iraqi people were not going to forget that and the bombing since 1991 so those most opposed to Saddam were the least likely to greet us with showers of rose petals.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[YoungHack]

> Saddams use of chemical weapons in the 80's was a crime against humanity but the same can be said about the use of Napalm by the US in the 60's & 70's.

I think if we wait a decade or so, we'll see the US use of depleted uranium (in Iraq) on that list of crimes against humanity.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[TapeCutter]

"Pakistan doesn't get much respect for it's nukes - remember Powell threatened..."

The "threat" to/from Pakistan was from nuclear armed India not the US, India has certainly changed it's attitude and the US won't violate their airspace let alone "bomb them back to the stone age". The main "threat" from/to NK is Okinawa (sic?).

I don't think any of the Iraqi people want the US involved. Saddam lost control over the northern Kurds long ago, it was the "aborted" Shite rebellion in the south that made the US unpopular there and is the reason why the British took control of the south in the current debacle.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[dwarfking]

That wasn't Powell, it was supposedly Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, and he denies saying it.

From the NPR Story"

Instead, Armitage says, he told Pakistan's top intelligence official on Sept. 12, 2001, that Pakistan would have to decide if it were "with us or against us" in the American effort to confront al-Qaida and the Taliban.

"It would be completely out of character for me to threaten the use of military force when I was not authorized to do so," Armitage says. "I don't command aircraft and could not make good on such a threat."

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[WeeLad]

Wasn't it Armitage who made that threat?

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[TapeCutter]

"The pinnacle of liberalism: redefining the terms until they fit your own world view."

The twin peaks of ignorance: No definition, no point.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[TapeCutter]

Yes, and much like the bio-catapult (another post) the people handling DU ammo are also likely to be affected.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[TapeCutter]

Yes it was Armitage, the GP is also confusing Kurds (North) with Shia (South). Speaking of Powell, I would love to know what was said when Powell visited Arrafat's besieged HQ.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[jvkjvk]

So perhaps you would care to give a working definition of weapons of mass destruction that includes the chemical weapons that Saddam had in the 80's but does not include our own technologies such as cluster bombs and napalm?

I think a good working definition of a weapon of mass destrution is, well, a weapon that causes large amounts of damage over a large area.

What is your definition of the term that precludes it being applied to some of the technologies we used in the conflict?

Sorry, this type of categorization can only happen after a good working definition is in place. It is intellectually dishonest to categorize the sets of technologies without it and then create a definition that gerrymanders the topology based on your preconceived categorizations.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[Money for Nothin']

You mean conservatives have a lock on the English language? And here I thought the English language evolves based on usage...

Oh, that's right: conservatives don't believe in evolution; that the selection of genes is based on a survival-of-the-fittest pattern is really just yet-another one of an unproveable and improbable entity's magical "intelligent designs". Pardon my faux pax!

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[dbIII]

GP is also confusing Kurds (North) with Shia (South).

Sorry, I got Powell mixed up there but as for the Shia - there are a lot of mass graves in the south that date back to those few days in 1991, and Powell did let Iraqi forces back into Kuwait to recover their equipment to put down the rebellion. The difference was the Kurds got some help at the time from US, British and even Turkish forces in refugee camps in the mountains after their rebellion failed.

That's true with reasonnable people

[file-exists-p]

Maybe I am a bit pessimistic, but I have the feeling all the "nuclear deterrence" theory is based on the idea that nuke owner acts are based on logic. Now, what is the percentage of leaders "insane enough" to use such a weapon, knowing that in the end it would hurt their country/interest more than doing nothing ?

Also, even reasonnable people can become sort of non-reasonnable when lost in the fog of war. The missile crisis gave us a flavor of that sort of things.

Hey China, want some land & peace of mind?

[JumperCable]

Who else here feels the world would be a lot safer if China went ahead & absorbed North Korea into it's country. China already has nukes and is far more stable. I don't think anyone in the world would care one wit if China swallowed N. Korea whole.

China: You have our permission.

Re:Hey China, want some land & peace of mind?

[rlp]

I don't think anyone in the world would care one wit if China swallowed N. Korea whole.

I suspect South Korea would care.

Re:Hey China, want some land & peace of mind?

[Svartalf]

Yeah, but I'd suspect they'd consider it to be the lesser of two evils- NK is only 30 miles
away from Seoul. While it'd be difficult to do much with such a small bomb (if they've
actually detonated one...) it's enough for them to build up to lobbing the damn things easily
over the border and make an unholy mess of South Korea. NK is a whole hell of a lot less
stable than China is. You do the math.

Re:Hey China, want some land & peace of mind?

[rlp]

South Korea is still hoping for re-unification. Of course, given what a basket-case the North is, it would make German re-unification look like a picnic. Nevertheless, it seems a fairly universal desire in the south. If China annexed the North, that would not be viewed positively.

Re:Hey China, want some land & peace of mind?

[Svartalf]

So, in other words, it'd be six of one, half-dozen of another for them. Sad.

Re:Hey China, want some land & peace of mind?

[JumperCable]

"Any way, I don't think you were being too serious with your comment, but I figured I would give my opinion on why that option would not be feasible nor even bring more favorable outcome since a lot of people are not entirely familiar with political and historical situation in the region." -Anonymous Coward

Not totally serious just because I know it would never be that simple. In any case I got some great thoughtful replys giving me a little more perspective on the regional dynamics. Of course, I still think that NK does not have a friend in the world. And I don't think a person in the world would shed a tear if their government got blasted off the face of the earth.

N ews

[Unknown_monkey]

The DOD is the only source of good news besides returning soldiers. Because the news agencies don't sell papers and get viewers by talking about good news. If the ignorant masses wanted good news, then Fox and CBS would just steal headlines from cuteoverload.com and show puppies and kittens all day. The people want to see death, destruction, and violence. That's why people make slasher movies. That's why so many shows now are just a version of CSI extreme.

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[geminidomino]

My personal favorite for 2008: John McCain.

Two years ago, I would have agreed with you, but that was before Shrub's clock was winding down and the NeoCons were still calling him a RINO. Now he's playing kiss-ass to the psycho Jesus crowd, and pretty much guaranteed he'd never get a vote from me when he caved on the torture bill.

Ooorrrr, take that HANS BRIX!

[whichpaul]

Kim-Yong-Ill over compensating once more ... who's got the biggest piece of HARDWARE now?

Seriously, is this lunatic really set on turning his starving masses into nuke fodder?

WMDs in the middle ages

[brennz]

10,000 longbows ~ hardly!

It is a well known fact that during the middle ages and before then, during an attack on a city, the sieging army would catapult into cities corpses with the plague, or dead animals, in attempts to spread disease/plague that would decimate populations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bioweapons/biowa r_timeline.html
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/xiongmn.h tml
http://www.usmedicine.com/column.cfm?columnID=109& issueID=46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague

Re:WMDs in the middle ages

[TapeCutter]

"It is a well known fact that during the middle ages and before then, during an attack on a city, the sieging army would catapult into cities corpses with the plague, or dead animals, in attempts to spread disease/plague that would decimate populations."

It's also well known that apes throw shit at each other. Handling the ammunition for a bio-catapult was just as deadly as it landing in your front yard.

"10,000 longbows ~ hardly!" - How does one get thy army to the city walls of thy enemy to fling thy evil shit.

The problem with bio and chem weapons as WMD's is the difficulty in "weaponising" them.

BTW: Great links even though you neglected the Monty Python reference.

McCain

[Dobeln]

McCain? Although I'm not quite sure he would have pushed as hard for the Iraq Attaq if he had been in charge, he was quite gung-ho about it. And the Iraq Attaq is the decisive screw-up of the Bush administration. Hence, McCain does not appear to be an attractive option to me. McCain is also determined to push through with the whole guest peasant / amnesty immigration package, making him a definite non-starter in my eyes.

Re:McCain

[smilindog2000]

I'm also quite disappointed at his voting record lately. He's obviously trying to warm up to the religious right so he can win the primary. However, other presidents that I've admired, including Clinton and Bush senior, did the same thing to get elected. The scary thing about our current president is that he failed to shift towards the middle once elected, as most do.

While Iraq is the clear leading screw-up of Bush Jr's administration, he's got a list so freaking long I'd wear out my hands listing them. Today's NK nuclear test is near the top. Totally his fault, since Clinton had already resolved the NK issue, and all Bush Jr had to do was not screw it up. McCain was one of the few Republicans who occasionally opposed him. In my book, that deserves a lot more respect than all the Democrats bad-mouthing everything Bush does.

kilju

[jovius]

Coincidentally, Kilju means homebrewn/moonshine alcohol in Finnish, you sure it was a nuke that exploded ?

Re:kilju

[fbjon]

The 'ju' is with a soft 'ch'-sound, not with a stressed 'i'-sound.

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[OnyxIR]

Disasters do not unmake presidents. Neither do setbacks like this.

Only blowjobs work really well.

I guess it's time...

[nagaicho]

... to call an actor.

Get me Gary Johnston.

nuke this, nuke that

[namekuseijin]

"If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea"

why bother? They'll be dead from the nearby nuclear wastes and nuclear winter in a short period of time anyway. It's almost like shooting their foot.

Unless they do the Bin Laden cave-hiding thing for their entire populace and have large stocks of food.

stupid humans.

Re:nuke this, nuke that

[John Hasler]

> why bother? They'll be dead from the nearby nuclear wastes and nuclear winter
> in a short period of time anyway.

From one or two bombs? Right. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did everyone in Japan die? Was there a "nuclear winter"?

Hint: the "nuclear winter" scenario depends on the US and the USSR detonating tens of thousands of fusion bombs.

Re:nuke this, nuke that

[namekuseijin]

yeah, all risks are well thought out when they are other people's problems, huh?

Let's rephrase it, taking into account that the Korean Peninsula is roughly the same area (220,000 km) to that of the state of Kansas (213,096 km). Would you think it would be ok to nuke Western Kansas from Eastern Kansas? Would you accept the risks?

but then again, i guess north americans are not as crazy as some suicidal islamic communist yellows, huh?

You'll pay the price for your lack of vision

[Wooky_linuxer]

Say, you are a dictator of a country the US deeply dislikes. In fact, you are listed as belonging to the Axis of Evil. Another country in similar situation is invaded, its dictator, even being a former US ally, is brought down, on the premises of having WMD, which turns out to be quite a fat bold lie, and despite actually allowing UN to inspect, albeit reluctantely. Now, tell me, what would YOU do if you were such a dictator? Bush sent a clear message to all unstable governments around the world: it doesn't matter whether you have nukes or chemical weapons, we'll use them as an excuse to invade you if we see fit. NK probably feels a lot safer now, and it is no wonder Iran is trying to get their nukes as soon as possible. Thanks to Bush, the world became again a scarier place.

Nuke or Quake?

[Richard Kirk]

I can't tell from the information on the site, but the epicentre seems to be very shallow for an earthquake. If you can get more details, a nuke should have a sharp rising edge to the P-wave, and a very weak S-wave. It is hard to mistake the two. If you could disguise practrical nukes as earthquakes, then test ban treaties would not mean anything. If someone has the proper seismology data, they probably know one way or the other. I expect we will have a more informed opinion in a few hours.

Ho-hum.

could be fake

[geoff lane]

What is the cost of 500 tons of explosive and a few pounds of radioactive dust?

Re:"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaga

[rjstanford]

Recently we've had the Patriot Missile BS where pretty hopeless systems were claimed to be invincible. During WW2 there were carrots (gave the British superior night vision) and the Americans had the Norton Bombsight - both of which have over-hype PR which exists to this day. No doubt this will continue as long as conflict of any sort exists.

The whole carrot thing was started intentionally to try to disguise the fact that the British had figured out radar. Of course there were questions as to how they were suddenly far more effective and a rumor like that one -- unprovable but possible -- was exactly what was needed to throw people off the track, at least for long enough to make the difference.

I don't think that the patriot missile was a cover-up for anything else spectacular.

no, its bullshit

[circletimessquare]

people do it all the time:

"stalin killed millions, but roosevelt killed the rosenbergs on shoddy evidence, so they are just as evil as each other"

bullshit

you are saying it is a bad thing to forgive your own heinous crimes because someone else has committed a minor crime. that's a valid point. but i am saying it is EQUALLY bad to forgive someone else's heinous crime because you have committed a minor crime. look at people in this thread: north korea tests nukes... and they criticize the usa's policies! how does that work in their minds?

it's human psychology: some people always blame themselves, even to the irrational extremes of finding themselves culpable for someone else's crimes: the kid who blames himself for his parents getting divorced because he didn't get good grades, for example. and some people always blame others, even to the irrational extremes of finding others culpable for their own crimes: the wifebeater who blames his wife for him beating her because she looked at him funny, for example.

do you see how BOTH extremes are dangerous? then do you see how clueless it is to criticize the usa when north korea tests nukes?

the extremes of blaming yourself always/ blaming others always are both are wrong. in reality, in real justice and morality, sometimes you are wrong, sometimes the other guy is wrong. and SPECIFICALLY on the issue of north korea testing nukes, north korea is CLEARLY in the wrong and the usa is CLEARLY free of criticism. and yet: look at some of the idiots here: the first thing they can think of is "why is the usa guilty of this"

wtf? what is wrong with these people?

the usa does PLENTY wrong in the world, don't get me wrong. i am not an apologist for the usa. but if you think you are smart or moral or useful in any way for criticizing the usa when NORTH KOREA tests a nuke, on its very own, after years of warnings from everybody, then you clearly have a serious impediment in your ability to understand the world you live in

so how do you find certainty when placing blame? the judgment of scale comes into play: even in the wildest inflation of the usa's crimes, and with the most sober neutral consideration of north korea's crimes, north korea is still clearly way worse than the usa on this issue of it testing a nuke, no matter WHAT the usa's policy is. seriously. that's reality

to forgive north korea's obvious menace because you don't like the fact the usa doesn't support the kyoto protocol, or don't think the usa should have invaded iraq, or whatever your prejudice is, is just stupid and useless

this is not being an apologist for the usa. this is just neutral reality: north korea is way evil, all by itself, having nothing whatsoever to do with the usa and its actions

Re:no, its bullshit

[Opportunist]

"Neutral reality" and "way evil" don't mix well. What is "evil"? Nobody is "evil" by definition. The industry is not "evil" for dumping waste into the seas, they don't do it to poison the sea, they do it 'cause it is a cheap way of getting rid of the waste. This isn't a Marvel comic book where some supervillain does something evil "just because it's evil". They usually have some very rational reason to do what they do.

NK does it for power. Not to be evil. Where does good and evil come into play now? Nobody is evil just to be evil. It's too much effort for no gain at all.

Bush Bashing

[lheal]

He's not a bully. He's just an ordinary Joe, put in a position he probably shouldn't be in. But he is in that position, and by and large I think he's done a good job.

So there.

Re:Bush Bashing

[Tekzel]

Ehh, I am going to have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't have a couple of years ago probably, but now I have to. I agree that going into Iraq was the right thing, though I have always had reservations on the validity of their reasoning. I just think Sodamn Insane had to go. Regardless, we should have already been done with this thing and pulled out.

On the domestic front, Bush and company have committed sins. The patriot act was a travesty. The administration has trampled all over our rights in an effort to find the "terrists". While I agree it is important to find them, I would rather not give up the rights I enjoy as an American in that effort. Find them through normal means. The sin Bush is most guilty of is making me ALMOST embarassed to be American in some cases. That thing I can never forgive him for. I am not a liberal, but then I am also not a conservative. People at both ends of that spectrum are batshit crazy.

Frankly I couldn't care less who wins the next election, they are likely to be just as wacked. Its just the question of what they will damage when in office.

Re:Bush Bashing

[ElleyKitten]

I agree that he's an ordinary Joe who's in a position he shouldn't be, but he hasn't done a good job. Maybe he's doing a better job (or maybe not) than someone randomly selected for no reason whatsoever , but that really isn't a compliment, because we shouldn't be selecting presidents for no reason. Why do you think he's done a good job?

Re:Bush Bashing

[MisterSquid]

and by and large I think he's done a good job.

This is the precise sentiment that Bush has used to justify and excuse incompetents in his administration. Bush is not doing a "good job." He has involved the world's only superpower in a war of attrition with a nearly-ubiquitous but unpinnable enemy. He has driven the value of the dollar down in order to decrease the price of exports and his policies on everything from health care to energy policy are a shambles.

Bush is not an "ordinary Joe, put in a position he probably shouldn't be in." He sought elected office. His family and pedigree has groomed him for that office, and the man does not lead the country except to line the pockets of his cronies.

Re:Bush Bashing

[rbochan]

I'm honestly asking, brcause for the life of me I can't think of one single thing. Just what has been "good" about the job he's done?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Katrina?
Civil liberties?
Corporate crime?
State sponsored torture?

Is there _anything_ this administration hasn't completely FUBAR'd? Throw me a frikken bone here.

Re:Bush Bashing

[metamatic]

On what factual basis do you think Bush has done a good job?

Number of US civilians killed by terrorists has increased. Unemployment has increased. Value of the dollar has crashed. Economy has gone into massive deficit, national debt has increased. War veterans' benefits have been slashed.

Oh, wait. Tax cuts, right?

Re:Bush Bashing

[Pyromage]

Why do you think it's acceptable for an ordinary joe to be in that position? It's a position of extreme power and responsibility, and I should hope that out of the 300 or so odd million people we have living here that we could find someone that's a bit above average.

Re:Bush Bashing

[frank_adrian314159]

He's helped the Republicans by giving them a new "horrid enemy" since the Commies went away. Just think, if he hadn't had the masterful insight to use a random attack by a bunch of nuts in 2001 to launch a random attack in the Middle East, increasing recruting for the "Islamo-facist" threat, we might have had to take all that money we give to defense contractors and done other things with it! God knows what having a "peace dividend" might have done!

Re:Bush Bashing

[DavidTC]

He's never shot anyone in the face, which the Democrats do all the time, probably.

He knows how to read children's books, it's very impressive. In the past, presidents had to have their wives do that because they didn't know how.

He's taken more vacations by far than any president, which saves money spent at the White House.

Okay, I give up. He hasn't actually done a good job in any...wait, I have it:
He's protected our children from being seduced by teh gays.

Opens the newspaper

...oh...SHIT.

Re:Bush Bashing

[ClamIAm]

George W Bush is the head of his Administration. His Administration has bullied people, groups, and entire nations more times than I could list during his tenure in the White House. If he was truly such a "non-bully, average upstanding Joe" type, he would work to remove these people from power. He has not done this.

