North Korea Launches "Communication Satellite" Rocket

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

North Korea Launches "Communication Satellite" Rocket

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Saturday April 4, 2009 @05:33PM from the transmitting-a-message-of-sorts dept.

Mad Ivan writes "The BBC has just reported that North Korea has launched a long-range rocket, which they say is a communications satellite, but that the US and Japan fear may actually be a ballistic missile. Details are still arriving; the rocket passed over northern Japan on its way up."

79 of 492 comments (clear)

First post! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-04 17:34 · Score: 5, Funny

First (and last) post!
1. Re:First post! by cjfs · 2009-04-04 18:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  First (and last) post!
  Well, if we're all doomed anyways we should at least go out in style. First one to throw together a spacebat-esque montage of Kim Jong-Il's antics wins.
2. Re:First post! by soren202 · 2009-04-04 18:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Oh no, I for one trust North Korea to tell the truth and do what they sa-
3. Re:First post! by Mr.+Slippery · 2009-04-05 02:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Inspirational credit formally acknowledged to Axle Rose & the rest of G&R
  
  Umm...you do know the original source of that bit of dialog, and that it was merely sampled by G&R, right?
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Manip · 2009-04-04 17:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

The summary is just wrong...
Nobody is suggesting (except the person writing this summary) that the payload of this rocket was anything more than a communications satellite.
What the international community is concerned about is that this really isn't about the satellite and is instead just an excuse to test better ICBMs.
North Korea is banned from launching ICBMs but allowed to conduct space exploration.
1. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 17:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Multiple wrongs do not make a right, and you can't undo history. Putting effective ICBMs in the hands of someone like Kim Jong Il is insanely irresponsible.
  
  The childish "you do it, so can I can too" approach you're taking is precisely that: indicative of a severely socially maladjusted person with no grasp of the severity of this situation. Let me take a quote from your post and modify it to suite this situation: until you've got better than a third grade education in these matters, shut the fuck up.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
2. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by FiveDozenWhales · 2009-04-04 17:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The countries which already have them aren't ruled by a fascist megalomaniacal dictator, at odds with nearly every government in the world and keeping his own people in slavery. I'm not defending the possession of ICBMs, just suggesting that if there is one nation that should be kept from having them, North Korea is probably it.
3. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by shoemilk · 2009-04-04 17:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, for the past two to three weeks, I've heard nothing but "this is a missile". Maybe it's because I'm in Japan and watching Japanese news. The biggest concern that Japan had (or atleast presented to the public) is that the North Koreans suck at making rockets and there was a big chance that it would fall and hit the northern part of Japan.
  
  There were threats back and forth "If it comes near us we'll shoot it down"
  "Shoot it down and next time we'll aim FOR you"
  "We'll shoot it down no matter what"
  "We're readying bombers to bomb you if you do"
  
  To the person wanting coverage, what they've been saying on the news is that they're looking for where it fell so they can pull it up and make sure it was a communications satellite.
4. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Schemat1c · 2009-04-04 18:12 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm not defending the possession of ICBMs, just suggesting that if there is one nation that should be kept from having them, North Korea is probably it.
  And since we already blew our wad in Iraq there is probably not much we can do about now.
  Thank you Mr. Bush.
  
  --
  
  "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
5. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by BJH · 2009-04-04 18:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't know if you've realised, but communication satellites need to head into orbit, not a parabolic arc into the Pacific.
6. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by cjfs · 2009-04-04 18:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Putting effective ICBMs in the hands of someone like Kim Jong Il is insanely irresponsible.
  It's not as dangerous as it first appears. All you need to do is make a few hollywood blockbusters with the right theme and he'll disarm instantly.
7. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by interkin3tic · 2009-04-04 18:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Banned by who? The countries which already have them?
  
  The governments of the US and europe let me down more than they should, but they have a long way to go before they scare me as much as north Korea's government. I mean, I'd trust both Iran and Cuba with nukes before North Korea. Iran and Cuba seem to understand that building an atomic bomb is something you do so that you don't have to use it. North Korea on the other hand seems more likely to use it than not use it.
  
