Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Missile Launch Fails

An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile launch by the North Koreans last night? You know, the one that went over Japan and supposedly put a 'communications satellite' into orbit. Well, according to the US Northern Command and NORAD it has been a complete and utter failure, with the second stage and payload 'falling in the Pacific.'"

609 comments

  1. ... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fail.

    1. Re:... lol. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless the real goal was to prove that they can nuke Japan.

    2. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I bet Kim Jong Il's feeling so ronery right now...

    3. Re:... lol. by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, because that would be a great idea on their part.

      Seriously, when are we going to stop believing our governments' attempts to keep us scared of one bogey man after another?

      What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, other than the safe knowledge they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure with large amounts of ordinance.

      Japan poses no threat to the DPRK. The DPRK's aggressive stance is a response to the isolation and aggressive rhetoric aimed at it by the US, an attitude which is just a holdover from the cold war when North Korea was a USSR satellite state.

      Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated? US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war, and unlike the USSR, no state large enough to actually compete with the US emerged there, so the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century.

      Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?

      --
      I hate printers.
    4. Re:... lol. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, other than the safe knowledge they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure with large amounts of ordinance.

      I expect the government of the DPRK to behave about as rationally as the US government...
      Actually I think they gave the government too much credit in that video.

    5. Re:... lol. by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?

      I'm glad you're not bitter :)

    6. Re:... lol. by SupremoMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny as it may be you think he knows it was a failure? You think they don't lie to him either? I'm sure they would lie to him as well. You want to tell him it failed, can you imagine how long you would live if you did?

    7. Re:... lol. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Seren days?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:... lol. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are aware that North Korea does shit that makes no sense? Like sending commandos in submarines to kidnap Japanese and South Koreans. Or DMZ violations, involving killing US troops. But ok...I'm sure Bush put them up to that...or made it up.

    9. Re:... lol. by bds1986 · · Score: 5, Informative

      What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan

      Nothing. But that doesn't stop the DPRK from benefiting from having the capability to nuke Japan. The DPRK is heavily dependent on aid from the West, having a nuclear stick allows it to demand aid on far more favourable terms and remain relevant on the world stage.

      US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war,

      They're like that because the DPRK still acts like the Cold War is on, with cross border skirmishes with the South every few years at least. Not to mention the fact that the Korean War never officially ended.

    10. Re:... lol. by Toonol · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They don't benefit from nuking Japan. But the benefit GREATLY by being ABLE to nuke Japan.

      Just like their ability to annihilate Seoul; it would be a suicide attack, but that doesn't stop it from keeping the entire civilized world at bay.

    11. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's enough BS in your post to solve world hunger.

    12. Re:... lol. by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?

      You must be new here.

    13. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking like a logical, rational person without an egotistical complex.

      I wouldn't put it past the Great Leader to actually nuke/shell a few thousand people to death and blame it on the U.S. "If only you hadn't ! Their blood is on your hands!"

    14. Re:... lol. by osvenskan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?

      Same reason they might start a war they couldn't possibly win -- because their leader is an unpredictable nutjob.

    15. Re:... lol. by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      why would they want to indeed, the mistake is you think the DPRK are doing any analytical thinking of their own. i don't believe they would be stupid enough to attack japan. but don't make the mistake of thinking they are the victims of unfair treatment by the big bad USA just because they are communist. After all china is a communist state as well yet the USA and china have a comparitively hugs and kisses relationship.

      bottom line, is the world doesn't trust countries run by crackpot dictators, and rightly so.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    16. Re:... lol. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seriously, when are we going to stop believing our governments' attempts to keep us scared of one bogey man after another?

      When there are actually no boogeymen left?

      Can you honestly say that Kim Jong is not a threat?