And as for how good of a job Mr. Bush has done, I shall remind you of the oath he took when he was sworn into office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If you truly believe that he has done a good job, then you must reconcile this oath with quite a few convincing arguments to the contrary.

Re:Bush Bashing

[metamatic]

On the off chance that you're serious, here's a quick refutation of your first statement:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meta404/252520628/

Re:Bush Bashing

[CousinLarry]

>He's just an ordinary Joe put in a position he probably shouldn't be in. But he is in that position

why is having "an ordinary joe" in the presidency something that any sane person could ever concieve as an acceptable thing? would you want an "ordinary joe" flying your 747? would you want "an ordinary joe" running the nuclear reactor down the road?

yet somehow the president and congressmen should be like "regular guys." as if that makes people somehow thing that the country is fair, like everyone has a shot at doing great things. well, life's not fucking fair. most people suck at everything. there are only a few people capable of doing the important work in the world. bush is not one of them. so much so that we are all in danger.

So does this mean

[tehlinux]

the mother fucker bought yellow cake?

Re:"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaga

[Don_dumb]

I don't think that the patriot missile was a cover-up for anything else spectacular

I seem to remember that in Desert Storm, 'news' of Patriot missiles downing Scuds was used to keep Israel from wading-in, but the Patroits didn't actually knock down any Scuds during that operation, it was all a successful hoax. Perhaps not spectacular.

Bad taste... but obligatory

[bquickfoo]

I for one will welcome our North Korean nuclear overlords.

After careful review ...

[WillRobinson]

After looking at the data, the White House has determined that the actual epicenter was in China, where it was determined that 6,000,000 solders were walking in step towards the N. Korea border.

Can't blame them

[CrazyTalk]

After all, they fully expect (and not without reason)that their country will be invaded by the US some day. I would think they would want to do everything they could to assure that doesn't happen. Hopefully MAD will keep them from using the weapon offensively - after all, it worked on the Russians for 40 years.

Re:Can't blame them

[Petkov]

How do you define sane? Are you a medical perofessional who specilizes in insanity cases? Have you examined the N Korean leader to be able to determine his "insanity" or sanity"?? NO? Then what proof do you have he is "insane"? Oh his actions told you so? If I am about to attack you and won't let you do anything a normal country is allowed to do wont you be behaving in a simular manner? I think you need to read some Thimoty Leary. And stop throwing words around.

Re:Can't blame them

[MrPink2U]

Yeah, he's definitely a rational mature individual. His country is one of the poorest in the world, but all he can spend his money on is his military. I'm not sure whether he is insane or not(IANOD), but his priorities are definitely fucked!

Why the hell would you defend this guy in any form whatsoever?

Pakistan

[Per Abrahamsen]

Apropos racist prejudices, Pakistan is not "an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship". It is a good old-fascioned military dictatorship, whose main internal opposition is from Islamic fundamentalist groups (more or less are in control of Pakistans western province).

Re:Pakistan

[tehcyder]

It is a good old-fascioned military dictatorship

Nice spelling. And you're right, the US would hardly be in favour of a genuine Islamic fundamentalist government at the moment.

Re:Pakistan

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. It's probably a good thing that Pakistan is a military dictatorship. If they allowed the people to elect their leadership, they'd probably elect fundamentalist Islamic wackos.

Some countries just aren't fit to have a democracy. Don't bash the military for doing what's best for the people, even if the people don't know enough to admit it.

I disagree

[briancnorton]

Nukes are FAR more valuable than their raw destructive power.

In the 60's, the soviet union issued a statement saying that they will NEVER use nukes FIRST, expecting us to reply in kind. We said "thanks, we appreciate that!" The *threat* of tactical nuclear attack on soviet forces coming through east germany to the west prevented WWIII.

1990, Pakistan and india's relations reach a boiling point. India tests a bomb, then pakistan tests a bomb. The implied threat has prevented a conventional war.

Why is Israel still on the map? Sure, they are tough SOBs, and the US has their back, but they are seriously outnumbered in the middle east. The threat of nuclear counter-attack is enough to prevent the arab world from all ganging up on them.

My point is that Nuclear weapons ARE useful, especially as a guarantor of security. (what paranoid-ass Kim Chong-il wants the most) Not only have nukes ended a war (WWII) but they are really good at preventing one from starting. North Korea doesn't want to nuke the US, they want to nuke themselves if we start pouring across the border.

I trully don't get it

[Petkov]

How can a country which is so isolated economically and commercially be able to even gather the technology together to be able to create a nuclear weapon? Don't kid yoruself, these people have been in a virtual vacuum for years and years. They survive on food aid given to them by the Russians, Chinese and South Koreans. Their so called scary missles tests were pathetic attempts to get attention. And the world media of course ate it all up and threw it back at us. Now we are given more fear. The first responce up on the top of the page was by how scared somebody was. Is THAT how the 21 century will be known as? The century of fear? Anyway, back to N Korea. I dont belive for a second they have a nuclear bomb. Jyts like back in 2003 I KNEW Iraq had NO weapons of mass distractions. After 10 years of tough economci sanctions there was no way Iraq would be able to. Same as North Korea. No this is simply more posturing by N Korea and of course the corporate owned media begins screaming nukes nukes, fear FEAR! Man, I really prefer to live in the 1970s. Thing were lot better than. 21 century is bullshit.

Re:I trully don't get it

[dlhm]

Reference https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_ 2002.htm#05

Re:I trully don't get it

[Petkov]

well, turned out this whole proof or whatever you sent me the link to read was WRONG, wasnt it? It is from 2002. We are now October 2006. NO WMD were found. No "programs" were found. No "programmes" were found. Nothing was found. Better luck next time.

Re:I trully don't get it

[dlhm]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html I guess this is wrong too....

Re:I trully don't get it

[deathsquirrel]

Not wrong, just meaningless. They were Iran/Iraq war era chemical munitions that had degraded to the point of being useless as weapons. They weren't the weapons we were looking for.

Re:I trully don't get it

[dlhm]

I guess that goes to show that you won't believe anything but your own preconcieved idea's or whatever cnn tells you to believe. The report says that they are still dangerous, and what do you mean they are not what we were looking for? Are they or are they not WMD's?

Re:I trully don't get it

[dlhm]

I concede, you are right Sen. Rick Santorum, the NGIC and I need to grow a brain, we are all wrong, and all of us are retards..

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[TheGreek]

How many CONGRESS OR SENATOR OR PRESIDENT'S KIDS AT WAR????

-- ZERO --

The number was a bit higher than zero in 2003. Dunno what it is now, but you're still a retard.

Crossposting??

[Anonymous Coward]

Crossposting your comments to the New York Times now? Or stealing someone else's ideas? http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=59

Re:Crossposting??

[stubear]

hmmm...the blog comment was attributed to "cts". This slashdot comment is attributed to "circletimessquare". You do the math. Informative indeed.

Re:"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaga

[M1FCJ]

All of that carrot story was a misinformation put out to prevent disclosing the advances in radars that can be carried by aircrafts. I'm sure Germans were not fooled, they had their own share of night figthers (mainly Ju-88s) with radars.

Geneva convention

[dbIII]

It is also against the Geneva convention to use them on civilians. Even if you think that ten year old boy in an ambulance owned by a Christian aid organisation is a possible terrorist it is illegal to use weapons like this to kill him if his six year old sister is there with him - not using it on civilians means not using it on civilians and not some sickening bit of spin. If your enemy is uncivilised and puts an anti-aircraft gun on the front law of a hospital - tough - if you want to remain on the list of civilised countries you don't go bombing civilian targets with weapons like these.

Re:Geneva convention

[Hubbell]

Someone obviously doesn't understand how most conventional wars in the last century wre fought. Bombing the living hell out of population and manufacturing centers to demoralize and cripple to enemy. Dresden and Tokyo ring any bells? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think we were still considered civilized after those, and NOTHING we have done yet today or will do in the future will ever be equal to that amount of death and destruction. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in *each* of those bombings, not a few dozen/hundred in some bombings as in this war.

Re:Geneva convention

[dbIII]

Dresden and Tokyo ring any bells? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think we were still considered civilized after those

Why do you think that item is in the Geneva convention in the first place? It was added after those events.

Re:Geneva convention

[overunderunderdone]

not using it on civilians means not using it on civilians and not some sickening bit of spin. If your enemy is uncivilised and puts an anti-aircraft gun on the front law of a hospital - tough - if you want to remain on the list of civilised countries you don't go bombing civilian targets with weapons like these.

You have obviously not ever read the Geneva convetions. They are VERY clear on this exact subject. Hospitals are given special protections by the 4th Geneva convetion. BUT having an AA gun on the front lawn would change that: "Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy."... if that AA gun is used the hospital looses it's status under the 4th Geneva Convention. Even it's presence is probably sufficient to lose it's status. The only weapons allowed in a Hostpital that would NOT lose it it's protected status is "small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service," (also article 19). Hospitals (but not other civillian targets in a similar situation) enjoy the additional protection that they must be given a warning prior to being attacked (unless that attack is self-defence from a combatant taking fire from the hospital)

Other than that the presense of a valid military target makes it a valid military target regardless of the presence of civilians. Placing such a target among civillians in an attempt to use the civillians as a shield is itself the war crime, attacking that target is NOT. The attacker is still expected to try to minimise civillian casualties and there is a rule of proportionality that says the risk (or certainty) of civillian casualties must have some proportionality to the value of the target. And, there is a rule about "indiscriminate attacks" which would cover using a weapon with a wide area of effect on a small target surrounded by civillians. Using a cluster bomb on an armored column in the middle of the desert is perfectly valid (a weapon with a wide effect used on one big target far from civillians), using a cluster bomb on a village because there is an AA gun on either end is NOT valid (using a weapon with a wide effect on two distinct targets separated by a lot of civillians) . Using a cluster bomb on an armored column in the middle of a village is debatable it's arguably one big target and using one big weapon to take it out in one fell swoop is probably valid according to the Geneva convetion. Though you still have the proportionality principle to deal with... doing so in the middle of a heated battle for a vital military objective would be different from doing so when it's just a target of opportunity without much military value.

Re:Geneva convention

[muyuubyou]

I certainly don't consider the USA to be very civilized, but I expect some progress over 1945. America is probably the most backwards of all western nations, with more religious wackos than any other and with the most disdain for science. It's up there with "moderated" muslim nations. Still, it's a big country and there are numerous brilliant individuals coming out of it.

Those of you who justify the NUKING of CIVILIAN CITY CENTERS like Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be responsible when some day the USA gets nuked and then people still have the nerve to justify it in hindsight. It's bound to happen, I just prefer it to happen once I'm not alive to see it.

Re:Geneva convention

[dbIII]

And, there is a rule about "indiscriminate attacks"

That was my entire point, and that is where the Geneva Convention was breached. Using cluster bombs on cities full of civilians is explicitly against the rules.

Re:Geneva convention

[overunderunderdone]

That was my entire point, and that is where the Geneva Convention was breached. Using cluster bombs on cities full of civilians is explicitly against the rules.

OK, I'll grant that. Your point about the AA gun in a Hospital muddied the waters for me. legally, It's a legitimate target, but not for cluster bombs.

One other caveat, there are conditions where cluster munitions would still be legal despite the presence of (at least some) civilians. Basically the rule is you can't use a weapon that effects a wide area to get multiple, separate and distinct targets if those targets are separated by a bunch of civilians. It's a general principle not an explicit rule about cluster bombs per se (any weapon that affects an area significantly bigger than the target would qualify). One big target occupying roughly the same amount of space as the area of effect of the weapon would be a legal target for that weapon (at least according to the rule). For example cluster bombs affect an area roughly the size of a couple football fields... using cluster bombs on a large military installation would be legal even if that installation is in the middle of a city. An armored column all bunched together coming down a four lane highway is another target where cluster munitions would arguably be legal. The same column dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood is very clearly not.

Re:Geneva convention

[dbIII]

OK, I'll grant that. Your point about the AA gun in a Hospital

The thing didn't get bombed or perhaps even noticed by opposing military forces - but this point is that if one side violates the Geneva convention you still have no excuse to violate it yourself unless you want to use schoolyard arguments.

There were certainly situations in Iraq and more recently in Lebanon to bring Israel into it where cluster bombs were used against exclusively civilian targets. Faulty intelligence and hindsight can be used as excuses after the fact - but before the fact even if you think one guy you really hate is hiding in a block of flats it is still a violation of the Geneva convention to use such an indiscriminate weapon which covers a huge area and sows a minefield for later area denial on civilian targets.

Slight correction.

[Jerk City Troll]

You misspelt “ronely”. Please do try to get it right next time.

naah

[robpoe]

They didn't test a nuke.

They had 500,000 people all jump at the same time and yell BOOM!!!

Re: No need for US to take them

[noigmn]

If china can get the support of the US, Japan, etc. They can expand their borders a little, and no one will care.

Is it possible?

[GooberToo]

Is it possible, under order of the state, all of North Korea jumped up and down at the same time; thusly providing for the measured activity. They could then release a little nuclear waste into the air for good measure?

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[fabe3k]

They are surrounded by a communist military dictatorship on one side (China) and an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship on the other (Pakistan - one supported by US).

China is currently more like a capitalistic party dictatorship. And I wouldn't go so far as to call the Pakistan government Islamic fundamentalistic quite yet. Althoug this might change in the next years.

Re:Political Games

[smilindog2000]

I get confused by the consistent -1 troll mods like the one you got. Is it troll to state a genuine opinion? Seems to me that you've been trolled for not agreeing with others.

That said, I don't agree with you either, though if I had mod points, I'd mark your post 'interesting'. I read somewhere else here that Russia has already confirmed that it was a nuclear blast, so it probably was. Remember... no country that ever tried to make a nuke and who has been left alone long enough has failed. Apparently, it's a lot easier than putting a man on the moon.

The reason I disagree with your idea that the Bush will use this as fuel to justify invading NK is simple. Our military is tapped-out in Iraq. We couldn't invade the Falklands right now. Besides, we've got semi-friendly countries all around NK, and they all want us to stay non-hostile to NK (not that Bush listens to anybody).

I think it's much more likely that Bush would like to invade Iran. The link there between WMD and terrorists is crystal clear. Also, we've already got our military at their door, and their leader is a raving lunatic. If we attack sooner than later, we'll be attacking a non-nuclear opponent, while if we wait too long, they'll have the big bomb. We might even get Israel to help. It'd be a great way to get our military back to doing what it was designed for: winning wars against armies. It might even improve Bush's ratings back in the US. We love football, and winning battles. Heck, I'm proud as I can be that our warriors are top-notch. I even want to lend a hand in improving their tech gear.

However, invading Iran would simply make an even bigger mess in the Middle East. As crusading invaders discovered, winning battles is easier than winning the hearts of the people. I hate to say it, but in this case, the French were right. I really HATE it when the French are right.

Erm?

[Dobeln]

"Totally his fault, since Clinton had already resolved the NK issue, and all Bush Jr had to do was not screw it up. "

I seriously hope that you are joking here.

Re:Erm?

[smilindog2000]

I'm totally serious. We had an agreement where we bribe them over-the-table with yearly cash payments, and in a bilateral agreement promised not to attack them, ever. In return, we had our nuclear inspectors on-site in NK, verifying that all those spent fuel rods stayed where they were. Of course, NK continued to pursue nuclear technology in secret, but only a fool would have expected otherwise. The important step was safeguarding the nuclear fuel.

Is the problem you have with my position a principle kind of thing, or do you feel that we had not in fact made the world safer from NK with the old agreement? Here's an insight few Americans get: our principles get shat on by the world at large every day. To live and play well with others, we have to get off our high horse, and deal with these guys on their own level.

A good example of this is how we deal with bribery in other countries. US companies cannot legally bribe foreign officials. However, all our competitors in those countries know how things are done, and they grease the wheels with the expected bribes. Our companies hands are tied, in an unfair position. So, in reality, US companies often either ignore the bribery laws, or high contractors to do it for them. What would you have them do?

NG presence overseas is large

[paranode]

Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

Huh? Where have you been? Joining the NG is probably the MOST likely way to get sent to Iraq right now. The military is relying heavily on reserves/NG and the NG just recently failed to meet its recruiting goals which is almost surely because people know that they might as well join Active Duty because they will be getting sent overseas.

Atomic Bomb Test

[mikeschmitt]

To smash the simple atom All mankind was intent Now, any day The atom may Return the compliment

In fact,....

[WindBourne]

Iraq and Afghanistan has shown us that the DOD will throw away good plans and substitute horrible plans for a bit of politics.

Re:In fact,....

[khallow]

Actually they don't. The actual invasions were extremely competent, and the post-invasion mess is the Bush administration's doing.

Re:In fact,....

[coaxial]

Or that the DoD embrasses the saying, "Ours is not to wonder why. Ours is just to do and die." Keep in mind mind the horrible plans were imposed by their leaders.

Simple Solution...

[joshsnow]

...let DUKE NUKEM sort 'em out!!

The sad thing is

[paranode]

The alternative in the last election represents a far-left anti-war contingency. Although I disagree with the war in Iraq, to pretend that voting for somebody else (Kerry, in reality, was the only choice) would have made things better is disillusioned. It's questionable whether they would have even gone after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, much less take any kind of aggressive stance against North Korea or Iran developing a nuclear arsenal. Although diplomacy can work (and often does), the far left proponents of that tactic often fail to notice when the people they are dealing with are not of the same sane mind. Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, etc are not like some Senator of the opposite party with whom you can just 'strike a deal'.

Our political system is becoming more corrupt and this two-party stronghold gives us the choice between dumb and dumber. Who is dumb and who is dumber will just depend on your view of the issues, but one thing you can bet on is they will both do harm in some fashion.

Re:The sad thing is

[metamatic]

The alternative in the last election represents a far-left anti-war contingency.

No, the sad thing is that you believe that. Kerry voted for the Iraq war, go look it up. His position was that he would have gone to war too, he just would have done it better.

There was no anti-war candidate in the last election who had a hope in hell of winning. That's why Kerry lost--he didn't appeal to the left because he kept speaking in favor of the war on terror, and he didn't appeal to the right because he was smeared by Fox News et al as some kind of anti-war nut.

Re:The sad thing is

[megaditto]

Damn right.

Good thing we did not try to establish checks and balances by electing those Democrats. Now, with the single Party in charge of the House, Senate, White House, and the Supreme Court, we have done so much better.

We have budget surplus!
We caught Bin Laden and prevented Al Qaeda recruitment (e.g. in Iraq)
We destroyed nuclear ambitions of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea!
We have outlawed abortion!
We have reduced the government!
We defended our Constitution and Habeas Corpus.
Our small busnesses are growing and
We stopped the outsourcing!