  Whatever it's about environment, peoples rights, weapons or whatever the same rules apply: Clean up in your own backyard or shut the fuck up!
  Rational thinking like that has very little use in real-world international politics, and none in dealings with north korea.
  It seems like you're suggesting that it's unfair that we have nukes and they don't. I suggest you go downtown, give an angry crazy homeless man one loaded gun and you keep another. By your theory, everyone is equal and everything should work out great over multiple tests. You can tell me how it went on monday.
8. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-04 18:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There was never anything we could do about North Korea. The amount of military might required to take down North Korea is much larger than the amount we used to take down Iraq.
  We would have to have a draft.
  Plus there are a few other little problems:
  1. Seoul is within conventional artillery range of the DMZ. Think tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Within the first hour.
  2. What would China do? They view North Korea as an extension of China. That's why we didn't take North Korea in the Korean war when we had them on the run.
  3. If North Korea does have nukes, Tokyo is in range. Millions of civilian casualties.
  We don't want war with North Korea.
9. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by cong06 · 2009-04-04 18:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Except it would make sense for us to "destroy" ours before we enforce our own hypocritical policies.
  If it was simply something we "did" in the past, then it's one thing, but our foreign policy requires us to basically tell everyone else what to do because somehow we're better then them.
10. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by carlzum · 2009-04-04 18:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The parent's probably not trolling, this is a common sentiment among citizens of non-nuclear nations. Leaders in countries like Iran and North Korea simply exploit it for popular support. There's no strategic rationale for them to build a nuclear bomb, but the debate rallies their citizens around a nationalist issue.
11. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Toonol · 2009-04-04 18:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We're better than North Korea.
  
  It's both naive and dangerous of you to think otherwise.
12. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by blankinthefill · 2009-04-04 18:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No.... we're not "better," just much less likely to use them against others. I guess it may be a fine distinction, but I think its there.
13. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2009-04-04 18:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You know, it _doesn't matter_ if this launch was for a communications satellite. Just because this rocket contained a benign payload, doesn't mean the next one will. North Korea doesn't have the spare money to spend on building their own satellite launching systems when it's so much cheaper to buy a satellite launch from someone else. The next payload will be whatever North Korea decides to put in the rocket, and the expertise from peaceful rockets is amazingly useful for building missiles.
14. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by batkiwi · 2009-04-04 19:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, most of the western world is "better" than North Korea. That is not a criticism of their citizens, as they are just along for the ride.
15. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-04 19:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So, in which ways are we not better?
  Most nuclear powers don't let hundreds of thousands of people starve to death every year so that they can fund their military. For comparison purposes, the US spends around 4% of their GDP on their military. The DPRK? 30%.
  Most nuclear powers don't brainwash their people and shut out the entire outside world to maintain an iron grip on the populace.
  Most nuclear powers don't keep on the brink of war at all times and use threats to extract aid.
  But yeah, sure, it's not PC to say that some countries are better than others. I guess you'd be happy to move to Sudan or the DRC. After all, France or India couldn't possibly be any better.
16. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by im_thatoneguy · 2009-04-04 19:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Honestly what are the chances there is a communication sattelite on that thing?
  Even the most ambitious estimates didn't put this rocket into orbit.
  What good is a 'communications sattelite' that flys over Japan for 10 minutes?
  Also what are the chances any sizeable chunks of wreckage would survive impact? What do we intend to drudge up? Lint?
17. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by aliquis · 2009-04-04 19:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, I understand that it's much easier to decide what they should do before they have nuclear weapons and long distance missiles since they are so technically inferior to someone like the US so playing "clean" they would get owned immediately, but as soon as they have nukes it all fails since you don't want to play with nukes.
  So solving it before then makes sense.
  Anyway, lots of countries have nukes and eventually behave badly thanks to the extra insurance they give them. Imho you can't demand others should to..
  But then I live in one of those countries with no nukes, with no plans to invade other countries and with a shrinking defence. Call us stupid.
18. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by aliquis · 2009-04-04 19:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No.... we're not "better," just much less likely to use them against others.
  Funny considering you're the only country who has actually used them in a war.
  And I doubt you'd hesitate once vs russia or china if they attacked first.
  Nothing say north korea will attack first either, but it will prevent them from getting attacked in the first place, as is the situation with all nuclear forces.
19. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by interkin3tic · 2009-04-04 19:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Funny considering you're the only country who has actually used them in a war.
  Yes, but if you look at it another way, we've had nukes for 64 years since then without using them, that's longer than any other country!!!
  I really think if Dr. Strangelove were remade today, that line should be in it.
20. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 19:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'll support us destroying our nuclear stockpile just as soon as I have 100% assurance that the rest of the nuclear-equipped nations are doing the same, simultaneously.
  