      If he had a magic button right now that would nuke the US, do you think he'd even hesitate before pressing it?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    17. Re:... lol. by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure

      You have more faith in the UN than I do.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    18. Re:... lol. by InspectorGadget64 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I guess you have obtained all this information from the same people that informed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? I see no reason to trust any information provided by the US

    19. Re:... lol. by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have more faith in the UN than I do.

      UN doesn't enter into it. Japan is still essentially a protectorate of the United States of America -- nuking Japan would be legally equivalent to nuking Hawaii in international law, and the response would be just as swift.

    20. Re:... lol. by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't buy it. They have a pretty solid dictatorship going with heavy communistic leanings. This displeases a lot of governments besides the US. If they wanted to be the world's friend, they could just not act aggressively (it's not like South Korea is really waiting for their chance to strike, they are fine letting North Korea just do their thing.) So, why the attitude? Let's look at Cuba, they learned the hard way that a missile "defense" strategy is a good way to lose friends, but for the few decades since, they have been going along fine with no militaristic tendencies and they haven't been overthrown by Turks n' Caicos or one of the many other nations drooling at the chance to storm Havana.

      So is North Korea really a bogeyman? I think they give themselves a lot more headache than anyone else tries to pin on them. Why not just set up a "cute dictatorship" by declaring Kim Jong Il "familial monarch" (britain I am looking at you) or "prime minister" (russia I am looking at you) and then hold an election to find a "president" to give things an air of democracy. That way you can at least say you are trying, even if you still do things like invading peaceful neighbors (russia, again.)

      That being said, it is nice (as a US citizen) having an international jerk around, it makes the US not look so bad.

    21. Re:... lol. by ibbie · · Score: 1

      I find it difficult to believe that this is all just a "big, US gob'ment hoax". While I don't believe everything our news channels and politicians tell us, the words coming out of the mouths of refugees (some of which were turned after/during missions against innocent civilians) who have come from North Korea tell me there's more to this than a simple, black and white, right or wrong perspective. Their leader is a psycho, he's got a brutalized nation under his heel, and yet (for the most part) they love him for it. Imagine, if you will, if instead of a pledge of allegiance every day in school, kids had to pledge and praise one single leader. One who didn't leave after 4 or 8 years, but was considered unassailable. I can haz brainwashing? In North Korea, yes, you most certainly can.

      Now, the thought of a man like that launching missiles willy-nilly, that's pretty damn disturbing. While I doubt their intended target is Japan - for the reasons you cited - I also doubt that they were really just launching a satellite. As to what exactly they were up to - ask Jong-il. I'm betting it wasn't just to keep us slashdotters entertained, however.

      Just sayin.

      --
      The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
    22. Re:... lol. by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?

      Okay.

      Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?

      This question is nonsensical. It's the kind of rhetorical fodder to feed those who are incapable of actually engaging in logical analysis and thinking for themselves. Anyone who does so would immediately note that a nation cannot want anything, as it is a non-physical abstraction incapable of independent thought. Possibly you mean, "why would the leader of a nation want..." or "why would the party leadership want..." or "why would the man on the street want...", but of course the answers to all these questions are likely to be different. Making the question nonsensical forces the reader to rationalize it in their own manner, and thus causes the largest number of readers to act as if this is a sensible question, and treat what you're saying with a "yeah, man, you're right" attitude even when you're not saying anything. This is why questions like this one you're asking here are so powerful tools against people who don't actually analyze very well, they even repeat them without noticing they are contentless rhetorical tools.

      The real problem for you here is, if you actually make a sensible question out of this, no matter which way you go, it either has a sensible answer, or it's immediately obvious that it's not a relevant question. It's easy to come up with reasons why a dictator would want to isolate a country (and the DPRK is not the only example of this, see Burma, for example, or any number of isolationist regimes of many nations over the years). It's maybe not to easy to see why the man on the street would want it, but then it hardly matters what they want in a non-democratic country.

      US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war,

      ...as is much of the current world power structure and even a number of nations, yes.

      ...and unlike the USSR, no state large enough to actually compete with the US emerged there, so the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century.