See how much we accomplished with the "true conservatives" at the wheel...

Re:The sad thing is

[1u3hr]

The alternative in the last election represents a far-left anti-war contingency. Although I disagree with the war in Iraq, to pretend that voting for somebody else (Kerry, in reality, was the only choice)

You're saying that Kerry was "far left"?

He was slightly to the left of the nutjob you did elect, perhaps. Amazing that a decorated vet runs against a deserter and was painted as a pacifist appeaser.

Re:The sad thing is

[Eccles]

You are truly an anonymous coward. No member of Kerry's crew was part of the Swift Boat assholes. From Wikipedia:

From an interview published the day before the letter was made public: " '[Kerry] earned his medals, he did what he was supposed to do in Vietnam,' said retired Coast Guard Captain Adrian Lonsdale, who was in the chain of command above Kerry and oversaw various operations dealing with Navy swift boats of the type Kerry commanded. 'But I was very disappointed in his statements after he got out of the Navy.' "[9]

Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT. He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.

All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described 'band of brothers'. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "pure fabrication" (Jim Rassmann), "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).[10][11][12][13]

No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crewmember Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that Kerry deserved the medal; he stated that after discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present. [14][15]

PyongYang go Boom?

[ackthpt]

It scares the hell out of me.

I can't tell from your AC whether you live in the vicinity of NK, but even several thousand miles away I do worry, not directly about missiles hitting my home, but the fallout from anything which may transpire as a result of this test. NK has proven to be nothing more than a comical regime of inbred tin-pot dictators. Their news about this event "making out army happy" only underscores this. These people charge right ahead and do as they say, regardless of the reprecussions -- I think largely because China and, to a lesser degree, Russia have urged calm. China seems to finally be getting the clue that they really have no leverage over these idiots and that the shit will hit the fan and they'll get hit with some of the blowback.

Worst that could come of it, as I was thinking about this last night at 2 AM, a combined attack on Pyongyang by RoK and US forces in a lightning attack, but a lot of missiles still landing in South Korea and a lot of death and destruction as the truly bizarre Kim Il Jong goes out like his hero John Wayne, in a blaze of glory.

Stand by for people predicting this will improve GOP Hawk candidates re-election. These jokers have been in the pit for almost 6 years and these are their results. "Re-elect me, I'll be tough on North Korea ... finally."

Re:PyongYang go Boom?

[tehcyder]

a lot of death and destruction as the truly bizarre Kim Il Jong goes out like his hero John Wayne, in a blaze of glory.

Surely his cockroach-self will escape in a mini spaceship?

Re:PyongYang go Boom?

[ackthpt]

Surely his cockroach-self will escape in a mini spaceship?

I'm still waiting for the sequel. Know if there's one in the works? :-)

Re:PyongYang go Boom?

[senatorpjt]

Yeah. it's on Fox News, right now.

Poverty?

[wfolta]

Nice propaganda!

First, being below the poverty line in the US does not mean a person cannot meet their basic needs. (I could qupte all kinds of semi-meaningful statistics like the number of such homes with telephones, refrigerators, and televisions, but let's stick with the basic definition which is more complicated than "can't meet their basic needs".) I'm not saying I'd like to live below the poverty line, but that line is not what propagandists make it out to be.

Second, I believe that US government statistics are based on INCOME, which does not count welfare, assistance from charitable organizations, etc,. People below the poverty line receive more in benefits than their "income" figure would indicate. So comparing them directly to poverty statistics from other nations, which may well (sensibly) count benefits, is misleading. (In fact, there is an unfortunate side-effect from welfare rules that encourages those on welfare to lower their independent income to maximise their welfare benefits.)

Third, your "starvation itself" remark is simply inflammatory with nothing to support it, but it is obviously meant to imply that 10% of the US population is starving, which is patently untrue.

Fourth, your "The US government... hide miles underground..." remark is ridiculous. They in fact do have a major concern and run policy towards that end. But in case of a disaster of any kind (including nuclear war), government functions must continue to the extent that they can, otherwise human loses will be compounded as the country colapses into sub-feudal societies. Your remark is the typical ignorant conspiracy theory that is more appropriate for X-Files than an "educated" mind.

Bush speech

[accessdeniednsp]

Bush just got off the wire with his speech. Highlights include:

* These actions are unacceptable and deserve immediate response by the UN Security Council
* We will hold NK accountable
* The US remains committed to diplomacy
* NK people deserve a bright future and we will help them if we can

No war mongering and threat of retaliation and attacks.

Slashdot fortune

[EVil Lawyer]

This happens to be the fortune that was displayed for me on this page: I've got a bad feeling about this.

My cat vs. North Korea

[Anonymous Meoward]

To put the lunacy of NK in perspective, consider that:

• My cat will never be able to comprehend a nuclear weapon.
• He is fed more than the average North Korean.

Nukes

[zero1101]

How could we let the Koreans build a science facility, THEN attach covert ops, AND build ghosts?? I hope they don't have cloaking...

Pinnacle

[jefu]

More like the heart of propaganda - and it is used by all sides. In particular, the parent uses exactly this technique to redefine liberalistm.

Re:Pinnacle

[TapeCutter]

Naturally I posted first and looked up the definition of WMD later. Turns out the definition is very fuzzy (ie: The term is a propagandist's delight).

From the above link: The US civil defense includes "cactus needles coated with botulin toxin" as an example of a WMD. And, "The US FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) as WMD: "A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders"."

Seems to me an Aussie arsonist with a box of matches and a hot NW wind can easily "overwhelm local responders".

Propaganda and hyperbole aside: The basic point is that Saddam's unconventional weapons were at no time worthy of the "strong" WMD tag because he lacked the ability to deploy them as such. It could be argued that the gas attack on the Kurds that killed up to 10% of the city's population was such a deployment. However "at best" they were comprable to some weapons recently used by the US, the thermobaric weapons used in Afghanistan come to mind.

Returning to propaganda mode and the point made by the original poster: If the US insists on labeling Saddam's unconventional weapons as WMD's, they open themselves up to similar critisims when they use "unusual" weapons of comprable force (eg: thermobaric, WP), or lasting impact (eg: DU, UXB's). Personaly I think the critisim is valid but it can cloud the central issue, ie: Saddam's genocidal intentions.

psht, softball

[BitterAndDrunk]

He's done a great job for anyone in the oil industry?

Good news and bad news

[cryptoguy]

Bad news: worldwide tensions reach an even more dangerous level.

Good news: At least NK now has one fewer nuclear devices.

Maybe if they'd run a half a dozen more tests we could all rest easy.

Re:Good news and bad news

[cryptoguy]

Reminds me of a Dirty Harry movie. "You're asking yourself if I had five nukes or 6...well, I don't remember either. You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?"

More destructive = less wmd, huh?

[FhnuZoag]

That's a stupid distinction. By that argument, nuclear bombs are less WMD than hollowpoint pistol rounds.

Re:More destructive = less wmd, huh?

[maxume]

It's a context thing. Daisy cutters were designed to make a big boom, which is equally useful for clearing jungle as it is for vaporizing people. Chemical weapons are designed to kill people.

I see your point about my argument(it lacks clarity and specification), but I don't really think that pistol rounds, which are expended one at a time, by one person trying to kill another person, are relevant to a discussion of weapons capable of killing en masse.

land before time

[jaimz22]

the US had atom bombs in the 1940's ... thats 60 years go! what headlines will we see next "North Korea to have colored television"

Re:redneck mindset

[nickos]

Bush-redneck. Blair is a redneck. Kim il jung is a redneck. Saddam is a redneck. And so on. When you see international tension, look at their leaders, invariably they are rednecks.

Look, I'm not a fan of Blair by any stretch, but calling him a redneck is just silly. He studied law at Oxford, and went on to become a barrister before becoming a politician.

What should I do if the nukes really start flying?

[centered]

I've thought about this a lot lately with Bush running our country, but now today I am seriously considering my options. What should I do if the nukes really start flying? I don't have a bomb shelter, so maybe I'm screwed no matter what. But let's say I live far from a major US city, and the nukes mostly fly on foreign soils. Say that the nukes put a lot of radiation into the atmosphere, but we don't all die right away (no major nuclear winter). What should I do? More than just jokes about "kiss my ass goodbye", I'm lookin for real options. How do I procure water and/or food for the long haul? Where should I go? How long do I have to live? Most importantly: what can I do to PREPARE for this possibility? What can I can buy or stockpile or learn that will give me an advantage in the aftermath?

The ugly secert about nuclear weapons.

[LWATCDR]

A fission weapon is 1940s technology.

Your point about Japan building nukes left out some details.

Japan has around 32 tons of plutonium on hand. They use it in their reactors. That is enough for four thousand weapons.
The only thing that keeps Japan from being a major nuclear power is they don't want to be a nuclear power.

China is the real worry right now. They can not be happy that their puppet is running amoke.

What worries me is if they UN tries to blockade North Korea. The Navy is the one US service that isn't being really taxed by the war in Iraq. If Russia and China close their boarders then it could be pretty air tight.

Re:Bush Bashing? - it's not bashing!

[j_snare]

If he was unqualified, which is obvious, he had no business running

My government prof back in college used to say that anyone running for public office is not fit for it. Just to explain a little, this is in reference to the amount scrutiny you're under when you're in public office. If you want that, you must be crazy!

Anyway, on the point of the thread, Bush may suck, but why the hell can't anyone come up with anyone better? *That's* why Bush won the last election. No one else could provide a decent choice, and due to the way our system works, your choices are limited to people supported by a major party. If there would have been a decent candidate who wasn't an idiot, he would have mopped the floor with Bush and friends.

Boy did China lose face

[Phoenix666]

As the major supplier of aid to NK, China should have been able to curb their client state. But they didn't. Even after they said to NK the diplomatic equivalent of, "No don't you frickin' dare conduct a nuclear test." Talk about losing face.

Also, because they lost face now SK, Japan, and Taiwan could well pull nuclear arsenals out of their hats to counterbalance NK. China's regional security situation instantly becomes much more complicated--can't really invade Taiwan anymore, can't really cow Japan anymore, can't expand its empire the way it wants to.

Seems to me that putting pressure on NK is pointless. The path to success is putting pressure on China. They're a lot more integrated with the rest of the world and have a whole lot more to lose. Tell the Chinese to deal with their mess, or the rest of the world will. And China will lose even more face and wind up with even more compromised regional security.

Harsh words

[JPriest]

China _and_ Japan have called it unacceptable, wow. Unacceptable is when my 5 year old comes home from Kindergarten with a yellow sticker. Unacceptable is when my dog barks are people walking past the house.

br>Rest assured, if the US does not stop it, nobody else will, and regardless of the decision the US makes (action or no action), the majority of the world will disagree with it.

Why Saddam denied access to UNSCOM

[metamatic]

No, he didn't. Saddam went out of his way to frustrate their efforts. How many times were the denied access to sites? How many times were they kicked out?

Saddam denied access to weapons inspectors who he claimed were CIA spies rather than legimitate UN weapons inspectors.

And you know what? He was right. They were CIA spies. Of course, the US media weren't keen to remind people of that minor detail.

fake out with large explosion

[peter303]

Its difficult to distinquish a large explosion from a small bomb seismically. Though I guess it is really a bomb, I havent seen the full analysis it. It was thought by some seismologists that Pakstan and Indian "spiked" their 1998 nuclear tests to make them appear bigger than they were. Certainly the seismic data did not support their size.

'brought happiness to its people.'

[crivens]

"'brought happiness to its people.'"

Right, I'm sure the detontation of a nuclear device brings clothes and food to the door of those in need. And I'm sure it gives the average citizen a warm fuzzy feeling. Yes, I have no job but we have nuclear capabilities!

I hate bullshit like this....

Re:'brought happiness to its people.'

[johanw]

It sore brings them something positive: the US is less likely to invade North Korea now that NK is able to punch back a little. Sure, Iraq turned out to be able to punch back too but the stupid cultural-deficient occupants of the white house didn't forsee that. But NK has now BOTH nukes AND missles, with some luck they could launch a desperate nuke on the US west coast when the US invades. Could be enough reason to keep the US out, especially since NK has no oil anyway.

Re:'brought happiness to its people.'

[majortom1981]

OR it could get china worried enough to be on our side. Hoepfully all the other countries will see this as a problem. IF that happens i would hate to be North Korea right now. I would think this would make chine nervous .

Good grief.

[jotaeleemeese]

How many more bits of your constitution, laws, international treaties, principles and moral guidelines do you need eviscerated before you stop supporting this individual?

Poverty level.

[hagbard5235]

Check your facts. US poverty level is set by household size at about $9k plus $3k per additional household member per year.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[tezbobobo]

Actually, I believe I was correct. The original poster supplied:

On September 11th, 2006 a once peaceful nation is now run by violent religous extremists.

This is a clear inference that there has been a change. Whilst America may be run by violent religious extremists, in the course of his arguement implied it was a causative change. I posit there has been no change therefore the fact that America may, or may not, be run by violent extremists is irrelevant.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Millenniumman]

Russia has almost twice as many nuclear weapons as the U.S., and has somewhat more active warheads.

The U.S. isn't going to go out and nuke people without huge provocation. Neither is the U.K., France, or Russia. You can't safely say the same thing about North Korea or Iran.

Blame Clinton!

[Valdrax]

You then come along, and accuse the owner/police officer of being responsible for the gunfire because he was CEO of the SuperSoaker manufacturer.

But in the meantime, all conservative talk radio can say about the subject is that the previous administration caved in under pressure and was selling guns -- that's right guns! -- and ridicules anyone who tries to point out that they're water guns.

Eh, as you say, the truth of history is more complicated than either side's partisans are willing to admit.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[tezbobobo]

A comparative qualitative assessment is one in which there is an assessment based not of a large body of evidence but instead select evidence. It is generally not considered, in scientific process, to be self vindicating. It is still used valuably in academia.

As for realists and realism, it helps to disassociate realist ideologies from ideaologues. I think all government officials have a burden and mandate to do what is right for the citizens of there country. I'm not excusing their actions, but at the end of the day, they are able to come back and say, "I did it for my country."

Is North Korea and America that different in this?

I'd love to say it to him. That old fucking turd.

[FatSean]

I'd also like to piss on Reagan's grave.

Soldiers

[Khammurabi]

This is sad- I am interested in the technical aspects of the N. Korea bomb, and I come on slashdot and have to hear not just Bush bashing (you'll have that) but soldier bashing.

Unfortunately most people in today's culture treat the armed forces as an extension of the Presidency, and fail to see a distinction between the two. I lay a large chunk of the blame on the disintegration of Congress over the past century. The legislative branch was originally given the power to decide when and where to declare war for two very good reasons. First, because if one man (the president) had the power to initiate war at a whim, our country would end up in trouble far more often than was prudent. And second, because congress would not authorize a war without first realizing that the people that are being sent to war are the children of the voters that the congress men and women represent.

Most Americans also seem to forget that the executive branch was originally created to enforce the laws and will of the legislative branch (AKA: Congress). Anything not in writing was left up to the discretion of the President, but everything that was in writing the president was supposed to do on behalf of Congress. To insure the president's compliance in matters of Congress, the founders wrote a cause to impeach such people should they appear. But originally, it was the legislative branch that had control of the nation, not the executive. As such, the country was less prone to dive into wars without careful consideration. But that was then, this is now.

The real point that people need to realize is that congress has the power to limit the amount of force being used, and the capacity in which to use it. So please, stop faulting the president or the troops at his disposal. Soldiers do what their told, and do it to the best of their ability. If you don't like what they're being told to do, complain to your congressman, not the president. After all, congress is the only political body in the nation that can constitutionally contrain the president's powers. Congress is the one that's supposed to be keeping an eye on presidential activities. And here's the REALLY important part for you whiners out there: The president is LEGALLY allowed to ignore anyone and everyone, with the sole exception being Congress.

Re:Soldiers

[vertinox]

The president is LEGALLY allowed to ignore anyone and everyone, with the sole exception being Congress.

And the Supreme Court.

Re:Soldiers

[mr_matticus]

That's all well and good except for the fact that the military is directed not by Congress, but by the President. Congress funds the military and has the sole right to declare war, but no authority over the operation affairs of the military, power over which is vested exclusively in the executive. The activities of the past several decades have not, strictly speaking, been wars in the legal sense. As such, Congress has been saved (or has absolved itself, depending on your perspective) of the whole Iraq affair. They have been executive-mandated military actions, which Congress has permitted. There is a philosophical argument as to whether Congress should allow the President to direct the military for 3+ years without legislative intervention, but considering Iraq is not a declared war, it is the PRESIDENT who must be held accountable for the actions undertaken to this point.

The intervention (or non-intervention) of Congress in this whole affair is a separate issue from who is responsible for the actions and who has signed the orders and set the agenda. The office of the president has done such.

Re:Soldiers

[Khammurabi]

And the Supreme Court.

Nope. He's free to ignore the verdicts of the Supreme Court. The enforcement of Supreme Court rulings is delegated to the executive branch. If the executive branch decides not to enforce a ruling, there's nothing they can do about it.

The only legal body with authority over the President in the United States is Congress.

As President Jackson once remarked about Chief Justice Marshall: "He has made the decision now let him enforce it!"

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[tezbobobo]

Yeah, I think you are right. Dr Simmon Adams writes about this in his book "All the worlds troubles". I think the folly nowadays is not to understand the Cold War mentality. People thought very differently then and it is hard for the younger generation to understand the modus operadi was set in the 50s to 80s.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[tehcyder]

While India has not yet signed the NPT, they do have a no first strike policy

Well, that's reassuring, because obviously there's no possible way that could ever change in the future.

China needs North Korea

[swb]

China wants (and probably needs) North Korea as a geopolitical pawn in order to score political points, both in the pacific rim and with the west. Kim does something wacky, the Chinese give him a tug on his leash and foreign governments give China concessions.

The North Koreans, despite Kim's nutty behavior, know that China sets the parameters of what the North can get away with and that deviating too far from their desires will either result in allowing the U.S. to use whatever force it deeems necessary (desirable as it allows them to play 'good guy') or, if need be, with their own army, although this would probably end up being a Chinese-backed coup which kept North Korea communist, although they would probably mass a dozen armored divisions on the border to back their play and keep out the refugees.

The North Korean leadership doesn't really care if they're Chinese lapdogs, as long as they get to stay in power and they know that the worst possible outcome is a Chinese takeover -- an American attack would allow them to run to China as a safe harbor.

The reason we'll never see change on the Korean front is that China and Kim both understand the parameters well and both need each other. In many ways, ignorning Kim, despite how crazy and dangerous he is, is the best policy. China won't allow him to go over the edge and by ignoring him, we also don't play into the Chinese protection racket.