  Obviously, this is never going to work. The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. What's important now is determining the likelihood that an aggressive nation bent on insane policy will use nuclear weapons on their neighbors... oh, wait, that seems to describe North Korea.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
21. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by johnsonav · 2009-04-04 19:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There's no strategic rationale for them to build a nuclear bombThere's no strategic rationale for them to build a nuclear bomb
  Sure there is. When was the last time the US invaded a nuclear power?
  
  --
  ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
22. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Martin+Blank · 2009-04-04 19:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A friend pointed me to this site, (possibly NSFW depending on certain links) which has a couple of people going inside North Korea to shoot video. What they shoot is not concentration camps. It's not executions. It's not poverty (strictly speaking). It's just the completely bizarre world that is North Korea. I wish I could describe it, but my words just wouldn't do it justice.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
23. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Gordonjcp · 2009-04-04 20:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I wonder how many people who think that countries like Iran and North Korea don't have the right to have nuclear weapons are also believe that everyone has the right to own a gun?
24. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 20:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Right, the US is running around making sweeping genocidal threats. You're living in a fantasy land. How's the view from there? Whenever you're ready to join the world of the sane, let me know. I'll have your meds ready for you, kid.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
25. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by johnsonav · 2009-04-04 20:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Funny considering you're the only country who has actually used them in a war.
  Which has absolutely nothing to do with how likely we are to use them now.
  
  And I doubt you'd hesitate once vs russia or china if they attacked first.
  That's kind of the point of MAD. You don't think Russia or China (or the USA) hasn't used them lately, because of some warm-fuzzy humanitarian reason, do you?
  
  Nothing say north korea will attack first either [...]
  Of course not. But, most people would agree that they are more likely (no matter how small that probability may be) to launch a first strike than the US, Russia, or China. They are a relatively small, backward, unstable, and unpredictable nation. They simply have less to lose.
  
  --
  ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
26. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by amRadioHed · 2009-04-04 20:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, the previous administration wanted us to believe Iraq had nuclear weapons when they invaded. Does that count?
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
27. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 20:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Again with this inane "he did it he did it" crap. Can you not get it through your thick head that we're dealing with a nation with openly expressed nuclear ambitions, the very same nation that operates one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet? If you think life in North Korea even remotely resembles life in the U.S., I'll gladly buy you a one way plane ticket to Pyongyang. Good riddance.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
28. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Joebert · 2009-04-04 20:32 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'll support us destroying our nuclear stockpile just as soon as I have 100% assurance that the rest of the nuclear-equipped nations are doing the same, simultaneously.
  
  Are you sure that's a good idea ?
  That would probably be a pretty big boom.
  
  --
  Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
29. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Neon+Aardvark · 2009-04-04 20:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  IMHO the West really has no business telling the rest of the world that they can't have nukes while the West still has them - this doesn't mean that we should give everyone nukes, it means we should damned well disarm to put everyone on an equal footing.
  Super idea. Lets all give up nukes, and go back to the days when war between major powers is again thinkable.
  And slaughter millions upon millions in the process.
  
  --
  Azural - instrumentals
30. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by MrNaz · 2009-04-04 20:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In the US:
  * Brainwashed population:They believed that Iraq has WMDs.
  Check.
  * Keep on the brink of war at all times:
  Dick Cheyney claimed that the War on Terror could go on "indefinitely".
  Check.
  As for your 4% figure, you have to include the military related R&D spending of all companies in the military industry, such as GE, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin and a bunch of others. Just because the US has privatized large parts of its military doesn't mean you can arbitrarily exclude them from the military spending figure. If you include all of these then you'll come to a hell of a lot more than 4%.
  Oh, and if you think that you can point to a bunch of government policies and conclude that your country is "better" than another, then the cultural attitude that you represent automatically, in my eyes, makes you worse than just about everyone else.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
31. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 20:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Right, they never had any weapons of mass destruction.
  