      ...as did a large number of countries at one time or another, which are not similarly isolated. This would indicate that the reasons for the isolation are more complex than this rather facile treatment. Without even going into details, it's apparent from even a cursory bit of logical analysis that most of what you've said here is wrong, incomplete, or meaningless (indeed, I would say the majority of what you posted was, in fact, "not even wrong").

      Reading and thinking analytically, it's actually pretty hard to form a rebuttal to what you said, since you in fact said almost nothing. You asked a bunch of questions that were mostly vague and nonsensical, but to the extent you did say or at least imply anything, it would appear to be poorly thought out or ill-informed.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    23. Re:... lol. by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhm...speaking of analytical thinking... Would you care to enumerate the number of nuclear weapons that were fired by Russia or the US at each other during the Cold War? I mean...the whole point is to NOT USE THE FUCKING THINGS. That is what Mutually Assured Destruction is all about. The notion that you could "win" a nuclear war was pretty much entirely abandoned a long time ago. The only people that really have any intention of USING them are psychotic. (See Iran declaring that Israel should be wiped off the map, or Dubya asking for "tactical" nuclear weapons to be developed). The whole point behind them is to join the ranks of countries that can bring a tremendous amount of hurt, because if you can't nuke someone you don't get taken seriously.

      Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      Iraq - Everyone pretended they could have nukes, but most people knew they didn't - Invasion!

      Iraq got stuck in a pretty bad situation. Admit to the world they don't have nuclear capabilities and aren't close to having them and face the wrath of the Iranians or Saudies as the world looked the other way, or pretend they did have the capabilities and hope to God that no one would invade.

      NK is going to be very interested in demonstrating that it has nuclear capabilities and the ability to deliver them (even if at a rather limited range). It sends the message "fuck with us and we will murder millions". Now, I agree that there has been a great deal of overly aggressive rhetoric, but those NK folks aren't exactly the most friendly bunch to begin with. In fact their leadership tends to show quite a bit of psychotic behavior. There have been people defecting from NK for years telling the world that ol Kimmy thinks he can fight with the big dogs and win. The really disturbing ones are the people that escape to China and are shocked by how "free" they are there.

      Now...to answer why would any nation want to be that isolated...well...because it allows their psychotic dictators to rule with an iron fist. Some of these freaks are content with ruling their little corner of the earth with absolute power rather than expanding their lands and making it harder to control with absolute power. Ol Kimmy fashions himself to be a God much like the Egyptian Pharohs...that kind of nonsense doesn't really work out well unless you keep the people isolated from the rest of the world, and what better way to do that then enlist the aid of the rest of the world.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    24. Re:... lol. by Capt.+Cooley · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that. How do you figure that? I'm trying to be a sincere as I can, can you give a link that shows Japan as a protectorate of the United States of America? Or are you speaking figuratively, suggesting that, AS IF THERE WERE SUCH AN INTERNATIONAL LAW, the USA would retaliate very harshly? So, is there such a law? (use of capslock to call attention to the main idea)

    25. Re:... lol. by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ummm, you're off by a decade or two if you think the kidnapping stuff comes from Bush.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese

      There are lots of other hits too. And that isn't even beginning to touch what undercover reporter have exposed from within North Korea. Did ya know that human tastes like pork? How about opium being more profitable a crop than any grain while costing less in upkeep than the populace the grain would have fed. Ya don't think that the CIA was alone in exchanging drugs, guns, and cash, do you? How about these reporters?

      http://cbs13.com/local/north.korea.americans.2.963243.html

      Invading Iraq was a geo-polical move, possibly a bad one, but that won't be known for a few more years. North Korea, the country that invaded South Korea, is actual dangerous if you live in Japan or South Korea. Kim has successfully, and repeatedly, extorted aid and concessions by threatening his neighbors then backing off if he is just given what he demands. This was with both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Russia and China tolerate him, as he is their geo-political bishop piece.

      --
      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
    26. Re:... lol. by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?