Re:China needs North Korea

[Perl-Pusher]

We agree here, but I think Kim Ill Jong is not following the parameters set by China. It's like a person who trains a Rotweiller to kill and then is surprised when they go to jail after the dog has mauled the face of the neighbor's kid. The Chinese military is not at all happy with him. There is also the worry that this will cause Taiwan to want nukes. Taiwan wants to declare independence from the mainland but cannot do so without being instantly overwhelmed. Upsetting the status quo would not be benificial to China's goal of uniting the two. It will be telling to see how far China will let the UN security council go. Then again sanctions are useless if China ignores them.

Re:China needs North Korea

[swb]

It could very easily be that the Chinese have allowed (if not actively participated) in this latest "upping of the ante" on the part of the North Koreans to try to reclaim the attention of the West. The world's attention has been centered between Cairo and Islamabad and on Arab/Muslim/Western conflicts, and while the Chinese can make diplomatic hay playing nice, buying oil and building industrial facilities, they aren't players and can't leverage political gains that they can get by being seen as the check on Kim.

By allowing Kim to set off a nuke -- or setting one off for him, since they just restarted enrichment a year or so ago, how do we even know this was a local product and not a Chinese placebo? -- they ratchet up the tension to remind the US that they have a situation they would like us to be involved in.

I don't doubt the Chinese military dislike Kim going off reservation -- despite their size, they really don't like the idea of mopping up in North Korea and they especially don't like the idea of a situation requiring them to put themselves between the Koreans and the U.S. Despite our apparent inability to fight effectively against the Iraqi insurgency, the Chinese know that crossing swords with the U.S. militarily would result in heavy losses even without a decisive set-piece ground battle, since much of our military force is designed around the cold war scenerios of numerically superior Soviet armor and infantry. Gulf War I amply demonstrated our ability to turn columns of T-72s and infantry into slag as if by magic.

The bit about uneducated soldiers.

[Grendel Drago]

The bit about undereducated soldiers may be floating around because the service has been lowering its entrance requirements to include criminals, neo-Nazis, and gang members. They've also lowered their intelligence exam requirements, and heavily recruit from poor neighborhoods where people may not have as many options. (But they don't want gays. Definitely not gays. We have limits, you see.)

So if you're wondering why soldiers are stereotyped as violent, dimwitted brutes, it's because that's the pool the service is currently recruiting from. Probably because most folks aren't enamored of the "spend the next who knows how many years in a sandy hellhole hoping you don't drive over an IED" pitch.

Re:The bit about uneducated soldiers.

[DesertWolf0132]

Yes, for the love of God lets be sure and keep the gays out. The last thing we need is troops hangning curtains and getting manicures. Next thing you know they are wearing pink camo with Prada rucksacks.</sarcasm>

I was watching "The Daily Show" a few weeks back and they had a segment on a linguist specializing in Arab languages who was kicked out for being gay. For the counterpoint side they had a government "expert" who helped form the policy on gays in the military. This guy sounded so ridiculous I almost fell out of my chair laughing until I realized morons like him help make policies that effect us all. He started saying gays like to drink each other's urine and there was a high risk of gay rape. He ranks homosexuality right up there with crime and drugs for the fall of society. Of course he is the same breed that makes sales of sex toys here in Texas illegal. Sure, you can buy them as novelty items but if you ask what they are used for and the clerk tells you the real use they can be arrested on the spot. Of course I digress. F'ing radical fundaMENTAList Jesus people. So obsessed with the sex they aren't having they can't stop regulating it. Think about it, they talk about gay sex far more than gays do. Repressed tendancies anyone?

Re:The bit about uneducated soldiers.

[drinkypoo]

Of course he is the same breed that makes sales of sex toys here in Texas illegal.

AFAIK it's illegal to own more than five dildoes in Texas. I just wish I knew why that was the cutoff. I mean, you've only got three usable orifices anyway... two hot spares?

Re:The bit about uneducated soldiers.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is the downside of slashdot altering link code to prevent people from posting a link pretending to be something useful, but is actually a link to goatse.cx. A lack of education in this arena! >:(

Re:The bit about uneducated soldiers.

[Rakarra]

Oh God! Worst use of the term "hot spares" ever.

Re:The bit about uneducated soldiers.

[DesertWolf0132]

You are correct AFAIK. More than 5 and you are listed as a dealer.

Re:The bit about uneducated soldiers.

[devilspgd]

"I know I'd rather die in a terrorist attack then suffer through
an uncomfortable shower with a gay"
  -- The Daily Show, 2006-09-18

I'm so tired of this.

[Grendel Drago]

If clinton would have been on the ball instead of thinking with his balls, bin laden would have been caught as he had several chances to get him and chose not to.

I should start demanding a nickel every time someone claims this. Tom Tomorrow does a shinier job explaining why this is a pointless argument than I ever could.

In short: you claim that Clinton was distracted by the Republicans drumming up scandal. But that that's somehow Clinton's fault, right? Sheesh.

This mission?

[lymond01]

If we attack NK, what would be our end goal where we could say, "Mission accomplished"? Regime change? A democratic vote? Those don't seem very winning ideas elsewhere.

Re:This mission?

[mrchaotica]

I'd say we should let South Korea annex the territory and deal with it themselves.

Starvation in the USA

[metamatic]

...it is obviously meant to imply that 10% of the US population is starving, which is patently untrue.

Bread for the World: 20% of children in New York City rely on food handouts to survive.

USDA: 11% of US households are food-insecure, meaning they do not have adequate food throughout a typical year.

This is actually a particularly timely topic, what with World Food Day USA coming soon.

Re:Starvation in the USA

[Bluesman]

Read the study, and the survey questions.

Being "Food Insecure" means that "at least once in the past six months, you worried whether you were going to be able to afford food."

That's a far cry from starving. Answering that question honestly, that would have included me at various times in my life when I subsisted on peanut butter sandwiches after I graduated from college, making $40,000 a year. That's hardly impoverished.

Also during the time I was "food insecure," I lived among the people on welfare who were undoubtedly included in these surveys, and who seem to think McDonalds is a grocery store and were somehow driving Mercedes. These people were universally obese, sat around in the neighborhood common area all day and yelled at their numerous fat kids.

Anyone who thinks that there are starving children in the U.S. who are that way for purely economic reasons and not abuse has their head up their rear end. Haven't you heard about the "obesity epidemic" which "disproportionately affects poor children?"

So you can't tell me being poor in the U.S. is the same as being poor in North Korea.

Re:Starvation in the USA

[metamatic]

So, the poor and hungry are all driving around in Mercedes and deserve to be hungry because they're stupid. Any other Compassionate Conservative talking points you'd like to treat us to?

Re:Starvation in the USA

[cartman]

Bread for the World: 20% of children in New York City rely on food handouts to survive...USDA: 11% of US households are food-insecure, meaning they do not have adequate food throughout a typical year.

I'm not meaning to be a senseless America-booster, however...

The 20% starvation stat you cited was gathered by an advocacy group and is extremely unlikely to be true.

The 2nd statistic about "food insecurity" refers to whether or not people have enough food before using assistance programs. It does not refer to actual undernourishment. In fact, the study you cited claims that only 0.5 to 0.8 percent of families have someone that actually goes hungry on a given day, meaning that the family didn't have enough money to buy enough food for everyone, and assistance programs were insufficient or unused.

One of the problems is that there appears to be tremendous under-utilization of assistance services, for reasons I don't understand at present. Perhaps people are ashamed of it or something. However the programs do exist. At present there is a food stamp program which provides $150/month in free food vouchers to anyone who lacks the ability to pay, plus additional amounts for each child. I know several people who rely upon it, and it's now distributed in the form of a credit card, so others in the store wouldn't know that a person is paying using food vouchers.

Re:Starvation in the USA

[metamatic]

One of the problems is that there appears to be tremendous under-utilization of assistance services, for reasons I don't understand at present. Perhaps people are ashamed of it or something.

Absolutely they are. Part of the big American myth system everyone's indoctrinated into is that poor people are poor because they deserve it, and that anyone can be successful and get ahead if they try. Accepting food from a charity is seen as personal failure.

Another problem, shown on the PBS documentary People Like Us about the US class system, is that the food given to charities is often not the food poor people want. They had an example of a food co-op that tried to give away bread that was hitting its freshness date--but the poor people wouldn't take it, because it was wholegrain focaccia and the like rather than the bleached white loaf they were used to.

This lead on to a whole added level of unwillingness to take charity, because many of them felt they were being patronized by the latte-sipping Prius-driving Birkenstock-wearing college-educated yuppies that they've been trained to hate.

Re:Starvation in the USA

[Bluesman]

Where did I say they deserve to be hungry? I don't think anyone "deserves" that, especially with food being as cheap as it is.

I did imply their values are misplaced, which is true, and I have no problem saying that. But you're missing the point.

My point was that if you think starvation is a problem among America's poor, you have your head up your ass. It's more a problem among teenage girls who starve themselves by choice.

It's amazing how many people will use "helping the poor" as an excuse for whatever tyranny-of-the-week political agenda they want to push.

Re:Starvation in the USA

[thule]

Part of the big American myth system everyone's indoctrinated into is that poor people are poor because they deserve it, and that anyone can be successful and get ahead if they try. Accepting food from a charity is seen as personal failure.

One does not exclude the other. Help the person with charity. At the same time, you can help give them opportunities to be successful. It is not a myth that people in the US have many, many times come from nothing and be something. It happens all the time. Those examples should be pointed how and used to encourage people. Sometimes poverty is a circumstance, sometimes it is a mindset. There must be something to the mindset considering how many self-help books there are out there (do they work?).

From what a friend of mine tells me, in China the problem is how you describe. The rich do fully blame the poor for their own problems. It is very harsh compared to the US. The US is comparatively very charitable.

Another problem, shown on the PBS documentary People Like Us about the US class system, is that the food given to charities is often not the food poor people want. They had an example of a food co-op that tried to give away bread that was hitting its freshness date--but the poor people wouldn't take it, because it was wholegrain focaccia and the like rather than the bleached white loaf they were used to.

Well, I grew up on wholegrain bread and my family is not rich. My mom just believed it was better for us.

This lead on to a whole added level of unwillingness to take charity, because many of them felt they were being patronized by the latte-sipping Prius-driving Birkenstock-wearing college-educated yuppies that they've been trained to hate.

That attitude has been around for a long, long time. It would take a lot to replace the pride with dignity (on both sides). We all have problems with pride.

Why is this a good thing?!

[Grendel Drago]

I don't want an "ordinary Joe" in charge! I want someone smarter than me, an adept diplomat with a keen-edged mind and strong leadership potential. I want our mighty nation to pick the best person for the job. We have roughly three hundred million citizens to choose from; this guy is not the best we can do.

"Intellectuals scare me, and I find him nonthreatening" is possibly the worst rationale for picking a leader since "his father was king, too".

A warm welcome

[El Cabri]

As a citizen of one of the following countries : USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel : Welcome you to our ever growing club. Enjoy the benefits, including much, much less of being invaded, and much less arm twisting by the schoolyard bullies.

no way ~ "nukes are useless"

[SaberTaylor]

Nukes are worth more than other other weapon in bargaining.
http://www.google.com/search?q=north+korea+concess ions

With that said, if you want to read about The War Nerd saying Venezuela's new jets and helicopters is a waste of money for war: http://www.exile.ru/2006-October-06/venezuela_ench ilada_of_evil.html

Kim's Destiny

[ackthpt]

That reminds me of Iraq moving troops near the Kuwait border in 1990. Everyone I heard said Saddam would never actually invade, but invade he did.
Maybe North Korea will sit still and be proud of its nuclear capability without using it, but I am afraid South Korea is overconfident of being left alone.

People need reminding there only exists a cease-fire between the two halves of Korea. NK has not put pen to paper and signed a formal peace treaty and recognition of South Korea as a sovreign state. Kim and his supporters still believe they will one day 'save' South Korea and then all the peoples of Korea will be united it their admiration of Kim and his 'communist' party and their army. These people are straight out of comic books, but it shouldn't be surprising, Kim is a huge fan of John Wayne.

Burritos?

[Door-opening Fascist]

Maybe the North Koreans just discovered Mexican food. We've all been there before, I think. Maybe all this will just "blow over". :)

Re:Lack of ICBM is not the problem...

[Martin Blank]

Every port is monitored by satellite and the capability to put a U-2 or a UAV overhead is there, as well. Every ship that leaves North Korea is tracked by satellite, and they have been interdicted in the past, including one carrying missiles to Yemen that was intercepted in 2002 (though later released as there were no violations of law). Another was stopped in Cyprus carrying parts of an air defense system (the manifest said weather observation equipment) to Syria, and while Interpol was the primary source of the request, I have little doubt that US intelligence was working behind the scenes.

As for subs, I find it unthinkable that the US would not have at least one fast attack submarine outside of each North Korean sub base (I believe there are two), and the subs they have are not impossible to track. It's certainly a possible threat, but any place that they'd want to detonate such a weapon would be over a long distance and would have to get past a technologically advanced naval force, and it would be further from Kim Jong-Il's grasp. A couple thousand miles of ocean presents a long time for a crew -- even one that's pretty dedicated -- to decide that they're in better shape delivering the goods more quietly with a payoff and a home in a quiet section of Montana.

Bought and paid for with US Tax Dollars

[St8kout]

North Korea's first nuke bought and paid for by US tax dollars. Thanks to Clinton&Carter's "Agreed Framework" in 1994, where they naively assumed you can trust a known terrorist, we gave them the following: "North Korea would be supplied with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil ANNUALLY, at no cost, to make up for lost energy production PLUS two nuclear reactors at a cost of $4Billion"

Re:Bought and paid for with US Tax Dollars

[/dev/trash]

but but but bush has oil cronies.

Re:Bought and paid for with US Tax Dollars

[Legion303]

You have been misinformed. Bush gave NK $95 million in 2002 and told them not to worry about those pesky plutonium inspection requirements (which were set up by Clinton): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/1908 571.stm

Bought and paid for by our tax dollars, sure. Just make sure you blame the right douchebag.

Re:Bought and paid for with US Tax Dollars

[jlanthripp]

Your source is correct. Bush made a last-ditch effort to save a fundamentally flawed agreement entered into by William Jefferson Clinton and Kim Jong-il, which the parent poster described.

So, you're both right. Clinton was the sociopathic douchebag who foolishly trusted the sociopathic douchebag Kim Jong-il, while Bush is the sociopathic douchebag who foolishly tried to save the deal. A nuclear DPRK is the result.

What neither of you is pointing out, however, is that it was the sociopathic douchebag Harry S. Truman who prevented the sociopathic douchebag Douglas MacArthur from proactively dealing with the situation in 1951. If you would like to know how the DPRK would look today after a MacArthur-led occupation, make Japan your next vacation spot.

Re:"Facts"

[DesertWolf0132]

I can't give more than a few more data points but, the average ASVAB score for my platoon in basic was over 85. That said, I was Air Defense Artillery (Avenger Crew) and had a 97 on the ASVAB myself. They tend not to let idiots play with the ground-to-air Stingers. Most of us had at least one year of college and had career options in the outside world. Two had been State Troopers, one was an electrician, I was a Systems Administrator, and three were in construction. We all signed to serve our country and have some adventure in the process. That was back in '99. Four of those guys are still in. Three completed degrees and went on to graduate OCS. My enlistment would have ended last Feb. had I not injured my knee in basic. I will stipulate that the men I had the honor of meeting in my short stint in the Army are some of the finest on God's green earth. They may not represent the military as a whole but I would wager they do represent a statistically significant number. I will give you the fact that not all people in the military are the sharpest tacks in the box. To say they are mostly poor and uneducated though is simply not true.

Re:tactical/sub-tactical range. 1-5kT roughly

[seven of five]

Richter 4.0 as corresponding to 1kT and 4.5 as 5.1kT (richter is a log scale)

If this is true, what's the odds that they just blew up a big stockpile of TNT as a ruse?

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[Dirtside]

If you want to spin it the other way, just say that this proves that Bush and the Republicans are incapable of dealing with North Korea, they've let a nuclear madman loose onto the world, etc. :)

Re:Bush Bashing? - it's not bashing!

[DavidTC]

Kerry was not a worse choice than Bush.

A dog would have been a better choice than Bush. I am not kidding there. Having no functional president at all would been better than Bush. A random person selected off the street would have been better.

Re: But it was crossbows

[Maxo-Texas]

That were considered so dangerous that they were banned at times.
Longbows took years of training and thus were in limited supply.
With the crossbow, anyone could fire a powerful shot fairly accurately with little training enabling armies of peasants to become WMD's.

What about Foley story?

[inKubus]

I hate to be the one to say it here, but weren't we in the middle of an important investigation of a coverup in Congress yesterday?

Re:What about Foley story?

[Shadowlore]

inurl:.gov confidential "do not distribute"

So you are saying that Foley somehow managed to cause an earthquake of 3.8-4.2 magnitude on the Korean peninsula, forged a message from NK to China saying they were going to conduct the test they have been talking about for some time now, convinced the NK government to proclaim a successful test all in order to get Foley's scandal off the front page?

Maybe I'm not the norm around here but I don't buy it.

What was front page material when the Foley situation hit? Maybe Clinton's remarks and questions (legitimate or not) about his performance in office? What about the previous front page story? What was going on in Congress when it decided to "investigate" steroid usage in baseball? Does it not occur to people that maybe, just maybe, NEWs changes often, and often when not expected? It isn't called "olds" for a reason.

Re:What about Foley story?

[damiam]

Yes, and thank God we've moved on. Foley had personal issues, and he abused his power, but a few sexual IMs are nothing compared to the massive issues facing this country. If the Republicans are going to get voted out of office (and I hope they are), it shouldn't be for an isolated sex scandal, it should be for fucking up the world on a massive scale.

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[Don853]

Why is an accurate refute to a factually incorrect claim modded Flamebait?

Actually, the answer to that is pretty obvious... but someone should fix it if possible.

Re:Bush is a Jackass and a Hypocrite

[bratwiz]

I should hope not. Geez, he's a busy guy. Between insulting world leaders, starting bogus oil wars on false pretenses, and thinking up new ways to restrict american rights and freedoms, I'm not sure where he would find the time.

My units don't seem quite right; Google's do

[abb3w]

You're correct, it was supposed to be per square meter, as the units of the Google calculation I linked in show. This is what I get for posting to Slashdot right before bed.