  Care to start over?
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
32. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 20:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They simply have less to lose.
  Actually, to further your point, the DPRK has a lot more to lose should their iron-clad grip on a starving, crushed population begin to loosen. They're likely to blame such an occurrence on Western influence, and resort to rather irrational acts.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
33. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 20:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Glad you admitted you have absolutely no idea what it's like to live in the United States. Yes, we have serious problems in our government. All governments have serious issues. It's the nature of government, period.
  
  If you are seriously attempting to compare everyday life in the U.S. to North Korea, you're completely out of your mind. I can write an opinion piece to the Atlanta Journal & Constitution declaring the President to be a bumbling buffoon, calling every Senator in Washington a bunch of dirty names, and expressing the opinion that Georgia's governor has terrible taste in suits. I run zero risk of being arrested for these acts.
  
  Such behavior would most likely get me tortured to death in North Korea at worst, or locked up for ten years and "made an example of" at best.
  
  Grow up.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
34. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by FireFury03 · 2009-04-04 21:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Super idea. Lets all give up nukes, and go back to the days when war between major powers is again thinkable.
  And slaughter millions upon millions in the process.
  If you think nuclear weapons are so good, why shouldn't everyone have them?
  Besides, I don't think nuclear weapons make a war unthinkable - you're going to slaughter millions upon millions with or without nukes if you start a world war, it makes very little difference.
  At the moment, there's nothing stopping nuclear nations warring with the non-nuclear nations (and the likes of Iraq has proved that they are happy to do that) - why wouldn't a non-nuclear nation want nukes when faced with this? There are only 2 ways you're going to convince other nations that they don't need nukes:
  1. Disarm yourself so that you are no longer capable of oppressing them, so they don't feel the need to be able to defend themselves from you.
  2. Conquer them.
  The US has shown that their preferred option is (2). Unfortunately, when you start conquering other nations, the ones who are left suddenly realise that they *really* do need to be able to defend themselves.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
35. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-04 21:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I was referring to the mythical ones that Rumsfeld kept crowing about in the UN. The ones that nobody believed existed because even the UN inspectors testified that, not only were they of the belief that they did not exist, but that Iraq did not have the capability to even manufacture them.
  But I'm guessing that you knew what I was referring to, but were deliberately misdirecting towards facts that suit your pre-conceived view of the world.
36. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by mlts · 2009-04-04 21:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  North Korea doesn't even need nukes to cause major economic damage to the West. All it has to do is start shelling Seoul and that would cause immense economic chaos in hours as the manufacturing supply chain for a lot of goods worldwide is cut.
  Also, DPRK doesn't have to have a high tech delivery system to do damage with a nuclear vice. There are a lot of terrorist groups who would pay high dollars for a fully functioning bomb, and they would do the rest of the work.
37. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Hope+Thelps · 2009-04-04 21:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As for your 4% figure, you have to include the military related R&D spending of all companies in the military industry, such as GE, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin and a bunch of others.
  It doesn't really work that way. To the extent that that R&D is paid for from the revenues made by selling to the US Government, you'd be double counting. To the extent that it's paid for from revenues made by selling to other governments, you'd be counting non-US military spending.
  (Which isn't to deny that it's hypocritical to cry foul when other countries to the same things we do - it's pretty obvious that anyone the US or its allies (or other powerful countries) may one day see an interest in fighting with will want to be sufficiently armed to deter that which means being able to deliver a sufficiently destructive payload a sufficient distance. This is just reality. Everyone knows that the USSR wasn't attacked despite attrocities to equal anyone else's because they DID have weapons of mass destruction on a scale nobody would want to face and that Iraq wouldn't have been attacked if they had been in that position too. Again, reality.)
  