      Because the nation's leader is a vain, paranoid demagogue, who knows that if his people ever come in contact with the outside world and realize that the rest of the world is mostly full of nice, reasonable people who get to eat more than 500 calories a day, they'll all rise up and murder him in his sleep.

      the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century

      That, and the fact that the moment the world stops stomping, they'll march a million men across the border and burn Seoul, one of the greatest free cities on Earth, to the ground.

      You may be right that their posturing towards the U.S. is a result of their being boxed in by cold war politics. But they've made it clear that their attitude towards South Korea is anything but posturing.

    27. Re:... lol. by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Strangely enough, there was a time when this looked like it was happening. Back in 2000, Korea (north and south) marched under the same flag as tensions eased. Kim was portrayed as 'cuddly' in the SK media as there was some expectation that people would come to the table and conciliation might occur. Of course, it didn't pan out that way and before you knew it, Kim was once again painted as a nutso nutjob nutter. It's all about perception and how it 'plays' to portray them.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    28. Re:... lol. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Fail.

      We only know they failed if we know what they were aiming at. If I were going to test an ICBM I sure as hell wouldn't aim it at Smallville. I'd peg some featureless spot, say in the middle of the Pacific ocean, and see if I could hit *that* accurately.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    29. Re:... lol. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If he had a magic button right now that would nuke the US, do you think he'd even hesitate before pressing it?

      Of course he would! A guy's gotta get his cognac somewhere...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    30. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understand that I while I don't think isolating, and especially making war against DPRK are options Uncle Sam should be pursuing, your statement of: "the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century" is a pretty big leap of ignorance. Here are some quips from wikipedia:

      "Multiple international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, accuse North Korea of having one of the worst human rights records of any nation.[19] North Koreans have been referred to as "some of the world's most brutalized people", due to the severe restrictions placed on their political and economic freedoms.[20] North Korean defectors have testified to the existence of prison and detention camps with an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 inmates (about 0.85% of the population), and have reported torture, starvation, rape, murder, medical experimentation, forced labour, and forced abortions.[21]"

      North Korea is no "innocent country just doing their thing". While most self described communist country's of the world eventually turned their back on stalinist ways and pursued policies like those of Khruschchev, North Korea has remained firmly stalinist for over 60 years. Their documented human rights violations are unheard of and so inhumane you'd question their validity, if it were not for the great amount of evidence otherwise.

    31. Re:... lol. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Ah, but he keeps busy. Do you have ANY F**KING IDEA how busy he is?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    32. Re:... lol. by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      other than the fact that North and South Korea have been at war for 50 years, that the US was drug into that crap by a UN mandate, etc... What the hell good does it do for us to have to patrol the border all the time? It doesn't. I strongly suspect that my great uncle, was the son of a Marine Corps general and was an Annapolis grad himself, who did 3 years in a North Korean prison camp in the 50s didn't enjoy the experience one bit. But, there is still a war on. Most people sort of forget about all that.

    33. Re:... lol. by michaelmuffin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      can you give a link that shows Japan as a protectorate of the United States of America?

      well there's the UN charter and appealing to the Security Council to take action, but more specifically there's the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan:

      Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9).

    34. Re:... lol. by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      I think it was sort of a "we'll station some of our military over there if you promise not to make any giant robots" kind of a deal.

      So far so good.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    35. Re:... lol. by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why they are doing this. To be taken seriously. Because if you're a government some part of the world doesn't like, you need nuclear weapons to have a seat at the bargaining table.

    36. Re:... lol. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?

      Seriously, how about we stop eating the BS they feed us and doing a little analytical thinking for ourselves for a change? Anyone?

      Yeah, how about you do a little analytical thinking.

      The GOVERNMENT of the DPRK isolates themselves so that they can stay in power. By being isolated, they have total control of their citizens and are able to prevent uprisings.

      For North Korea, it's not about the welfare of the citizens, it's about maintaining the phat lifestyle of the people in charge. Having the potential to attack other countries (even if it is suicidal), helps ensure the North Korea will be left alone from international meddling and possibly even get some concessions for "giving up" nukes and ballistic missiles in the future.