However, another minor point: IIR, fission produces antineutrinos, not neutrinos. Fusion (such as the sun or a nova) releases neutrinos. (Not that anyone besides daft particle physicists care which way a tiny chunk of nothing is spinning....)

Re:Most Important Data: Depth 0km

[RESPAWN]

One thing I don't get here. If NK wanted us to notice them, then why did they only give a 20 minute warning to China? Why not tell us when and where so that we can directly observe the results and come to the conclusion that they so obviously want us to come to? Are they really that afraid that if we knew when and where we would be able to disrupt the test?

Your universe is better

[Tony]

Dude, you are so lucky to be from whatever alternate universe you are from.

In *this* universe, Hans Blix headed up the UN inspections, and came to the conclusion that although Saddam Hussein was stonewalling, he had no WMD program whatsoever. Also, most of the other nations that *weren't* bullied by the US into joining a farcical "coalition of the willing" state they did not believe Iraq had WMDs, or the ability to pursue a WMD program. Then it turned out that *all* the evidence presented by our universe's President Bush turned out to be fabricated, or mis-represented.

In the fabricated area, the most notable was the "Yellow Cake Documents," a set of documents purporting to prove Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium ore from Nigeria. These were proven to be forged documents by the investigations of Joseph Wilson. Even after these documents were proven to be false, President Bush continued to use them as hard evidence.

In the "misrepresented" department, we had the "high strength aluminum tubes," which were claimed to be for suitable only for uranium enrichment. Nuclear scientists pretty much universally agreed these tubes were suitable for no such thing. The conclusion was that these tubes were most likely for medium-range conventional missiles, which Iraq was legally allowed to have.

You are from a better place than ours, my friend-- a place where the government can be trusted, and what is said is the truth, rather than lies and misinformation.

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[abb3w]

May I ask: how does this help Bush?

Security issues are traditionally a Republican issue; the more people are worried about security, the more likely they are to vote Republican. (EG, analysis about "security moms" [PDF].) Thus, increase worry, and shift the vote Republican.

The long-term (and now perhaps short-term) risk of this strategy is that while the Republicans are seen as concerned with security, this sort of thing happening regularly makes them start to look incompetent as time passes. The bad news is, the Democrats are more likely to get to power using an isolationist style platform to oppose them. No-one's going to run on a moderate, subtle, nuanced approach to the international theatre; it doesn't make good soundbytes.

On foreign policy, the Republican party has no brains, and the Democratic Party has no balls.

You, sir, are awarded many Clever points ...

[hummassa]

for the use of the substantive "china" with another meaning in this specific thread... :-)

A possible Chinese invasion of North Korea

[ConfusedSelfHating]

There are two possibilities: North Korea is a pawn that China has lost control of or North Korea is doing exactly what China wants it to do. If China wants North Korea to be a nuclear state then everything is going to plan.

There are some reasons why a nuclear North Korea is very painful to China. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all have reasons to develop nuclear deterents of their own now. That's an unholy trinity to China. They all currently rely on the United States for their defence and a nuclear North Korea may cause the United States to back off a bit. If one or more of these nations develops nuclear weapons, it reduces China's military influence over the region. The chance of a nuclear war goes up dramatically because the distances are much shorter than those between the U.S. and Russia. In the Cold War, people had time to think. There are cargo ships everywhere, all capable of holding a nuclear weapon. And if you were beside an unstable nation which was selling nuclear weapons, wouldn't you worry?

China is in a much better position to invade North Korea than anyone else. The Chinese army is huge and they have an enormous supply of recruits if they need them. Most of the North Korean army is along the southern border of country constantly preparing to invade South Korea. Most of the nasty artillery is aimed at Seoul (sucks for the South Koreans, but it isn't China's problem). It is much easier to convince your population of a threat that is on your border, opposed to half a world away. North Korea's nuclear weapons are still in the testing stage and probably couldn't be used.

This allows China to install a more servile puppet government in North Korea. A government which will obey orders. China gets to glorify its military as protectors of the world and stir up nationalistic feelings at home. And which governments would actually critize them for doing this?

Re:FIRST STRIKE!!!

[Wakko Warner]

For what reason? The United States would look even stupider than it already does (and I know that's REALLY hard to imagine because we already look SO FUCKING STUPID to the rest of the world) if we were to unilaterally attack NK for this.

Bush is not an average Joe!

[Prien715]

Bush is an "average joe" the same way Paris Hilton is.

Silly You!

[ackthpt]

Anyone want to explain why the seismic station at Inchon, South Korea appears to be quiet at the time of the blast (1:35 UTC)?
I see an event at Inchon at about 14:30 UTC on Sunday, but it's 11 hours earlier than the reported blast.

This wasn't really a nuclear bomb test, it was a summoning! They're summoning the real Pulgasari! However, unlike the movie one which feeds on iron, this one feeds on Plutonium. It will crush the enemies of the DPRK then lead all the communist brotherhood in an interesting folk dance before turning on them to sate its hunger for nuclear fuel. Kim, as usual, has awakened a monster even he and his propaganda machine will not be able to control

Seriously, there's a 4.2 on the USGS site, but they could have just faked it with a load of TNT, like that mysterious railway explosion they had years ago. Local quarry explosions frequently register as high as 2.0 on the richter scale. Enough Ammonium Nitrate and fuel oil down a well and you, too, could claim mastery of nuclear weapons, without any international monitors to say otherwise.

Re:Silly You!

[Chris Burke]

Seriously, there's a 4.2 on the USGS site, but they could have just faked it with a load of TNT, like that mysterious railway explosion they had years ago. Local quarry explosions frequently register as high as 2.0 on the richter scale. Enough Ammonium Nitrate and fuel oil down a well and you, too, could claim mastery of nuclear weapons, without any international monitors to say otherwise.

There's more too it than just the scale. A nuclear explosion is not just a large seismic event, but also has a particular seismic signature.

There was a large explosion at a rumored missile site just last year. Despite registering high enough on the Richter scale, it was ruled out as a nuclear event by several independent seismic stations.

I also believe that the neutron radiation generated by a real nuke is detectable over a great distance as well, and there are surely such stations near enough to NK to detect it.

In short, a nuclear test is neither something you can bluff nor something you can hide.

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[GodfatherofSoul]

Well, since we're talking about Kim Jong Il, I think it would be "SUPPLIES!"

Whatever

[dafing]

Good Comments AC.

Again you missed the point again with your patriotism. Its not about "but we had to", its about the fact, the truth, that America is the only country to ever have used their nuclear weapons on another.

History clearly shows...

[b1ad3runn3r]

Appeasement worked in 1939 too!

Poverty in America

[jmorris42]

> In any case, poverty is a problem in the US.

No it isn't. Period, full stop. I know I'm about to be called the most evil insensitive person since Dick Cheney, but read it before ya mod it flamebait, k?

> I lived in the States for seven years and I remember TV ads calling for help for starving people living within the US.

It is called propaganda. Please don't feed the trolls, even the ones with expensive ad campaigns.

> I also personally saw homeless people, trying to find a shelter in the bitter cold of Chicago winter, and
> I do remember that many people died during the heat wave some years ago, because they could not afford AC
> or even transportation w/ AC.

Please don't confuse the 'homeless' with poverty. Not even the same ballpark. Most of the 'homeless' are mentally ill, not poor. Others are professionals, some are a combination of the two. I have personally witnessed 'the homeless' at an intersection holding up "will work for food" signs also. But I noticed other things, like the Burger King within visual range bearing a 6' tall banner proclaiming "NOW HIRING". Now I'll admit the 'homeless' guys were too unkempt to have much luck, but there were shelters and other programs in Dallas that would have been more than willing to help them get cleaned up and even provide suitable clothes. They make more than minimum wage panhandling though.

As for people dying in heatwaves, take a look at Europe, a nasty one can wipe out 10K in France because so few homes have A/C, even in the 'middle class'. Heat waves kill the elderly, not so much the poor. And anyone who can't find shelter from the cold in the US with our extensive shelters isn't looking.

And as for poverty, dude! The biggest problem in our 'poor' population is health problems associated with being overweight. I really wouldn't call that poverty lest it offend the truly downtrodden populations around the world who really are. Here in America our 'poor' tend to universally have air conditioning, multiple color televisions and at least one working automobile. Anyone who doesn't have that doesn't know enough to work the welfare system. Hell, they pretty much would have to actively resist the efforts of the social workers whose job it is to help them sign up for assistance. And that ignores the additional billions of good charitable work that doesn't derive from immoral government income redistribution.

Re:Huh? India's 1st test was in 1974

[Grishnakh]

Actually, some people think India/Pakistan had nuclear warfare around 8,000 years ago:

link
link

Not saying it's true, but there's a lot of stuff on the internet about it.

Re:So they've proven they can blow themselves up..

[Zordas]

Good Point. But After listening to an Admiral (And other high ranking Officials last night), They basically said this -- "We have about 1/2 the Navy we had back in 1995" . I'm Sure we have a 1 (or a few) LA class Attack Subs in their bay, But what's the grantee? If 1 gets by, it's game over. Not to mention the fact that this pedophile Dictator WILL sell this stuff.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Grishnakh]

I'm all for reducing the risk of Nuclear Proliferation, but I'm not convinced that NPT is the tool to use. What we need is for the big 5 to show the way and reduce their stockpile and then enforce the NPT.

From what I can tell, the US and Russia have been reducing their stockpiles in the past decade or so, mainly because the cold war is over and because it's expensive to maintain these stockpiles. The US has even been converting several of its ballistic missile submarines (like the Florida) to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles and Navy SEALs instead of nuclear missiles.

But they can only reduce their stockpiles so much, because every other country is now interested in getting their hands on nukes. We can't exactly have the US, Russia, Britain et al disarming themselves while crazy governments in NK and Iran are building up their arsenals.

I remember that one, too.

[Grendel Drago]

It was Paul Cameron, whose name you'll see tacked onto most faked-up research showing that gays eat babies and so forth. The clip you refer to is available here; look closely for the point at which Cameron agrees that he'd much rather get blown up by terrorists than have an uncomfortable shower moment.

Our troops

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts

90% of soldiers in Iraq believed (2003) we were there to retaliate against Saddam for 9/11.

Same survey, by the way, showed that only a fifth agreed with staying as long as Bush wants to.

Is the North dangerous?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The tunnels under the DMZ are not a peaceful act and the June 30 2002 sinking of a South Korean naval vessel was an attack, unprovoked if the South is telling the truth.

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[bratwiz]

You're right-- its NOT zero. I stand corrected.

Here is the list compiled from various public sources. Of the 535 members of the house and senate, a total of two percent, meaning twelve members, have, or have had, children in Iraq or Afghanistan, and most appear to be Republicans. All but two seem to be officers. Three seem to have volunteered for multiple tours. One was killed in action in Iraq. And only one seems to be currently still serving. (again from what I was able to establish using public sources). There appear to be NO children from the White House senior officials serving (or have served) in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Joseph Biden, D-DE, Son is Officer in Natl Guard not very likely to go to Iraq
Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO, Son is Enlisted in the Navy serving in the Mediterranean
Duncan Hunter, R-CA, Son is Officer in the Marines, served two tours including a few months in Iraq and is now home
Christopher Bond, R-MO, Son is Officer in the Marines who served in Iraq for a few months and is now home
Becky Lourey, D-MN, Son was Officer in the Army served two tours and was killed in Iraq May 2005
Tim Johnson, D-SD, Son is Enlisted in the Army served four wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is now home
Todd Akin, R-MO, Son is Officer in Marines serving as a Combat Engineer in Iraq and is now home
Ike Skelton, D-MO, two sons both Officers in army and navy deployment unknown (not specified)
Joe Wilson, R-SC, three sons in military, all officers, on in Natl Guard served in Iraq and is now home
John Kline, R-MN, son is Officer in Army serving in Iraq
Charles Taylor, R-NC, son is Officer in Army served in Iraq and is now home
Jim Bunning, R-KY, son is Officer in Air Force served in Afghanistan and is now home

Feel free to mod this 'tard up or down as you see fit-- but those are the facts, the best as I can determine them. I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[truthsearch]

an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship on the other (Pakistan - one supported by US)

You mean the republic with a parliament and an elected prime minister? And you're complaining about other people trolling...

Gamma rays can't get through the atmosphere

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

That's why there are no gamma ray observatories on the ground and why satellites can't detect gamma rays from a nuclear explosion.

Where remote sensing comes in is watching the ground collapse over the test site, and if the test leaks, sampling isotopes downwind.

Square roots and cube roots

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Radiation effects, including the incendiary, follow the inverse square law you learned in school. Blast effects are a volume effect and fall off as inverse cube.

A one-kiloton device still has a fourth the fire-lighting radius of a 16-kT device and a third the overpressure radius of a 27-kT device.

The interesting thing is that if the yield is really that low then they've utterly bungled the design.

It's a conspiracy!

[ProfessionalCookie]

important investigation of a coverup in Congress yesterday?

Yes, North Korea is doing nuclear tests to draw press away from the investigation. You're right, it's a Republican conspiracy. Or maybe nuclear tests in North Korea isn't news worthy.

-Ed

Key point!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Scarer is who they might sell these weapons to

They've sold their missile technology, they've sold everything else they could get hard currency from, and they don't screen their buyers.

Can we think of anyone who has money, might want to buy a nuclear weapon, and who might use it against the US? Someone who's bloodthirstier than Kim Jong-Il? Would we be able to get a positive ID on the weapon so as to know where to retaliate?

The natives of this planet do not use logic

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Bush cannot say: "those North Koreans have nukes - we need a
strong man at the helm", simply because he was at the helm when North Koreans
got nukes in the first place.

Frightened people are more likely to support Bush. The more things go wrong, the more support he'll get.

Re:"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaga

[scalveg]

Indeed, North Korea has proven in the past that there are other ways to get things in to and out of Japan than on board a "high tech" missile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductio ns_of_Japanese

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[TheGreek]

I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.

Probably because parents can't compel their children to enter the military.

Mods, what the hell is wrong with you?

[Shadowlore]

Just what is insightful about someone saying they are scared of NK getting nukes?!?!

Can we please get a "me too" mod option so "insightful" can have it's rightful meaning again?

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Myopic]

How can Washington demand that Pyongyang refrain from developing nuclear weapons when Washington enthusiastically ignores Indian nuclear ambitions?

If by "how" you mean "for what reason", then the answer is because India is a stable democracy and North Korea isn't. We believe that stable democracies should get more leeway than -- well, than everyone else, especially communists, fascists, dictators and warlords. Sometimes this is a judgement call. But basically, what we're saying is that the same restrictions don't always apply to everyone, and shouldn't.

you seem to have a strange definition of evil

[circletimessquare]

you seem to have a problem with my characterization of nk as evil because it's not the comic book definition of the word evil. but nk is evil. it starves its citizens and pumps up its military. consider that a real world definition of the word evil. just because you have a limited understanding of the word doesn't mean a perfectly good word with a perfectly good meaning can't be used in a perfectly good context

Re:you seem to have a strange definition of evil

[Opportunist]

Well, by that definition you can define pretty much every government as "evil". The US is evil for wanting military domination, the western world is evil for (ab)using cheap labour in third world countries, other governments are evil for cooperating with the mafia, the industry is evil for wanting to lock us in in DRM, Fox News is evil for feeding us biased stories, SCO is evil for harrassing Linux vendors with lawsuits, the music industry is evil for doing pretty much the same with internet users, the ...

It comes down to wanting more for less. The NK government is standing with its back against the wall and wants to survive, at any cost. That's very human if you ask me, not evil.

In our current world, I'd consider very few governments as truely "good", as having the well being of its citizens in mind and putting it before their own personal gain. And that's easier if the country is rich, and harder when the country is poor.

For the love of...

[Reapman]

This is an article about the friggin NORTH KOREANS, yet all I read is about the United States. It's frustrating to go to a site about this and just hear politics about a country I don't live in... 80% of what I read is off topic garbage. Sigh.

Natioanl Guard - not utilized? Huh?

[PoconoPCDoctor]

Have you not been reading how National Guard units have been assigned to posts in Iraq?

From wiki - National Guard members and reservists now comprise a larger percentage of frontline fighting forces than in any war in U.S. history (About 43 percent in Iraq and 55 percent in Afghanistan). There are now 183,366 National Guard members and reservists on active duty nationwide who leave behind about 300,000 dependents, according to U.S. Defense Department statistics.

Also, re-assigned after their original tour was completed?

Dude, check out some other sources for your news, ok? And ALSO, lose their jobs after assignments in Irag?

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[hibiki_r]

Dude, the US has tens of thousands of nukes. Enough to guarantee that the attacking country would be obliterated, even if they attacked by surprise. If the arsenal was divided by ten, it'd still be overkill.

The rate at the nukes are being disarmed is a joke when you consider how insane the US arsenal is.

Re:Wake up!

[OrangeTide]

Thank you.

It's important to realize that not everyone who dislikes the governments of N.Korea, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc. is some how a pro-war Bush supporter. In fact it is possible to be pro-war (or whatever politically correct term for that is) and still dislike Bush's behavior and/or policies.

Heck it's even possible to think that there are bad people in the UN, the US and in N.Korea. you'd probably be right. nearly all of us just want to work and live our lives, maybe raise a family. anyone who severely interfers with that is probably a bad person. or at least not very nice.

It's even possible to believe that the US international policy is in a shambles, yet feel that something must be done to correct countries with severe human rights violations or excessive threatening postures. (example: stating that Israel should be removed off the map).

Personally I don't really feel that time or money should be wasted on the affairs of other sovereign nations unless they violate our borders. But I am really in the minority here, as Penn Jilette would probably say. I'm a nut, but it's okay to be a nut. (I probably already stated this in an earlier thread, so I'll stop before you get bored)

And if we have to have a cowboy for a president (and I believe we do), why does it have to be a Texan? Why not a Montanaian, New Mexicoian, etc.

and another question. what is so horrible about a dirty old senator trying to flirt with a young man of 16 years? I would like to think that all 16 year olds know they are free to "just say no" to sex and general perviness with a blubbery old white man.
Someone mentioned that there ought to be some federal standardization on the age of consent. And there is specific to this case: {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.

Seems like a pretty lame law though. I think people in real life are far more dangerous than people on the internet that try to cybersex you. (wow I sure get off topic quickly)

Re:What should I do if the nukes really start flyi

[Mr.Spaz]

I guess you're pretty serious, so here:

You may live 1 day. You may live 40 more years. Either way you'll live for the rest of your life, so make the most of it.