  --
  To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
38. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Plunky · 2009-04-04 22:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It might help to keep in mind that while the Russians were more organized and had more power, they were sane. We're not facing mutually assured destruction, but North Korea would be more likely to nuke SOMEONE than the USSR.
  You know, back in the cold war days there was a lot of rhetoric about what the russians could do, were likely to do and wanted to do. But it turned out that much of it was fear mongering by the military industrial complex in our own countries that stood to make massive gains selling us weapons to counter that stuff.
  Welcome to the new enemy, same as the old one
39. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Admiral+Ag · 2009-04-04 23:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  And there you have it. This is not about North Korea using such weapons offensively against others. The Korean peninsula is in permanent stalemate, because North Korea cannot attack the South without being completely defeated, and the South cannot attack the North without losing Seoul to massed artillery.
  The two Koreas actually agree on one thing. Neither wants the North Korean state to fail, because that means a few million North Koreans appearing in Seoul in the first couple of days looking for something to eat, and the South simply cannot afford to deal with them.
  The South Koreans are so upset by this test that a total of about 100 right wing fanatics were protesting in downtown Seoul when I passed them today. Nobody else cares, because it is a sideshow.
  The real problem has always been the potential for proliferation.
  
  --
  "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
40. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Mainusch · 2009-04-04 23:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Being the ones who opened the bottle, and then saw how dangerous the genie is, and shoved the cork right back in, we take it as our responsibility to guard the bottle against others who would open it.
  
  --
  Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
41. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by drinkypoo · 2009-04-04 23:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  We knew they had weapons of mass destruction because we sold them to them - Saddam got Sarin gas from the USA. We also knew that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction because we sold them to them - and we knew the Sarin gas was expired. The ONLY WMD evidence found when we went in was some shells which had traces indicating they once held Sarin. Your comment is utterly devoid of value.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
42. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by MutantEnemy · 2009-04-04 23:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Obviously [nuclear disarmament] is never going to work
  Damn it.
  Every year that nuclear weapons exist there is a certain chance that someone uses them and triggers the apocalypse. I don't know what that chance is. But even if it's very low, given enough time it is certain to happen! Bear in mind that nuclear war has almost started on several occasions, including by accident. We cannot survive this situation forever.
  
  --
  Grr! Arg!
43. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by mrsquid0 · 2009-04-05 00:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I do not understand why this was moderated "troll". It should have been moderated "insightful". It is a very perceptive comment. Those of us who grew up during the Cold War faced the very real possibility of a large scale nuclear attack every day. Today's threats, while very real, are minor compared to the threat of 30,000 nuclear warheads raining down on your country.
  
  --
  Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
44. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by DustyShadow · 2009-04-05 03:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't know which one of you is correct but this cnn article says this:
  
  "In a statement, Obama said the launch was "a clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which expressly prohibits North Korea from conducting ballistic missile-related activities of any kind."
45. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by BJH · 2009-04-05 03:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  40 currently in service, according to Wikipedia.
46. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by FooAtWFU · 2009-04-05 04:24 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The satellite appears to have communicated something to the International Community (tm), one way or another! Obviously it is a success.
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
47. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by IronChef · 2009-04-05 06:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not that I disagree... but to play Devil's advocate I would point out that North Korea has this very strong cultural desire for self-dependence. Even if they could buy a launch cheaper, they might just want to do it themselves.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche
  I guess by "they" I mean "him" though. The people aren't the ones making the decisions there.
48. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Cederic · 2009-04-05 09:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Sorry, I'm confused. How exactly do 500,000 men stop approximately 6000 artillery pieces from hitting a target the size of a city when they're already loaded, aimed, ready to fire and hiding in heavily fortified positions?
  If North Korea decided to shell Seoul, nothing short of a pre-emptive nuke will stop them - and frankly, I'd expect a few guns to fire on Seoul even then.
  Antiquated hardware? Even 100 years ago artillery was more than capable of hitting something the size of Seoul. North Korea hasn't exactly ignored their kit since..
Outstanding. by palegray.net · 2009-04-04 17:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

As if this regime needed to be any more creative to continue their quest to piss off the world. Yeah, U.N. sanctions don't really mean a whole lot these days (did they ever?), but this is ridiculous.

Honestly, if I thought for one moment that North Korea actually had peaceful space exploration motives in mind, about 50% of my objection to this would vanish instantly. As it stands, the regime is run by a madman with serious nuclear ambitions, something people tend to forget about.

Personally, I wish we'd dealt wish North Korea a long, long time ago... perhaps in place of Iraq. I'm certainly no foreign policy expert, but I have served in the military, and I've always considered North Korea a much larger looming threat to regional and global security than Iraq ever was (with the exception of the Gulf War, that is).