    37. Re:... lol. by incognito84 · · Score: 1

      Nah, Bush just had the US troops make faces and yell "neiner, neiner, neiner!" over the DMZ until one of the Norks snapped.

    38. Re:... lol. by paul248 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What is it with people and nuking Japan? Isn't twice more than enough?

    39. Re:... lol. by Myrcutio · · Score: 3, Funny

      that's an interesting way to threaten someone.

      "Hey, if you thought our satellite-rockets were lousy, wait til you see our nukes!"

      At least the japanese nuclear radiation doesn't effect humans

    40. Re:... lol. by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 1

      less then 24 hours?

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
    41. Re:... lol. by PachmanP · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously not. We nuked them once, and they just came back with more tentacle porn.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    42. Re:... lol. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GP was saying that N. Korea's isolation was The Great Satan's fault as opposed to the crazy despot that runs N. Korea who repeatedly rebuffs efforts to diminish isolation by all the other members of the six party talks. The parent post was talking about Bush sarcastically, because he's become the scapegoat for anything possibly perceived as wrong in American policy.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    43. Re:... lol. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      While I am pretty sure north korea is crazy as fuck.

      I've now reached a point where I don't trust information fed to me by american media either.

      I was propagandized from the 3rd grade.

      Who knows. Over population kills us all in 50 to 80 years anyway.

      Who gives a shit any more. Seriously. A lot of us are going to die.

      What was it they said in heavy metal...

      Then you die, she dies, everybody dies.

      However, I suppose the alternative is an eternity of fascist paradise where everything you do is tightly controlled since there are so many people that everything you do has an impact on someone else.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    44. Re:... lol. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It's funny when people who think that the US government is nefarious are also absolutely sure that the North Korea government, that killed millions of its citizens from famine in the 1990s must be acting rationally and in its people's best interests.

      I'm pretty much sure that when the regime goes, we'll find it did much nastier things to its citizens the famine too.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    45. Re:... lol. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I think someone who's effectively a God emperor can afford better cognac than the American stuff.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    46. Re:... lol. by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 1

      I'm glad this has been modded down since I last saw it. It's not remotely insightful. It's pure drivel that ignores countless empirical evidence and countless international accounts of similar actions by DPRK. It ignores the actions of the DPRK over the last two years or so, as well as the actions of the US. It is clear the poster is biased against the US, and because the poster has no actual fact to back up their bias, they are turning to condescension toward their audience. Go look at some of his other posts if you don't think there is clear anti-US bias in this guy. The "analytical thinking" decried above is a pure fail in the "analytic" and the "thinking" department. I'd mod down further, if I had points.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    47. Re:... lol. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So is North Korea really a bogeyman? I think they give themselves a lot more headache than anyone else tries to pin on them. Why not just set up a "cute dictatorship" by declaring Kim Jong Il "familial monarch" (britain I am looking at you) or "prime minister"

      I think you totally misunderstand how these governments really work. The slightest hint that they are unwilling to use force against people, the whole thing disappears - everyone goes from loving the leader to hating his guts overnight. And then the people that run it get killed like Ceausescu and his secret police goons did unless they can leave the country really fast.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    48. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, oh God, why don't they have a "-1, pedantic and elitist" modifier? Why can't you keep rants like that in your head, instead of making philosophy majors look bad?

    49. Re:... lol. by Symbha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention the ability to sell nuclear weapons to groups of people that might like to have them.

    50. Re:... lol. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How dare you say that? Of course they can't admit that it was actually a ballistic rocket and that they wanted to hit the Pacific. Hey, you gotta start with large targets, targeting systems is next, give them a few. Or a few more, considering their usual speed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    51. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have missiles that can reach Japan...