If you are not in immediate danger, then don't go anywhere. You know where you are and what's aroun d you now. Running takes you into the unknown; you could flee directly into fallout or a firestorm. Move only when necessary. Minimize your exposure to radiation by monitoring the area around you with a detection device (geiger counter / RAD meter). Buy several detection devices now, make sure they are powered by removable batteries so you can power them by solar cells or scavenged batteries later (or learn how to do this to the devices you can get). Dosimeters may also help you gauge how much radiation you've been exposed to and when to flee if necessary. Have several planned escape routes that will take you at least 50 miles from your current location.

In the immediate aftermath, canned foodstuffs stored in a basement should suffice. Water stored in sealed containers should also remain safe. Cycle your supplies every 12 months; 6 months for the water. Keep a bottle of Clorox around to sterilize water if necessary (app. 1/2 ounce to the gallon).

If you live far away from major metros, as you claim, then you should be able to grow some of your own food. Learn how; it's pretty easy and really takes only a little effort. Corn grows like a weed ('cause it is), along with certain varieties of tomatoes and many root plants (potatoes, turnips). Test your soil regularly for contamination. There's no reason not to start the garden in advance; you can eat what you grow right now, and fresh vegetables are quite delicious. Be sure to seed a portion of your crops so you have something to start over with in the event you have to flee or recover from a blight. If the soil becomes badly irradiated, you may need to move, as cleanup requires a significant amount of work.

You may also decide to keep livestock. Chickens and goats work well for this. They are easily tended and can be fed from your garden; Sunflower seeds and cornmeal for the chickens; whatever's growing nearby for the goats. Monitor for contamination, and if you have enough space maintain breeding stock so that you may slaughter the animals for meat as well as harvesting the eggs and goat milk. It's best to know what you're doing ahead of time, so you may want to raise some animals now if laws permit. Goats can make interesting pets; they're smarter than you think.

Learn how to build and operate a distillation rig. They can be constructed from readily available materials and are invaluable in providing a clean water supply. Distillation of water is easy (alcohol not so much, but you may want to get good at that: A little hooch to take the edge off post-nuke life might not be so bad) and ensures sterile drinking water. Build several evaporators for your rig and store them (with your canned goods may be a good spot). If the evaporator becomes contaminated and cannot be cleaned, you can quickly replace it.

There's your food and water. If you live in the sticks, then you've got shelter, as we're assuming your house has not been vaporized. None of that will protect you from your fellow man, however, nor will it catch game for you should you need to hunt. So: Firearms and ammunition. Both of these are ridiculously easy to store. If you're not a big "gun nut," but are serious about protecting yourself, get the following: A 12 gauge pump-action shotgun, a bolt-action 30 caliber rifle (.30-06 or "thirty aught six"), and a semi-automatic 9mm or 45 caliber pistol. These are the most common calibers for each type of weapon and are some of the simplest, trouble-free designs. Follow the instructions that come with the weapons for long-term storage, put them in a box and stash 'em near your food. Done. You don't need to touch 'em again for 500 years. You can do the same for the ammunition; get several hundred shotgun shells and a few thousand rifle and pistol rounds. Just make sure t

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Shadowlore]

A few problems with your theory: the main one is India has been nuclear since the 1970's.

We are entering dangerous times, and the Bush administration made a tragic mistake [economist.com] in its dealings with India. Washington has signed the NPT, and by the terms of the treaty, its signatories agree to ban the transfer of nuclear technology to any nation that refuses to sign the NPT. The NPT further stipulates that any signatory which has not yet developed nuclear weapons shall not pursue their development.

Since India exploded it's first nuclear weapon in 1974, they are already a nuclear power.

Let us examine the NPT, shall we?
Article one:
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Article two (direct linkage):
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Hmm no breach here.

Next relevant portion up ... (Article 3):
2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.

All clear here, as India is a nuclear state anyway.

And well that is it.

There is some wiggle room to say that India isn't a nuclear weapon state by terms of the treaty becuase of this line:
For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.

It does not however, say anything specifically regarding dealing with non-signatories. It deals specifically with non-nuclear states. To limit it to nonproliferation to signatories would be a gaping hole. To say "non-nuclear" and avoiding the signatory requirement the hole is non-existant.

All that said, the "proliferation" of peaceful nuclear usage is specifically allowed. Period. Now if you can point to specific breaches where Bush/The US gave India nuclear weapons technology and so forth then fine. But if you want to make the claim that any nuclear assistance such as nuclear energy assistance is a bad thing and against the treaty, then the treaty has been dead for decades. The Russians and the US assisted Iran years ago (Bush the elder, Clinton) with their nuclear power, and that's just one sample. France and the UK have assisted others (France aided Iraq) in the production of nuclear energy for non-weapon uses.

I know some of you weren't even born in 1974, but that is no escuse for not learning the history of the situation before making such absurd pronouncements as Bush being responsible for India having nukes.

What you should do...

[cr0sh]

First off, take a deep breath and calm down. You need to be calm, you need to think rationally.

Once you are calm, you can begin to prepare. You need to be methodical, you need to think about you and your immediate family. Sure, think about the rest of your family and friends, educate them as much as possible, but when the screws get tightened, realize that it is up to you and yours in the immediate time, and no one else.

Basically, look into everything you can to prepare for an "earthquake, tornado, or hurricane" - ie, civil defence. If you can prepare you and your family to "survive" such a natural disaster, you are well on your way to preparing for a man-made one. Think about what people did and didn't do to survive hurricane Katrina. Think about what the government did and didn't do. Notice how long it took the government (at all levels) to properly respond. Notice how they are still "responding". Notice that you and yours don't figure into this response...

Basically, prepare for the possibility of at least one week's worth of no power, water, or food - 2 weeks worth is better. Anything after that is a dream unless you have a lot of money and/or space - because basically, every six months you need to recheck your supplies and plan, and replace that which has "gone bad" and is no longer suitable to the task needed (mainly water, batteries, and food supplies). This can get expensive, quickly. Keep note of possible supplies already on hand (like, if you have a pool, the water in it could be used to survive with, provided it can be distilled in some manner), and stock up on those (keeping a full pantry of items will help). Stockpile fuel and batteries (propane for stoves, mainly). Look into getting some deep-cycle RV batteries and a few cheap solar panel battery chargers to keep them topped up.

Another opportunity (too late for this year, but start now for next year) would be to see if you can prepare and "survive" at Burning Man - if you can manage to plan and prepare for a trip of that magnitude, and not purchase anything on the trip there (difficult to do on your first trip - so keep a log of what you buy, what you use, and what you don't use, and what you wish you had - for the next year), and not sponge off of other participants (note: sponging is beggary, but learning to share and gift again in adulthood IS a survival skill) - then you have had a "real world" experience, albeit nothing as intense as surviving the aftermath of a nuclear exchange or a natural disaster.

Finally - purchase the series of books or CD's of "The Survivor" series (four books, shouldn't cost more than $100.00 (?) for the set), compiled by Kurt Saxton. Please note something about these compilations: they contain copies and extracts from many, many different sources - old PopSci, PopMech, and other 1930's-1960's era how-to publications, among other things. They are excellent and full tomes of information unobtainable from any other source outside of Army and other military field guides (find and purchase these, as well). Interspersed throughout these clippings are "articles" written by Kurt Saxton himself. On first impression of these writings, you get a very bad impression that Kurt Saxton is blatently racist. This may still be true, I have never met the man myself (I don't even know if he is real, or still alive, to be honest). However, if you read the articles in full, with an open mind and set of eyes, you quickly see what he is really against: lazy and dishonest people of all stripes and colors who never do anything for themselves and instead sponge off of others. Regardless, those articles aside, the rest of the books are chock full of how to do everything imaginable - living off the land, going off-grid, surviving in the wilderness, building toys and such to keep kids entertained, distilling and refining your own fuel, building wind generators, etc.

Finally, a note about guns: depending on how you feel about them, your knowledge level of them, and your gener

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Grishnakh]

You sure about that? I know we used to have tons of them back in the cold-war days, but now, near where I live in Arizona, we have lots of empty Titan missile silos that have been turned into peoples' homes and a museum. I believe most of the missiles still in operation are located in North Dakota. There might still be some ballistic missile submarines out there, but as I've pointed out, it looks like these are being phased out and converted into mobile (non-nuclear) weapons and personnel launching platforms.

I do know that the US military is now talking a lot about tactical nukes, "bunker-busters", etc. But these aren't at all comparable to city-leveling ICBMs in their destructive power. These days, it seems the focus is on low-yield nukes for effectively knocking out hardened military installations rather than wiping out large numbers of people.

that's mine at the nyt

[circletimessquare]

i'm also here

i mean thanks for the heads up in case someone was stealing my words, but no thanks for the suggestion that crossposting is somehow wrong

Option 'C'...

[cr0sh]

...for a 'C'-average student (and proud of it, no less!)?

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Shadowlore]

I do agree that by cutting a deal with New Delhi, the US govt essentially squashed the NPT. But then, that's what happened to the Kyoto treaty as well.

A few quibbles, but important ones. First, France - a signatory to the NPT - signed a largely identical deal this year, ahead of Bush signing it. So if you must cast a stone as to who squashed it, France would be the one.

Regarding Kyoto, the uS isn't officially a part of it as it has not been (and I suspect will never be) ratified. it was signed, but only by VP Gore. Clinton never even bothered to submit it to the Senate for ratification. Of course, the Senate voted 95-0 that it would not ratify any treaty like Kyoto. So technically and legally the US is not a signatory to it.

The NPT by itself is a relic of the cold war and extremely biased. What it basically says is that 5 countries can build and maintain as many Nuclear weapons as they want while the rest of the world should not. Ideally, if Nuclear Non Proliferation was to work, the NPT should have contained a timetable for the reduction/removal of all nuclear weapons, including those stockpiled by the big five. The NPT isn't about reducing the risk of a Nuclear Winter. Its about maintaining a military advantage and is purely political in its framework.

Bingo. NPT was to keep the US and USSR from equipping border states with nukes.

If you follow the chain of the Big 5, UK helped France (France helped Israel). USSR helped China (they eventually got cold feet but by then the die was cast). UK was involved in the US research so it is hard to actually say if it was a bit of co-development or US assisted the UK. Canada inadvertently aided Pakistan (Canada was sharing nuclear energy information, not weaponry!). It is not certain how India got their ability, though espionage w/Pakistan is a leading hypothesis. Pakistan got theirs through espionage (of the Netherlands!) The UK also aided Israel (non-confirmed nuclear weapon state), as did France.

I'm all for reducing the risk of Nuclear Proliferation, but I'm not convinced that NPT is the tool to use. What we need is for the big 5 to show the way and reduce their stockpile and then enforce the NPT.

Well that has been going on. At their zenith Soviet nuclear weapons broke 43,000 active. They are now down to something like 16000. The US's weapons broke 32,000 active, and are now down to less than a third of that total (~8000 IIRC), and even less "active" (~5000 IIRC?). To my knowledge no other country has reduced their stockpile by the percentages the US and Russia have. I'm not sure any other than US and Russia have done so significantly if at all.

To safely decom a nuclear weapon takes time and effort, and not insignificant amounts of it. To do so with thousands will take a rather long time.

Re:What should I do if the nukes really start flyi

[Dark_MadMax666]

Duck and Cover!

  On a serious note why would you want to live if something really serious happens. Any large scale nuclear war will make survivors envy the dead.

Re:"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaga

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The true story....

THe Ministry of Food, or whatever they were, had a glut of carrots. To help convince people to eat more carrots they helped build this story that carrots were the secret weapon. Fighter pilots etc were heros to the kids of the day, so the story helped a lot of kids get munching... "Now Johnny, eat your carrots, all the fighter pilots do!". There was also an element of FUDing the Germans, but that was a lesser thing.

Clearly you're missing the boat

[clickster]

First, the scare tactic spin. While I despise the current administration in nearly every way possible and consider it blatantly obvious that they use scare tactics to force the mindless into accepting whatever despotic piece of legislation they choose to pass-by-proxy, I actually do have a problem with N. Korea - and not due to anything that the administration has been saying. Even the IAEA has noted that N. Korea is a major exporter of missile/weapons tech. I'm not worried about N. Korea using a nuke so much as I am worried about it being used by someone who isn't afraid to die. Thus far, most nuclear tech remains in the hands of governments. Those government want to stay in power, which is a little hard to do when you've been fried to a crisp. But the broader the proliferation, the greater the chance of an organization who values martyrs getting ahold of it. That is what I'm afraid of.

Bush should have pulled his head out of his....hat a long time ago. I mean, I know Saddam thumbed his nose at your daddy and they've got a lot of oil, but couldn't you have paid a little more attention to the tiny man with the funny glasses and a nuke? haha...so wooonwy. I'm so wonwy. Team America cracks me up.

Oh, and on the FDR comment. While I tend to side with FDR on most things, you need to remember that the man who made that comment is the same man who locked over 100,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps because of fear that some of them might be working for the Japanese. No real evidence necessary. Just a racist view that they were all apes - not my view, check out the WWII propaganda posters.

So to sum it up: While I agree with you about the administration, I don't agree with you about the N. Korea situation. As for my comments on FDR, it jsut bothers me that so many presidents get a nice pretty glaze once they're gone. Then again, FDR could have been worse. He could have been Woodrow Wilson.

Question

[mapkinase]

What does depth 0 mean? Does it mean it was a surface test or underground test is "depth 0" as well due to the intrinsic error in measurement?

uh... no

[circletimessquare]

you cannot place what nk does anywhere near a scale of evil deeds for ANY other country in the world

a country that pursues nukes while its people starve, in order to blackmail its neighbors to give it aid... in order to pursue more military buildups, is pretty much evil, on a whole order of magnitude of evil, unlike any other country on the planet

really

"The NK government is standing with its back against the wall and wants to survive, at any cost. That's very human if you ask me, not evil."

no, that's not human, that's evil

the nk government is not pursuing a goal which holds the wellbeing of its people as one of its goals. the wellbeing of its people doesn't matter to it. the cult of kim il jong does. don't trust me to say that, simply google and look for what the nk government actually says

now if the purpose of the nk government was actually providing for its people, and if it sought to survive at any cost in order to keep doing this, then you would be right to call it human

but its seeking to survive at any cost, in SPITE OF what happens to its people

that's evil, by any definition, completely unlike every ohter country on the earth, by orders of magnitude

the government in nk is this weird evil cult of kim il jong. again, don't trust me to say that. go google what that government actually says about its "dear leader"

its evil, it really is, completely unlike any other govt on the planet, in a really horrible way

Re:uh... no

[krell]

"Used Nuclear Weapons on another country, even after they have attempted to surrender?"

That one specifically is quite wrong, concerning Japan. They even kept refusing to surrender AFTER a bomb was dropped, too.

Well..

[Kadmos]

Everyone should thank Mr Brush for his warnings on North Korea being part of the "axis of evil", and the "with us or aginst us" stuff. It is of course coincidence that the military actions of North Korea followed these statements.

But seriously, good luck to all those countries who want to impose sanctions on North Korea. After all "weapons of mass destruction" should only be held by the US, UK, France etc etc. Obviously sanctions won't piss North Korea off more than than they are and we have also seen in the past that sanctions are an effective means of punishment because it's the leaders of the country who go without and not the general public.

It's quite apparent to me that the people in power have learnt a whole heap of valuable lessons from the cold war on how to avoid conflict, especially where nuclear weapons are involved.

Reality check, huh wait...

[gx5000]

There are many reasons to be concerned about another nation joining the Nuclear club...
Proliferation to other nations being the number one worry of course...
But let's relax here a second...It's North Korea, not Iran right ?
They're not going to threathen Isreal or another non muslim state right ?
What are the US really worried about ?
Like they'll use them to invade the South ? Really ? I don't think so....
"Wag the Dog" might have been good fiction, but sometimes
the spin doctors really do outdo themselves and get us all riled up...
I haven't heard the term "Sovereign Nation" in a long time, you know why ? Then you have to respect their rights to do whatever you've done, and maybe you're not so proud of those things...But I digress...North Korea has the bomb, Iran might within ten years (so relax about that). By then, /. will be a highly controlled and moderated thing of the past, on Internet2. Cheers !

Mod parent -1 wrong please

[msebast]

> The cool thing about nukes is, all of the evidence to its origin is obliterated in the blast.

Why does factually wrong get marked as interesting?
Three other posters have pointed out that parent is wrong.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-04.ht m
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02nuke. html?ex=1296536400&en=341f6ecfda09ee14&ei=5090&par tner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Too late now. The article is stale and in the future it will only be read at +4 and the parent will seem accurate to those who don't know any better...

Re:WRONG! Nukes CAN be traced.

[msebast]

Why the -1 mod? Grand parent IS wrong! Nukes CAN be traced!

I just visited North Korea

[thisisauniqueid]

I just visited the DPRK a month ago. Contrary to what the Great Leader is telling the world, there are miles and miles and miles of corn, soy, rice, wheat and other grains. We drove 3 hours from Pyongyang to Kaesong (by the DMZ) and I could see edible crops pretty much the entire distance. There was, of course, also no sign of the flood damage that Kim Jong Il had asked for food aid for. The real problem is not that there isn't food, it's that basic freedoms denied North Koreans (including freedom of movement) extend to the distribution of food supplies.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[Fjornir]

The problem, sir, is that nuclear disarmament isn't necesarily a path to increased stability and in nuclear politics, stability trumps everything else.

The way it works is like this (I wish I knew who to credit for this and how to state it better, but the former is lost in memory and the latter... Well, whatever. ;) ). Take a Wild West town -- its been decided that there've been too many shootouts and its got to stop. Everyone agrees, and to this end all of the guns will be destroyed in the town square.

But I start thinking "Well, I know I'm going to give up all of my guns... But my neighbor Billy, well, he's a bit of a scoundrel. I bet he's gonna keep one back... Since I know I'm responsible enough to have one or two I'd better keep a couple myself... Just in case...." -- and then my neighbor Nancy, she knows about my problems with Billy and probably figures I'm going to be keeping one so she decides she's going to keep one, secret-like. Betty-Lou does the same. Pretty soon there's a new kind of arms race -- the race to cheat the most without getting caught, and the problem is then that the cheatingest folks have gained the upper hand, and do we really want that?

Um, not necessarily

[flimflam]

In the US, at least since Johnson there has been an absolute measure of poverty in the US based on the cost of living (and size of family). According to the current measurement, the poverty rate in the US is somewhere between 12% and 13%. This absolute measurement actually translates to only 29% or so of the median income, so if we were to use the "half the average income" measurement, the rate would be considerably higher than 13%.