--
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
1. Re:Outstanding. by aliquis · 2009-04-04 17:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, U.N. sanctions don't really mean a whole lot these days (did they ever?)
  No, the countries with veto rights makes UN totally useless. North korea isn't one of those though.
2. Re:Outstanding. by Sycraft-fu · 2009-04-04 17:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is there isn't a good way to deal with North Korea. They have a massive army, a very fearful and xenophobic populace, and tons of weapons trained on South Korea. So you have two scenarios, neither of which is really acceptable:
  1) Conventional attack. You send in large numbers of conventional forces to destroy their army and occupy the country. This would work, but at the first sign of invasion, North Korea will fire their artillery trained on the south. This features lovely things like poison gas warheads and such and easily reaches major cities. There is going to be a large loss of civilian life and infrastructure in South Korea because of this. There is also likely to be fairly heavy casualties in the invading military force. While North Korea's military isn't technology advanced, it is very large.
  2) Nuclear attack. You target nuclear tipped cruise missiles, bombs, and perhaps even some ICBMs at all military targets of any note. The idea is a single coordinated massive strike that simply eliminates all their counterforce capability. Perhaps large population centres are targeted as well. Ok well ignoring the whole problem with world opinion on WMDs, you have the problem that this will cause a massive loss of life in the north that is not limited to, or even primarily, military. There's then all the problems with fallout, lingering radiation and all that other nasty shit as seen in Japan in WWII and Russia when Chernobyl blew up. You could potentially (though no guarantee) eliminate the threat to the south in one swoop and crush the north's military, but at what cost?
  Thus far there just isn't a good suggestion for how you'd deal with North Korea and not have it lead to massive loss of civilian life on one or both sides. Thus it isn't a situation anyone wants to get in to. There's also the question of how China would react. While they don't seem to be so happy with North Korea any more, they do still support them. Let's not forget that is where North Korea's military support came for in the Korean War.
  All in all there doesn't seem to be a good answer, so it is just kind of left alone.
3. Re:Outstanding. by Erie+Ed · 2009-04-04 18:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  All of that is easier said than done when you have a gun pointed at you 24/7.
4. Re:Outstanding. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-04 18:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And it is exactly this kind of stupid dichotomy ("we must fight or die!") thinking that pushes countries to war.
  There are actually other, peaceful, solutions to this. E.g. NK was actually starting economical reforms much like China did in the early '80s, with special economic regions near the border, until the new president (the "CEO president") of South Korea took the hard-line approach to the North, which, unsurprisingly resulted in similar stance from the NK.
  Had NK been allowed to continue their economic reforms, there could be hope that it will eventually be more open much like China did without any wars breaking out.
  By forcing your opponent to either fight or curl up and die, don't be surprised when you got a fight in your hands. Although it may be a hopeless fight for your opponent, remember that you are the one taking all the hope from him in the first place.
  Even the Art of War said always leave a way out for your opponents, you don't want to force him into a "fight or die" situation, because that's when he will fight most fiercely against you.
5. Re:Outstanding. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-04 18:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The point of the UN isn't to make and enforce international laws. It is only to provide a forum for discussion among nations. In that regard the UN has been quite successful.
6. Re:Outstanding. by Cbs228 · 2009-04-04 18:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is another option
  3) Coup d'etat. Replace the paranoid, militaristic North Korean regime with a new government—possibly one backed by the United States or her allies. Since the North Korean population is unlikely to do this on their own initiative, they will need some assistance and logistical support from another world power. Another country could theoretically encourage a "friendly" general to seize power and then back him up militarily, politically, and economically when he does so. The U.S. has a long history of supporting anti-Communist coups via the Truman Doctrine, and we have even backed totalitarian dictatorships—so long as they weren't Communist.
  A successfully executed coup could be relatively bloodless, would leave North Korea's infrastructure and population centers (such as they are) intact, and would certainly cost less money and manpower than a full-scale invasion. However, the outcome is entirely dependent on luck: military leaders might succeed in launching a WMD attack on South Korea before they are deposed, the new government might not be sustainable, or the coup might be a complete and utter failure. Additionally, U.S. involvement would require our intelligence agencies to demonstrate actual competence, and a U.S.-backed coup could seriously impact our relations with China. Still, I think a coup would be a better option than a full-scale attack.
  