    52. Re:... lol. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rather, when you're faced with annihilation (from, say, the few people of your country that are still able to move gathering and kicking you out of your cushy office), you might consider saying "gimme or I shoot".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    53. Re:... lol. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My guess is that he'd hesitate long enough to hover his finger over the button, grin and ask for foreign aid, "or else".

      Funny enough, he's in the stronger bargaining position. Who do you think cares more about being nuked, him or you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re:... lol. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      UN? You think the US would wait for the UN to even clear their throat? Before they could agree on a place and time to meet to discuss the matter, the representative of North Korea would be the respresentative of a glowing slab of nothing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    55. Re:... lol. by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you're aware the US does shit that makes no sense, right? Like sending submarines into the territory of sovereign nations, just to laugh at them? Or detaining Canadians, then sending them to Syria or Guantanamo Bay?

      Also: Killing Canadian troops.

      "friendly fire" - oops

      My point? Bush didn't put the North Koreans up to anything, but your description is remarkably close to fitting your own country.

      Either they're not as bad as they sound or your own country is way worse than you think.

      Maybe every government is that screwed up, and we just don't realize it. Or maybe our governments select less noticeable types of propaganda.

    56. Re:... lol. by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      I don't think so under the current administration.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    57. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The whole point behind them is to join the ranks of countries that can bring a tremendous amount of hurt, because if you can't nuke someone you don't get taken seriously.

      You should be ashamed of repeating this argument without thinking it through. The countries that are saying this have been spouting rage at the US for 30-60 years *without* having nukes, and we didn't invade them then, did we? The very *existence* of North Korea is, itself, a giant example of nuclear powers showing immense restraint. And, given that their nuclear programs date back into the 1980s, it's rather difficult to buy their convenient retroactive argument that Iraq was invaded only because it lacked nukes. Neither the first invasion nor the second - and the 12 year gap in between is itself a rather glaring inconsistency with the image of a super belligerent warmongering bloodthirsty USA. The past half-century is full of examples of countries with nukes *not* going around conquering. Hell, there are atrocities going on right now that continue because the West doesn't even have the will to even pursue small scale interventions in a lawless place like Sudan, let alone the gigantic million-man invasions it would take to even attempt a war against Iran or North Korea.

      On the flip side, these countries that complain about needing nukes because they don't have enough of a threat against us now... would BE a threat if they had nukes. And MAD only works if you've got a crapload of ICBMs. If you've got more on the order of two or three, you've becoming a nation that is simultaneously both immensely threatening yet extremely simple to defang with exactly the kind of pre-emptive strike they're claiming to already be afraid of. Except there's no reason to hit them now, and there'll be an immediate and huge and reasonable reason to hit them once they have nukes.

    58. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq - Everyone pretended they could have nukes, but most people knew they didn't

      "Before 2003, everyone from neocon hawks to French lefties agreed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

    59. Re:... lol. by ryanov · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I actually laughed out loud at this one -- way to go! :)

    60. Re:... lol. by 7+digits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > The very *existence* of North Korea is, itself, a giant example of nuclear powers showing immense restraint

      You mean that the fact that the US didn't invade a sovereign foreign country with no reasons means that it showed "immense restraint" ?

      I don't think words have the same meaning to both of us, so don't bother replying.

    61. Re:... lol. by Phroggy · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia has an entire article on this topic, for anyone who's curious.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    62. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH ANALYTICAL SNAP

    63. Re:... lol. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      It's obviously wrong for any government to place restrictions on the free market, this is a problem which can only be tackled using the market. If the US doesn't want other groups to buy any weapons on sale by North Korea they have the option of buying all the weaponary NK produces themselves and then disposing of them safely and responsibly.

    64. Re:... lol. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      We could always... ya know... call their bluff.

      Something tells me shooting down a NK missile isn't terribly challenging. Especially since they only have liquid fueled rockets that have to be set up in advance and fueled.