Also, with income of less than $20,000 for a family of 4, I think you've underestimated the effects a bit. Granted, it generally doesn't mean starvation - certainly it's much much better than north korea. But I wouldn't say that it would be considered luxurious living by the majority of the world either. I know a lot of people that have come here from very poor circumstances, mostly in central america. The ones that are not doing well here actually have a much poorer quality of life than they did back home, even if their income is higher.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[scotch]

RE: rough number of strategic nuclear warheads, I'm sure about it.

i got this far, then i stopped reading:

[circletimessquare]

"This is the problem I have with US apologists."

i'm not a us apologist

the us does wrong in the world, the us does right in the world. it does both. that's called a balanced point of view

any pov that consider only the evil the us does, or only the good the us does, is wrong and invalid

furthermore, any pov that only considers the usa when making a judgment is also invalid: the us is not the only country in the world. there are many others. i understand that. do you?

now, try writing again, but this time, try being balanced in your understanding of the world

You're wrong

[loqi]

Get this. The slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule. That's because it's obvious that you can't a "free" a people into absolute poverty. That's not freedom.

Now, you've shown that you clearly don't believe in justice on a social level, only on an individual level. So fuck you. The slaves never got their 40 acres and a mule. You take the alienated sons and daughters of a culture they're forcibly removed from, who've either been recently abducted or shit on for generations, and tell them "oh, you're free to go now", what do you fucking think is going to happen? A magical embrace of the Great American Dream? "Pull yourself up by your boostraps" is not a credible phrase to use when talking on a social level, and that's the level that's relevant in this discussion. Any systemic oppression of an entire people, such as that which still exists in America today against blacks needs to be addressed. The solution isn't always pretty, but neglecting it is simply immoral. We've inherited our forefathers' civilization and society, and all the benefits that entails, yet you act like that comes with no responsibility whatsoever for those it's trampled along the way. You're wrong.

But you know what really pisses me off about you Republicans whining about welfare leeches? It's the fact that you support a party that actively participates in vast amounts of corporate welfare, but I see very little criticism of that use of your tax dollars. No, you'd much rather bemoan the loss of your money to the poor, or to minorities. That's why you're called racist. You'd demonize the poor and dispossessed, and claim the brutal history of their culture's treatment is irrelevant. You'd offer up token examples of systemic abuse as an excuse to unconditionally strip welfare from everyone who really does need it, instead of protesting the same kind of abuse by the ultra-rich. You're looked down upon because your head is up your ass.

Re:You're wrong

[hcob$]

I never said that I was a Republican. I only told what happens to someone who calls themself one. I've never seen a systematic oppression of blacks in America today.

If anything, I see that the biggest oppression in America today is the oppression of ideas that MIGHT offend SOMEONE. The oppression of Religious Expression, the oppression of any dissenting view from white man to the words of a black man(instantly labeled a bigot by the NAACP and ACLU), the oppression of wealthy by taxing their income more than someone who "works for a living". There are many injusticies; it's just that threat of leaglized extortion and forced bankruptcy at the whim of someone who is "offended" has suppressed these injustices that never see the light of day.

Re:You're wrong

[loqi]

The oppression of Religious Expression

Myth.

the oppression of wealthy by taxing their income more than someone who "works for a living"

Ahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha.

Seriously. You're too much.

Re:You're wrong

[hcob$]

The oppression of Religious Expression

Myth.

Ok, go try to stand outside the ACLU's home office with a bible and cross talking about sinners, hell, and damnation. See how long you get to stay there

the oppression of wealthy by taxing their income more than someone who "works for a living"

Ahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha.

So it's ok to tax someone on an arbitray scale because you think it's "for the greater good"? OK, I think for the greater good, you should have to live at 3% above the poverty line and anything else you make is given to your neighbors who have to put up with you.

I've never heard people who are poor say they need to be taxed more, so why should someone who has money get taxed more? Just because they can?

Re:You're wrong

[Divebus]

WHAAAAAATTT???? So, here are people born and raised in the US who "never had a chance". Compare that to several waves of immigrants in the last few decades here, most notably the Vietnamese.

These people came here with only their lives if they made it at all. They were sneered at and rejected for all but the most menial jobs.

One thing they had was WORK ETHIC. Within three to five years, these people owned stores. Within a few more years, they were driving Volvos and owned houses. When their kids grew up, they were likely enrolled in an Ivey League school.

So tell me why I still need to support born and raised Americans who can hardly speak properly, have no idea who their father is and are more likely to be standing there in an orange suit thinking the world owes them a living?

Trust me, I don't hate these people but I hate what their doing to our Nation.

OH... here's another story:

I get a call from a friend across the country to help evict people squatting in their condo. They haven't paid rent in months but the lady drives a Mercedes and has her two grown sons (not working) living there, plus a daughter (not working) with a child (from an unknown father).

I knock on the door and the younger son answers. I tell him that in a week, I'll be living here and I don't mean sleeping on their couch. He complains that we should let them stay because they really can't find a job. Right

Down the street is a Pizza Hut advertising for "HELP WANTED". I suggest to the kid that he apply for work there. He answers "I don't want that job, I want to be a manager". What sort of obtuse entitlement does this kid assume?

I answer, "ok, lets say you're an apartment manager and your guests aren't paying the rent. What would you do?" The answer is pretty much "DUH". They thought we should let them live there while my friend paid the $1,000 a month mortgage and they contributed NOTHING. Does that seem fair to you? It seemed fair to them.

In a week I moved their shit out to the curb and rehabilitated the place, renting it out to paying customers.

Before you flame me for being a racist, I didn't mention race. Anybody feel like a racist? I won't tell you what their complexion is and it really doesn't matter. The problem is that we're loaded to the gills with these types putting lots of hard earned money down the drain.

Earn a living, goddamit

Re:You're wrong

[loqi]

Ok, go try to stand outside the ACLU's home office with a bible and cross talking about sinners, hell, and damnation. See how long you get to stay there

Thank you for proving my point. I could do just that, and if I wasn't there on a government paycheck they couldn't (and wouldn't) do anything about it. You're obviously another unfortunate victim of lunatic Christian anti-ACLU propaganda. Sorry bout that.

I've never heard people who are poor say they need to be taxed more, so why should someone who has money get taxed more? Just because they can?

I may answer this later in the thread (because it's also very wrong), but for now I'm just going to point out that you said the wealthy are oppressed in this country. Progressive taxation is not oppression (even the silly bracketed system currently in use), so the onus is on you to explain your laughable comment.

Re:You're wrong

[loqi]

Compare that to several waves of immigrants in the last few decades here, most notably the Vietnamese. These people came here with only their lives if they made it at all. They were sneered at and rejected for all but the most menial jobs. One thing they had was WORK ETHIC.

And the reason train comes grinding to a halt right at this point. Conservatives love to talk about work ethic like it's some kind of "free will" magic, and assert that people lacking it are just somehow intrinsically shit, end of discussion. It's downright ignorant to treat it as some kind of axiom, with no deeper causal relationships. Do I think your anecdote describes people with an inflated sense of entitlement who are leeching from the rest of us "hard-working Americans"? Of course, I'd be a fool not to. But there are other factors to consider:
1) The obvious one, how representative is that? Anecdotes don't carry much weight at the scale I was discussing.
2) Does the negative impact of the existence of leeches outweigh the positive impact of, well, the actual social welfare? One could take the (ultra-Libertarian) argument that since those people are abusing tax dollars, government should be dismantled. That's just the far end of the continuum that points at those people as an argument against social programs. This also comes around to corporate handouts. If more money is being wasted on an arguably more corrupt cause, what is the real motivation behind going after welfare? It's like justifying Iraq by saying Saddam runs a brutal regime, or outlawing marijuana because it has some negative health effects.
3) Most importantly, are there any root causes to this observed lack of work ethic, why do they exist, and what can be done about them? This is huge. Those Vietnamese came to America looking for a land of opportunity and freedom. The difference between that and the history of most blacks in this country is pretty vast. Do you think the freed slaves saw America in a similar light? Do you really think that they had any desire, incentive, or ability to pass on to their subsequent generations the necessary foundations of a stable subculture? These things matter, not just then, but now, because they describe a process that's still in motion. Telling the descendants of a broken people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps en masse, and comparing them to some other culture with a completely different history, accomplishes nothing except spreading divisive attitudes.

Re:You're wrong

[Divebus]

Conservatives love to talk about work ethic like it's some kind of "free will" magic

First, I don't consider myself conservative nor liberal but I certainly think there's a HUGE component of free will which determines our fate. Second, the Asians have more than just work ethic. The roots are based on personal pride, respect for elders, achievement and the like. Many Vietnamese arrived here with absolutely nothing and over the course of ten years owned stores, drove Volvos and sent their kids to Princeton. Third, your various points are quite conflicted. You want to help everyone escape their downtrodden surroundings, but do it gently and with love. Try to understand where their ancestors came from and how hard it was which continues to this day... Ahhhh bullshit.

how representative is that? Anecdotes don't carry much weight at the scale I was discussing.

That wasn't an isolated anecdote and it wasn't an extrusion of stereotyping. You might have noticed that every stereotype is based on fact and experience. Exaggerated in many instances but why not take a stroll through Compton in Los Angeles or East St. Louis to see for yourself. Take some self help brochures with you and maybe some job applications. You won't come out the other end alive. Our urban streets (and jails) are full of people who believe it's more glamorous to earn a living through blatant crime and leeching than to join the lawful workforce of the Nation. The ones who really could pull themselves up are held down by peer pressure and plain old survival. Considering that 100 years ago the IRS didn't exist and now they're taking 30% of my paycheck pisses me off. Most of it goes to military toys but some of it goes here. It's way time for our fossilized government to reform this treadmill we're perpetuating.

These folks think it's personal. You know what? It's not personal, it's math. If you don't produce then you're a liability. I've worked with dozens of people who have that "hip-hop" attitude. Just try to get through one day without feeling like they're dragging feet and complaining about fairness at the same time. Then see if they show up for work half the time and take you to court when you fire them for job abandonment. Sheesh.

To those abusing programs designed for survival of the truly deprived, our Government is a giant gold faucet dispensing untold sums of cash if you can figure out how to turn the handle. In the same culture, any citizen is a potential target for a crime of opportunity, sometimes violent and usually profitable for the criminal. Drugs, guns, murder, rape, abuse, auto theft, looting - this behavior is GLORIFIED in music, actions, attitude, dress and general behavior. "It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that bling" to paraphrase. This crap didn't come over on a boat and was never forced upon them. It grew out of defiance and rebellion against the very system they prey upon. Certain elements of this culture don't want to actually work lest they be targeted for selling out. The liberal approach only prolongs their justification to continue this behavior. It takes powerful intervention and incentive to escape this culture and that's the middle road where I am.

I'm sure you've seen Bill Cosby's remarks - "our biggest problem gets out of school every day at 2:30". His parents came over on a boat in chains. Where did he go right? Same with millions of others who escaped the vortex of violent urban subculture. Have you seen Bill's remarks? I'll stick them right here:

"We Can't Blame White People"
Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:23:29 EDT
by BILL COSBY

"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk:

Why you ain't,
Where you is,
What he drive,
Where he stay,
Where he work,
Who you be...
And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk.

Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. Yo

Re:You're wrong

[loqi]

How in the hell did this get on /. in an article about N. Korea on /.? We're way OT and have said my last.

Well, as long as there's substance to the conversation, I'll reply. Most interesting /. discussions are at least somewhat OT.

First, I don't consider myself conservative nor liberal but I certainly think there's a HUGE component of free will which determines our fate.

Okay. I feel I should point out that this is basically a metaphysical assertion (one I don't share, as I don't think "free will" even defines a coherent concept, especially on scales where statstics come into play), and we as a society should operate on facts and science, not fairy tales.

Second, the Asians have more than just work ethic. The roots are based on personal pride, respect for elders, achievement and the like.

Well that fits pretty directly into my point. Everything has a cause that's bigger than the individual.

You want to help everyone escape their downtrodden surroundings, but do it gently and with love. Try to understand where their ancestors came from and how hard it was which continues to this day... Ahhhh bullshit.

Oh yeah, my argument is bullshit... good point! You really seem to have a hard time understanding that social history doesn't replace personal responsibility. You also seem to be confusing what concepts are applicable at what scale. Should we "blame the blacks" for inner-city violence?

Our urban streets (and jails) are full of people who believe it's more glamorous to earn a living through blatant crime and leeching than to join the lawful workforce of the Nation.

Our jails are full of drug offenders. Selling LSD will often land you a harsher sentence than committing a rape or murder. A guy shoots my aunt twice in the head, gets out in 7 years for good behavior. But get caught growing weed and you'll lose your house, all of your assets, your paycheck will be garnished for basically the rest of your life, and that's after a 10+-year prison sentence. Why not turn to "real" crime at that point?

To those abusing programs designed for survival of the truly deprived, our Government is a giant gold faucet dispensing untold sums of cash if you can figure out how to turn the handle.

Well, the sums are actually finite, and far from the most grievous misuse of our tax dollars. To reiterate something from an earlier post of mine, why is there such a focus on welfare leeches when the ludicrously rich are also exploiting the government? Not only exploiting it, but actively corrupting it in the process. It speaks of a hidden agenda.

Drugs, guns, murder, rape, abuse, auto theft, looting - this behavior is GLORIFIED in music, actions, attitude, dress and general behavior.

Part cause, mostly symptom.

This crap didn't come over on a boat and was never forced upon them. It grew out of defiance and rebellion against the very system they prey upon. Certain elements of this culture don't want to actually work lest they be targeted for selling out.

I agree completely, but it's all just more pointless blame. Once someone is born into these conditions, their future is pretty much a done deal. So we can rant all day long about how crappy the symptoms are (pointless), we can try to contain the symptoms from harming the rest of society (by locking up violent criminals, necessary), and we can try to attack the symptoms directly (like Bill Cosby is about to do in your post, pointless).

The liberal approach only prolongs their justification to continue this behavior.

The "liberal approach"? You know, I remember learning about a project in a sociology class. They (the state, I believe, not sure) took 4,000 inner-city families, secured them with decent jobs (note that they didn't just tell them to find a job), and gave them decent houses in the sub

Hardware?

[Kangburra]

How does this relate to hardware?

Re: But it was crossbows

[TapeCutter]

"Longbows took years of training and thus were in limited supply."

At the peak of their use, virtualy every male peasant in britain practised archery with a longbow, archery was viewed as both a sport and a duty to the crown. A properly constructed longbow (using layers of different wood) has a greater range than a manually drawn crossbow and can be reloaded much faster. Mechanically drawn crossbows had a better range but reloading was painfully slow. Crossbows are certainly more accurate but that is a moot point when you are firing 100,000+ arrows per minute.

Re:Bush is a Jackass and a Hypocrite

[buckysphere]

(This is not directed only at you. Although, you seem to be quite a jackass...I am only commenting to your post b/c...well, that is where I happened to stop reading this thread.)

After reading this thread I have come to one conclusion...there can't possibly be a larger group of pussies on the entire planet. Listen to yourselves. We (the US and allies)are in a life and death struggle with ______(insert whichever crazy-ass dictator or religious leader or...) and you all choose to bash the US and Bush? Are you f'ing serious? Do you have no knowledge of history and no foresight? Some day (bet on it!) your sorry little whiney ass will be thanking God (or whatever you worship) for the US because we will have saved your ass (or your country) from one of these crazy-ass leaders. "Your Welcome!", in advance.

North Korean Nukes: No way

[tgrigsby]

Ok, so let's review:

1. Uranium is difficult to obtain/produce/store, and uranium and the technology to refine it are both extremely expensive.
2. Kim Jong Il is a psychopath, but he's not stupid, and he's used to fooling agencies that attempt to monitor him using satellites or remote detection systems.
3. As it turns out, the radiation signature is nearly non-existent if it's an underground test.
4. You set off enough explosives, and it will look like the seismic thump of a nuke.

If you ask me, there is no way Illin' Kim is going to waste a perfectly good nuke when all he really has to do to make people sweat is make a huge bang.

Re:Bush is a Jackass and a Hypocrite

[bratwiz]

Lessee... just so I can get my lil' whiney ass on the right page... which crazy-ass dictator am I supposed to be thanking God for... the one we invaded that DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction (though they DID have a shitload of oil)... or the one that we DIDN'T invade that DID have weapons of mass destruction (but no oil). Or the one we're shaking the big stick at because they dare to get uppity and wanna have a better life (oh, and probably some nukes too)... (and --bonus-- they have OIL!)

Talk about PUSSIES.

BUSH and the REPUBLICANS can pick on countries that DON'T HAVE Weapons of Mass Destruction but can't be bothered to invade the ones that DO. Sounds like a typical schoolyard bully to me. They only pick on the WEAK kids that can't defend themselves.

OH-- and just look at how WELL we are handling the job too.

Call me anything you want. Its unpleasant to hear truth. Our country is incredibly fucked-up at the hands of BUSH, his cronies, and the REPUBLICANS.

Of course, if you ask me, the DEMOCRATS are a bunch of pussies too. And I wouldn't trust them to WIN the war in Iraq OR solve the IRAN and North Korea problem. They WILL get us out of the war though-- they'll just cut and run. I have no doubt that what Bush says is true about that.

The biggest PROBLEM in this country is that we have one single party controlling ALL of the major sections of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The founding fathers never dreamed in a zillion years that one single political idealogy would monopolize our government. In their day there were LOTS of factions and none of them had a clear majority. In fact, the political party didn't even enter the scene until the mid 1780's.

We have close to 300 Million people in this country and we (generally) only get to pick from two assholes for any given national office. Its gotten to the point where a third-party candidate doesn't have a prayer since the prevaling wisdom is "a vote for the third-party guy is really a vote for whichever _other_ party you really oppose" (ie. a vote for foobar is really a vote for the democrats) on the assumption that most people will vote along party lines and the third-party candidate can't get a clear majority and thus will "waste" a vote that could have gone for one of the candidates that actually had a "chance" to win.

This is SO bogus.

All we ever get to pick from are tax-happy liberals and war-mongering conservatives. I don't know about you, but I-- for one-- am sick and bloody tired of it.

And ALL of them pick our pockets and piss on our backs and tell us its raining. POLITICIANS SUCK. I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats-- and probably third-party candidates too.

So now we have this bunch of ARROGANT FUCKING ASSHOLES in office sending American kids to war for oil.

GO AHEAD-- I DARE YOU-- TELL ME IT AIN'T FOR OIL

(And mod me down and call me a troll while you're at it-- that's what you all do when you have mod points and get your little feelings hurt)

Call me a Jackass too if you want. That's fine with me. I can handle being called names.

What I CAN'T HANDLE is our country being sold down the river by these REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES. And I only say Republican because they have the power at the moment. The Democrats are just as bad. They just waffle more and are worried how we FEEL about it afterwards.

no need to waste an ICBM

[r00t]

We have bombers.