  --
  At our school, we don't earn a degree when we graduate—we earn pi/180 radians
7. Re:Outstanding. by interkin3tic · 2009-04-04 18:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I for one cannot believe that the great powers, China in particular, continue to let this little pissant live.
  It's all about perspective. Keep in mind that some of our foreign policy opponents say the same thing about the US and Israel. The two aren't similar in many ways, but they both do provoke in ways that serve some of the interests of the us/china.
  In the case of North Korea, China gets a lot of leverage over Japan and the rest of the world. If you piss China off enough, they won't act like they're going to help your ongoing efforts to prevent North Korea from nuking japan. At least that's what I've heard from a few japanese scholars, take that with a grain of salt, but it does make some sense. Naturally, it's stupid if China is doing that, since China would be in a world of hurt if North Korea actually did start trouble.
  I've also heard (although this sounds much more dubious to me) that south korea isn't really doing all they can to stop north korea from getting nukes, since both countries express an interest in eventually reuniting, there's some sense of "If they get nukes, when we reunite, we'll have nukes." Again, that sounds like complete conspiracy theory crap to me, but what do I know?
8. Re:Outstanding. by Toonol · 2009-04-04 18:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That point is often forgot. The purpose of the UN is communication. I have little respect or tolerance for the UN as it exists today, because of their evident desire to overreach their purpose. Still, I would hate for the UN to go away. It should have no power, though, besides the ability to assist member nations to conduct diplomacy.
9. Re:Outstanding. by hldn · 2009-04-04 21:19 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  you're forgetting all the good the UN has done. like when they UN-nazied the world -- forever.
  
  --
  http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
10. Re:Outstanding. by slashdotmsiriv · 2009-04-05 01:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "Personally, I wish we'd dealt wish North Korea a long, long time ago"
  This is indeed wishful thinking, but one must consider many factors that were not present or as pressing in the case of Iraq.
  NK is armed to the teeth. Pretty much, every North Korean over 14 has been trained to use an AK 47. Their citizens are indoctrinated at levels perhaps unprecedented in post-WWII history. Not only that but they have actually built a nuclear weapon.
  Before anyone starts planning for invasion in the North, he has to answer the following questions:
  a) What would the human toll on South Korea be?
  For example, Seoul is within artillery range from NK.
  b) Apparently military victory over NK can be achieved but what would be the human and financial cost on the US? Given the size of the enemy military, I would guess this would be far more than the cost of the 1st Gulf war.
  c) How would South Korea and the global economy deal with the major interruption in production of the South Korean goods (cars, ships, electronics etc) the world has come to rely on?
  d) What would the human toll on North Korea be? From prior experience, "collateral"damage cannot be avoided. And this is particularly true in the case of NK, the leader of which has no regard for the lives of his citizens. Do we really think that the response to heavy shelling or nuking of Seoul would be surgical bombings? Think hordes of B-52s flying over Pyongyang, dropping 20000 lb bombs day and night instead.
  e) How do you deal with the subsequent occupation of North Korea? How can you change the minds of the indoctrinated North Koreans? How can you make them understand that South Koreans are their brothers and not their sworn enemies, especially after a second brutal war?
  f) And perhaps the most important of all: do you really think China will just sit back and watch as US takes under its control all the Korean Peninsula? What about Russia? China created this regime and for a good reason (from their point of view). This reason has not ceased to exist.
  I gather that the US foreigh policy makers have considered these factors and decided that it is not worth the trouble, even if North Korea develops both ICBM nuclear capability.
capabiliy by wizardforce · 2009-04-04 17:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now we know that the only thing stopping North Korea from hitting anything in Japan or elsewhere is intention or lack therof rather than ability.

--
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
1. Re:capabiliy by shoemilk · 2009-04-04 18:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, that's not true, until now, the best they'd ever done was to launch some missiles into the Japan Sea (more like sputtered into). Which was why Japan was so concerned that this missile would fall on Japan. With this rocket, they wouldn't be able to hit Australia (according to the news reports I've watched), but they could get all the way to the northern part of the Philippines.
  