    65. Re:... lol. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Also if all they have is single missiles the US anti-nuke systems should be adequate, they have trouble with full volleys but an early attack would leave NK without much to launch (no idea how far along their warhead production is). The only problem are those artillery emplacements around Seoul, no idea how feasible it is to launch a lightning strike on those with near-simultaneous impacts to wipe them out before any shots can be fired, missiles might be trackable for too long before they hit. I doubt the NKs have emplacements the US hasn't registered yet. Also makes one wonder how far along those anti-artillery lasers are and if they could be used to stop any projectiles (probably would have to deal with a much smaller barrage if the emplacements get destroyed fast enough) that do manage to get fired.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    66. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invading peaceful nations? lol.. that same nation which shelled peaceful Tskhinval with GRAD multi-missiles, right?

    67. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fook me - we have us here a real Laptop Bombardier.

    68. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because that would be a great idea on their part.

      Seriously, when are we going to stop believing our governments' attempts to keep us scared of one bogey man after another?

      What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, other than...

      Oh dear. You're missing the point all together. It isn't about whether or not NK WOULD nuke Japan - It's that they COULD nuke them. That little piece of semantics makes all the difference in the world.

      It's the same reason China continues to escalate and extend the reach of their military power. Building aircraft carriers and improving their long range missile systems is not (necessarily) about wanting to fight a major war - but about the diplomatic lengths the world will go to to ensure you DON'T use such weapons.

      Being in possession of ballistic nuclear missiles forces the world (certainly those countries that fall within range of said missiles) to take you seriously. It also gives you a unique bargaining chip at the diplomatic table (eg - "You really need to cut a deal with me because there's far nastier guys in the wings that would love to press that Red Button!" sort of deal).

      Then of course there is the deterrent aspect of possessing them - which you alluded to - which I'm sure anyone in the NK government would be happy to agree with. I.E - "The West" can no longer threaten military action against a capable (yeah, fail on that so far...) nuclear armed North Korea with impunity.

      With nuclear weapons, North Korea has - IMHO - a unique advantage that most of the 'Nuclear Club' do not possess - A limited understanding, on the part of the rest of the world, of whether they WOULD in fact, be dumb enough to actually use them.

    69. Re:... lol. by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      Not all WMDs are nukes. The WMDs everyone thought he had were biological and chemical, and nobody was really sure about delivery systems.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    70. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of ironic that you should bring capitalism into an argument about North Korea. Kind of ironic that North Korea wants to sell weapons on the open market, come to that.

    71. Re:... lol. by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Dumb ass. He's saying it because soft thinking can get people killed.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    72. Re:... lol. by buswolley · · Score: 1

      And yet people are shouting, "Don't judge, Bro! We have no right to not let them have Nukes." I usually support liberal causes and policies, but this is fantasy thinking that is also dangerous.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    73. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if it was either of those figures, 7 days or 24 hours, then you'd have to consider yourself pretty damned lucky.

      What would unlucky be?

      Unlucky would be spending the rest of your fucking life in a prison camp being brutalized, kept on the edge of starvation, and tortured enough to almost but not quite drive you insane. Basically a living hell on earth.

    74. Re:... lol. by tacocat · · Score: 1

      You have to understand that for the nearly 90 years this has been a Welfare/Warfare state. It's been a great recipe for centralization of power into the government starting with the New Deal and World War One.

      With the evil commies, terrorists, nuclear radical states the government has a clear excuse to listen in on it's civilians, oppress freedom of speech (Sedition Act). Through the cause of keeping you secure they can do anything up to putting you in a bubble wrapped box for your own good because presumable you don't know what's good for you.

      How many people, if put on a plane over run by terrorists with box cutters, wouldn't opt to just over run them and kill them in a suicide rush rather than be killed in a targeted attack? What might happen today if someone sitting next to you decided to light their shoe?

      But we aren't capable of protecting ourselves like we have in the past. The government, with all their inefficiencies and PAC groups will always do so much better. Same with the economy. That's the idea behind the Welfare/Warfare State.