To bomb Iraq/Afganistan, we sometimes fly an around-the-world trip from the base in the US. The flight is about 46 hours, with one stop for a crew change at an island in the Indian Ocean.

I think we can reach North Korea. :-)

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the 535 members of the house and senate, a total of two percent, meaning twelve members, have, or have had, children in Iraq or Afghanistan...I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.

U.S. armed forces currently stand at about 1.4 million strong. Even if we were to ramp back up to the Cold War readiness levels, that is 2.0 million (at a cost of about $1.5 billion per 10,000 personnel, that is a huge ramp up). The adult, military age (the 15-40 cohort) population of the United States is approximately 160 million (take the 15-64 cohort of about 200 million, then subtract out all cohorts above 40). The representation of the general population in the armed forces is therefore 1.4:160, or 0.875%.

Back out about 10 million as a wild-assed guess for people in the general population who are unsuitable for the armed forces (NIH estimates about 6% of entire population exhibit severe mental health problems, so perhaps this might account for about 6 million within the military age cohort ineligible for military service). So about 150 million in the general population are eligible (physically and mentally, not talking about political/religious/ethical disposition) for military service with some quick back of the envelope calculations. That puts the general population representation in the U.S. armed forces at 1.4:150, or 0.933%. If you increase the size of the armed forces to Cold War levels the representation of the general population goes to 1.333%. If you decrease the available pool of eligible volunteers by another 20 million down to 130 million and increase the force levels to 2.0 million, that puts the general population representation at 1.539%. The actual, precise general population numbers might budge by a few million here or there, but that is only going to move the ratio by a few fractions of a percent as you can see.

At 2.243% representation within the armed forces, the elected national representative leaders are anywhere from about 50% to over 100% over-represented when compared to their constituents, depending upon your demographic assumptions. I assert that as long as you are going to run the comparisons, as a representative republic, comparing per capita representation in the armed forces between the national leadership's children and the general population is an entirely appropriate manner to judge the overall relative commitment of either group to backing up their war rhetoric with sharing the burdens of war. It is impractical to throw your leadership of military age en masse into a war effort, but if you believed that you would have come out and said it; instead, you focused on the rate of enlistment of the adult age children of the leadership.

This is all assuming you accept the premise (which you apparently do, because that is the foundation of your assertion when you are counting the progeny of the leadership who enlist) that the individual choice of a legally recognized adult (even as young as 18) to join the military, which translates into a familial burden, counts as a commitment. Other posters have sagely pointed out that congressional members have no legal right to force their adult age children to either join or not join the armed forces. If it does count as a commitment of the leadership, it likely does so only in a very loose manner. Probably best to focus on what the legislative leadership can directly control to measure their commitment to the war, which is the legislation and funding of the war effort. Now, if you had claimed the leadership is showing more commitment to a war than the general population as a basis for an argument that the war has no popular support, these numbers migh

Did you even read what you wrote?

[Slashdot Parent]

You couldn't have possibly read what you just typed.

Just ask any one of the millions of poor people, or immigrants getting paid wages lower then what can sustain them.

Immigrants, by definition, are here by their own free will. If they don't like the "psychology" of living much better in the US than they did in Mexico, they wouldn't make the dangerous trek through the desert.

Do you know any actual "poor" people? I do. Some of my residents (I own rental property) live below the poverty line. That's right. According to both the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, these people are living in "poverty".

The fact is these folks get along just fine. They have cash flow that is not counted as income for poverty-testing purposes and, inclusive of public assistance and under-the-table work, they make way more than what would be considered "poverty" for families of their size. Forget about having enough to eat, these folks all have high-end televisions (much nicer than mine), satellite TV (I don't even have cable), meals out at restaurants, and medical costs paid for by the government (or free clinics). This is a strange definition of "poverty", which is why I use the air quotes around the word.

Not that I begrudge them their high standard of living. I don't wish true poverty on anybody. All I'm saying is that when you read these "poverty" numbers, they include people like these who don't (or can't... Some of my residents are totally disabled) have over $20,000.00 of W-2 income, but receive money from other sources and live just fine. To say that these folks live in true poverty is ludicrous. I'd be interested to see the numbers of people who truly cannot eat (how long does it take to panhandle $1.00? That's a double-cheeseburger at McDonalds, and potable water is free.)

Travel to a third-world country once to see what true poverty looks like. We're talking no access to clean water. No access to anything that westerners would consider shelter. Inadequate food. No hospitals. No schools. For large populations of people. Nothing. This is poverty, and this does not exist anywhere in the US that I am aware of. That is why you have immigrants risking life and limb to immigrate to the US both legally and otherwise. I don't blame them for coming here to live in air-quotes "poverty". In their shoes, I'd probably do the same thing.

That $20k is W-2 only

[Slashdot Parent]

Also, with income of less than $20,000 for a family of 4

...exclusive of public, private, and charitable assistance. I have residents who make less than $20k of W-2 and are technically living in "poverty", but they have incoming cash flow of way more than $20k when you count all sources.

We're doing our job, then

[Slashdot Parent]

Fact is, 16% of families with children in the USA don't manage to feed themselves adequately

That uncited "fact" sounds a little silly. What exactly does "adequate feeding" mean? Not following the Online Food Pyramid or something?

Tens of millions of people seek emergency food assistance from charities every year.

So they are eating. Good, then we are doing our jobs.

46% of African-American children are chronically hungry.

It may not be politically correct to say this, but eff it. They sure don't look very hungry to me. At any rate, I walk past a food-assistance station on the way home from work every day and I don't see anybody being turned away hungry, African-American or otherwise.

Cuba has better infant mortality rates than the USA.

Why, yes, they do. Cuba has 6.5 deaths per 1000 live births, and the US has 6.6. Funny, isn't it, the hundreds of thousands of Cubans who have attempted to navigate the Florida Straits by makeshift raft in an attempt to reach the United States. If only they knew how high the US infant mortality rate was in comparison to their native Cuba they could have saved themselves the trouble. Or could it be that they lived in real poverty in Cuba and preferred to live in air-quotes "poverty" in the US, which means only 1 plasma television set.

Systemic Oppression

[Slashdot Parent]

Any systemic oppression of an entire people, such as that which still exists in America today against blacks

Could you please tell me how blacks are systemically oppressed in the US today? I've heard many people make that claim, but I have never been told the actual mechanism by which white people systemically oppress black people in 2006.

I ask, because I'd be interested in getting rid of it. If it's actually there. But I don't even know where to begin, because I don't even know what white people, in 2006, are doing wrong.

Oh, and before you respond, I'm not interested in statistics without the causes of those statistics. I can google for x% of black people make less than $y per year for any value of x or y, but that doesn't tell me what white people are doing to cause this, or if white people are causing it at all. If we are to ever stop oppression, we must identify the mechanisms of the oppression. This is why I would be interested in learning about.

Re:Systemic Oppression

[loqi]

Could you please tell me how blacks are systemically oppressed in the US today? I've heard many people make that claim, but I have never been told the actual mechanism by which white people systemically oppress black people in 2006.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you also haven't pursued the topic much. Besides the fairly obvious (IMO) factors arising from their social history, many American standardized tests (including the SAT) have shown a consistent bias towards white, middle- or upper-class Americans. That's just one example pulled the from the hat; I don't study this much any more, so I'd have to dig back for more. A little independent research will turn up plenty, though.

if white people are causing it at all

Well, define "white people". We could end racism at the individual level tomorrow, and we'd still have a significant problem. So from one point of view, "white people" aren't necessarily the issue (although there's still plenty of clear-cut "regular" racism, more on that in a moment). It was definitely "white people" that established the overall structure of our society as it stands today, and guided it here. A lot of it really is just the echoes of the past. Promises made to the newly freed slaves weren't kept, and they had to start out, not only at the bottom of society, but working against:
a) Incredible prejudice, violence, etc.
b) Their own animosity toward our society built up by generations of abuse.

So the argument is something like, "given the there was obvious systemic racism when the slaves were freed, can you demonstrate the mechanism by which that racism has been eradicated?" The gist is that if you can't, you have something of a smoking gun to back up all those statistics that you earlier dismissed. So I see your argument as backwards: we know there was a problem, the only question is has it been solved? That's why inequality statistics are cited so much in this context.

Now, as for more individual-level racism (which of course ultimately affects things on a systemic level), one obvious place is law enforcement. I remember seeing a study years ago showing that even black police officers often tended to have racist (in the anti-black sense) tendencies. Last set of statistics I saw, roughly half of the people in prison for marijuana offenses were hispanic. So that implies something causal unless you believe that roughly half of the marijuana users in this country are hispanic. Another (probably better) example is the sentencing disparity between convictions for possession of cocaine in powder form vs. crack form. Crack sentences were much harsher, for what was essentially the same drug... the difference being rich white folk generally used good ole' coke, whilst the poorer black folk tended to smoke crack.

Re:Systemic Oppression

[Slashdot Parent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you also haven't pursued the topic much.

Actually, it's quite the contrary. I try to ask folks, like yourself, who seem to know a lot about the subject and can speak confidently about current oppression of black people. I find it unacceptable that people should be oppressed, whether because of skin color or any other reason, and I want to know what I, as a white person, might be doing unknowingly to oppress black people. If there is something, then I sure as heck want to change it. But how can I change if I don't even know what to change?

Besides the fairly obvious (IMO) factors arising from their social history

Actually, it is not obvious to me why slavery, which ended 6.5 generations ago should have any lingering effects. Do you honestly look at a black person and think "freed slave"? I sure don't, and I doubt you do either.

I agree that Jim Crow laws persisted a long time after slavery was abolished, but that was 3 generations ago. I consider myself to be a reasonably-well-educated person, yet I don't even know who Jim Crow was or even if he was a real person.

many American standardized tests (including the SAT) have shown a consistent bias towards white, middle- or upper-class Americans.

Fortunately, we have Affirmative Action to compensate for this bias.

Promises made to the newly freed slaves weren't kept, and they had to start out, not only at the bottom of society, but working against: a) Incredible prejudice, violence, etc.

Would 40 acres and a mule back in the 1860-1870's have really made the difference? What if each black person were today given the modern day equivalent, say, a reliable automobile and a Treo, would that make the difference?

I understand the issues of prejudice and abuse that the freed slaves faced, but were those not faced by members of every wave of immigration to the United States? The Irish were not welcome here. They were the victims of blatant discrimination and violence. Ditto for the Germans, the Jews, the Italians, the Poles. Yet we don't hear about how this discrimination continues to affect them to this very day. Most young people don't even know that it occurred at all.

b) Their own animosity toward our society built up by generations of abuse.

Now this is an interesting one. Any suggestions on how to cure this? I mean, it's been generations since the abuse happened, as well.

The gist is that if you can't, you have something of a smoking gun to back up all those statistics that you earlier dismissed.

I don't dismiss or deny any statistics. I'm merely asking for the story behind the numbers. I want to hear the mechanism of how white people are causing the suffering of black people. I understand very well how white people caused black people to suffer centuries ago. What I do not understand, is how white people cause black people to suffer in 2006.

If it is the case that white people cause black people to suffer in 2006, I believe that we must put a stop to it. But we can't put a stop to it if we don't first identify the problem. You assert that there is a problem. I'm asking you to identify it. The causes of it. Use all the statistics that you want, but I assert that statistics alone will not help solve the problem because they don't identify the problem. Saying that group A scores X points lower than group B on the SAT is fine, and I'm sure it's accurate. But that isn't the problem. If it were the problem, we could solve it easily enough by simply changing the scores of group A to match that of group B. But surely you must agree that that statistic alone does not prove repression of group A by group B. So that's why I asked for more than statistics. I want to know how group B represses group A, if that repression is occurring at all. How else can we solve it?

Re:Systemic Oppression

[loqi]

Let me start by pointing out that my initial assertion about systemic oppression doesn't really hinge on people being white. It's just that they're the dominant ethnic group in America today. I'm sure there are plenty of Asians who have racist tendencies as well. As I mentioned earlier, there are even blacks with anti-black racial prejudices.

I find it unacceptable that people should be oppressed, whether because of skin color or any other reason, and I want to know what I, as a white person, might be doing unknowingly to oppress black people.

Probably nothing beyond your participation and support of a slanted social structure. Hell, maybe your contribution is positive, I don't really know anything about you.

Actually, it is not obvious to me why slavery, which ended 6.5 generations ago should have any lingering effects.

To quote the most annoying part of the bible: begat, begat, begat, begat, begat, begat. Millionaires tend to raise millionaires. Wife-beaters tend to raise wife-beaters. The dispirited fragments of a society tend to raise dispirited fragments. The "mechanism" you're looking for and failing to see is simple causality and persistence. I'm not sure how else to phrase it.

Fortunately, we have Affirmative Action to compensate for this bias.

Exactly. IMO, Affirmative Action is a necessary evil as long as these obviously social-scale problems exist.

Now this is an interesting one. Any suggestions on how to cure this? I mean, it's been generations since the abuse happened, as well.

Well, since modern day poverty is essentially the end result of all of this, my suggestion is Big Scary Government Social Programs. They don't even need to be race-sensitive, as long as they're addressing the issue adequately. Of course, I could cite instances of them working phenomenally, and you could no doubt cite instances of them failing miserably, so I think that one just basically comes down to ideological priorities.

If it is the case that white people cause black people to suffer in 2006, I believe that we must put a stop to it.

Well I'll do one better. I'll say that if black people suffer disproportionately in 2006, we must put a stop to it. Ditto for any other group that doesn't choose their membership.

But we can't put a stop to it if we don't first identify the problem.

Many problems have been identified. Poverty is a fairly obvious one, and it's relatively straightforward to address. Deep-seated cultural biases (such as the aforementioned test score disparity) are so difficult to address that sometimes an ugly hack like Affirmative Action is necessary.

I want to know how group B represses group A

Well since you seem to want exactly two sides in this, how about group A is blacks, group B is everyone else. Or group A is hispanics, group B is everyone else. It's really not as clear-cut as you're trying to see it, and whites are certainly not the only responsible party.

Well, now this is interesting. It's also unattributed, so I have no reason to believe it to be true, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that it is true.

In about the time it took you to write that, you could have run this query:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cocaine+%22sentenci ng+disparity%22

In this scenario, we have two groups of convicted criminals: white and black. White people, for reasons of a) using cocaine instead of crack cocaine, b) having access to better legal counsel, c) simply being white, or d) some other unidentified reason, are receiving shorter sentences than black people, convicted of a similar offense.

Well, what I am specifically talking about here is a difference, codified in law, as to what sentences should be meted out for the two forms of the drug. So b), c), and d) are irreleva

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[bratwiz]

Man, I wish I could mod your post up. It deserves it. What a well-thought out posting!

I'll have to mull over the numeric aspect of your post before I decide whether I agree with that part or not.

However, as to the remaining points-- I'm not knee-jerk anti-war. I'm just not for _this_ war. Perhaps I might have been (or could still be) if it had been (or would be) presented factually, truthfully, and methodically what the evidence for war was (is) and then given over to the house and senate to consider. As it was, Iraq and Sadaam Hussein was convicted in the court of public opinion by a very well-coordinated series of one-two punches that nobody had a chance to step back from and consider. There was a much better case for going to war in Afghanistan or Pakistan (still is) with respect to the "War on Terrorism" and chasing Al Queida. Bush and Cheney and the senior administration were making the rounds on every talk show, on every news show, in every newspaper-- beating the drum for war. If they did not outright manufacture evidence (ie. LIE) of Iraqi duplicity and complicity, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction-- and particularly with respect to allowing the American public to believe that there was some connection between Iraqi, Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda when there clearly was not! There are two types of lies: lies of commission, and lies of omission. To permit the American people to persist in the belief that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda was at least a lie of omission. Truth-telling requires the active correction of erroneous details, something Bush and his administration assuredly did not do. Even to this day the administration would like us to believe-- even though they no longer assert-- that Iraq and Al Qaeda are somehow connected. Its convenient for them for us to be confused and they aren't going out of their way to disabuse us of our misbegotten notions.

I don't know what the truth of 9/11 was. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist-- for one thing I have misplaced my tinfoil hat someplace-- but I have a hard time believing all of the "facts" of the situation as presented by the Bush administration and the 9/11 commission. The whole thing just seems "too pat". But okay, sometimes coincidences happen-- I'll agree to not look at that part too closely-- but even if there was no complicity it sure was "damned convenient" for the Bush administration and the Republicans. Perhaps it would have been just as convenient if the Democrats were in office-- I can't say since they weren't. And of course they would fall all over themselves to claim they wouldn't have been, so we'll never really know that point.

The truth is that Bush had been trying to make the case for war against Iraq since the day he took office. Its public knowledge that Bush was advocating the ousting of Saddam long before 9/11-- even at the first National Security Council meeting in January 2001. Recall that on 9/12 Bill Bennett said that we were in "a struggle between good and evil", that congress should declare war on "militant Islam", and that "overwhelming force" should be used. The nations he cited as evil were China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Syria. Afghanistan, home of Al Queda did not even make it on the list. Why were these countries singled out before anybody even knew who attacked us? Furthermore, these assertions were followed-up with inferences that Hezbollah was somehow involved and therefore retaliation should include the eradication of Hezbollah.

So did Bush get a warning about the attacks to come on 9/11? Apparently so. There are lots of accounts by CIA and other intelligence personnel that they attempted numerous times to warn the White House about attacks on American soil, even attacks involving the use of aircraft to smash into buildings! Lately it has ben coming out that many warnings, alarms and reports were raised on several fronts and the Bush administration turned a blind eye and a tin ear to their call. Was this a result of misjudgement? Ine

Damn Yankees

[Hillgiant]

Not You(capital Y - singular) personally, but you (in all small caps - plural)

This is why we need to popularize the use of "y'all". Then it is immediately obvious which pronoun is singular and which is plural. Offtopic, I know. But it needs to be said.

Why cluster bombs are bad

[ukemike]

The problem with cluster bombs is that for EVERY one that is dropped, between 10% and 30% of the bomblets DO NOT DETONATE. These bomblets are left behind and are likely to detonate when they are disturbed. So the site of a cluster bomb attack is littered with what are essentially anti-personnel mines. The bomblets tend to be brightly colored and about the size of a tennis ball. A high poportion of victims of these left behind bomblets are children. Unfortunately these weapons are not completely banned. They should be. It is still legal under the laws of war to use them against military targets. In my opinion the use of a weapon that you know will leave behind a legacy of further deaths to civilians is an abomination. DU is another weapon of this sort that comes to mind.