  So, while the US is safe, the most part of Asia has to worry.
2. Re:capabiliy by Mashiki · 2009-04-04 18:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The only thing stopping any country from doing anything is the inevitable retaliation.
  You're forgetting that sanity has to apply to that equation as well. Tinpot dictatorships don't have any of that and are more then willing to sacrifice their people as long as the glorious leadership and it's selected people survive.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:capabiliy by shoemilk · 2009-04-04 22:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If their tests are any indication, no, they don't. Leading up to this, pretty much any news program here in Japan went over the history of North Korea's tests. Outside of two they fell into the water just off the coast of N. Korea and this most recent one, they've all been spectacular disasters.
Re:Long-range rocket? You mean like Iraq's WMD? by gardyloo · 2009-04-04 18:03 · Score: 5, Informative

But if they are really testing ICBM's (i.e. not expecting something to reach orbit) they would be a fool to announce it before hand.
They'd be fools to not announce it beforehand. You do not go launching major rockets of any sort, young man, unless people are warned. Otherwise, you run the risk of being very swiftly annihilated.
*slaps with rolled-up newspaper*
Re:Satellite by artor3 · 2009-04-04 19:17 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not clear yet whether or not the third stage, which would propel it to orbit, fired.
It seems like the first two stages are all the North Koreans really wanted to show off, anyway. The first two stages are all they need to threaten a large radius in Asia.
Re:Coverage has been slow by interkin3tic · 2009-04-04 19:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Any latest news about what is happening would be appreciated.
Currently, the place where you are has NOT yet been nuked by north korea.
Re:Coverage has been slow by EdZ · 2009-04-04 23:03 · Score: 4, Informative

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7984254.stm It ditched in the ocean.
Mort Sahl said it... by AliasMarlowe · 2009-04-04 23:21 · Score: 4, Funny

...in a faux-german accent, as a parody of Werner von Braun:
"I aim for ze stars, but zumtimes I hit London"

Dunno what a faux-Korean accent would be, but I expect a few one-liners like this about the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il and his communications satellite aspirations.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1. Re:Mort Sahl said it... by dkleinsc · 2009-04-04 23:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And Tom Lehrer said in a faux-German accent, also as a parody of Herr von Braun: "Once ze rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department."
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Update on the article... by Informative · 2009-04-05 00:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, that article says the real purpose was to test ballistic missle technology, so the launch was a success.
How can anyone believe there really was a satellite on the rocket?
Spare money? Hell if any country by Shivetya · 2009-04-05 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

should be accused and consistently vilified over their "luxury" expenses at the cost of their own people it is North Korea. There never seemed to be and end to the bellyaching over India launching satellites as people pointed to all the people living in poverty there. Yet the only concern here seems to be that they now have a long range rocket and it might hit a civilized country. I guess we are so over the fact we can't do anything about North Korea that we totally ignore the people that live there.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Re:Spare money? Hell if any country by drinkypoo · 2009-04-05 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right now we're concerned that the people of North Korea are going to become a danger to the rest of us, in the same way that the people of Germany and Japan became dangerous - it doesn't matter if you pick up a gun and fight or not, if you're not working against a war, you're supporting it just by going about your business back home. Same goes for the citizens of the USA right now, of course... So it's all a bunch of flag-waving bullshit - except that N.K. is the only country that much of the world believes is likely to actually use a nuclear weapon. Whether that fear is justified or not is the big question.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Obligatory Team America Quote by frank249 · 2009-04-05 06:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Kim Jong Il: Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre!
Lisa: I'm sorry, it's what?
Kim Jong Il: Inevit, inevitabre.
Lisa: One more time.
Kim Jong Il: [shouts] Inevitabre! Things are inevitabrey going to change! Goddamnit, open your f**king ears!

--
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Re:Spare money? Hell if any country by INowRegretThesePosts · 2009-04-05 11:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

You cold not be more right.
You probably already know this, but the situation in North Korea is so
horrible that the average north korean male is 5.9cm shorter than
the average south korean male, due to chronic famine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/dec/05/northkorea
The government, instead of fighting of famine (or simply accepting the
foreign help), tries to stimulate people's growth with gymnastics
(this isn't present in the link above; I read it on a newspaper and
don't have a link right now).
North Korea is both metaphorically and literally on the Dark.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm
Its leader, however, is a buffoon that lives with comfort, luxuries
and ostensible wealth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/2009/03/090316_coreiadonorte_pizza_cq.shtml
(the above link is in Portuguese, sorry)