Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Launches "Communication Satellite" Rocket

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."

17 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    First (and last) post!

  2. Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Manip · · 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 · · 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.

    2. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by shoemilk · · 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.

    3. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by cjfs · · 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.

    4. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're better than North Korea.

      It's both naive and dangerous of you to think otherwise.

    5. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by batkiwi · · 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.

    6. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Martin+Blank · · 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.
    8. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by johnsonav · · 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.
    9. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Neon+Aardvark · · 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
    10. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by MrNaz · · 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.
    11. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by palegray.net · · 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.

    12. Re:Summary is hopelessly wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:Outstanding. by Sycraft-fu · · 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.

  4. Re:Long-range rocket? You mean like Iraq's WMD? by gardyloo · · 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*

  5. Re:Outstanding. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.