    75. Re:... lol. by Barradrewda · · Score: 1

      ...a vain, paranoid demagogue, who knows that if his people ever come in contact with the outside world and realize that the rest of the world is mostly full of nice, reasonable people... they'll all rise up and murder him in his sleep.

      Are you talking about Glen Beck?

      --
      A Free Market is only free for the people who can afford it.

    76. Re:... lol. by SalaSSin · · Score: 1

      Excellent! Thanks to you, another great day at work!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
    77. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ob xkcd
      Also, /signed

    78. Re:... lol. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Sure, smart idea. Piss off a legion of anime geeks with computer skills who live all around the world.

      By the time Obama finishes saying "tragedy" North Korea will be surrending.

    79. Re:... lol. by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      "other than the safe knowledge they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure with large amounts of ordinance."
       
      I seriously doubt China or Russia is going to attack them. I also seriously doubt anybody else will without China allowing it. We might get away with it if we swapped Taiwan for North Korea, but if Japan was already seriously wounded I doubt that would look like a good choice. The scenario as I see it would be; North Korea nukes Japan, China takes over North Korea, Japan allowed standing army (but no nukes), Taiwan safe, South Korea safe.
       
      I would like to see anyone else's scenarios though.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    80. Re:... lol. by gtall · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe payback for the years spent under Japanese occupation? Just because you have the memory of a gnat doesn't mean others do as well. Hell, the Muslims are still arguing over of the results of the third Caliph getting whacked in 656. My experience with Asians is they are not likely to easily forget Japanese domination.

    81. Re:... lol. by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?

      This question is nonsensical. It's the kind of rhetorical fodder to feed those who are incapable of actually engaging in logical analysis and thinking for themselves. Anyone who does so would immediately note that a nation cannot want anything, as it is a non-physical abstraction incapable of independent thought.

      Instead of answering his question and refuting his argument you attack his choice of words by playing with semantics. Natural language is an imperfect tool for communication. It is ambiguous and it allows for sentences that are obviously meaningless. So in my eyes requiring somebody to write their statements perfectly logical is frankly stupid, because it is impossible. Instead you should try to understand the concept he is trying to convey and then refute that based on logic. Furthermore, his wording which you belittle, actually is correct when taken in the context of political philosophy. At least in Hobbes' Leviathan it is argued that the nation is the political entity vested in the soveraign(president/dictator/assembly/the people etc.) by the authority of the people in submitting to this soveraign. Thus the nation can have wants.

      On the other hand I agree with you that there are plenty of reason for a nation(or it's leader(s)) to want to isolate itself. While the U.S. has not been very successful in its militaristic endeavours the last century it has been very effective at spreading its culture, which a country like NK might see as just as agressive.

    82. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just thought that a Japanese person would probably be greatly offended by our nuke-humor. I wonder if that's true?

    83. Re:... lol. by gtall · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the N. Koreans, being a high and honorable people, would necessarily sell it all to the U.S. And what kinds of prices would they charge if the U.S. was the only buying (i.e., no free market as in freedom of entry for buyers and sellers).

    84. Re:... lol. by gtall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That might have had something to do with Clinton administration warning the incoming Bush administration that N. Korea was sandbagging on the last nuke treaty they signed. N. Korea did dismantle the nuke plant in question, but failed to report they were building a newer better one. When Bush got into office, he was presented with a N. Korea that had been caught clearly lying.

    85. Re:... lol. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Sure, smart idea. Piss off a legion of anime geeks with computer skills who live all around the world.

      By the time Obama finishes saying "tragedy" North Korea will be surrending.

      I'm sure the North Koreans are terrified

    86. Re:... lol. by gtall · · Score: 1

      All nukes are not equal. Carter canned the neutron bomb precisely because it would be a useful nuclear weapon that wouldn't result in radiation being caught in the prevailing winds. Think of Iran with several of those.

    87. Re:... lol. by gtall · · Score: 1

      You starched your shorts again, didn't you.

    88. Re:... lol. by servognome · · Score: 2, Informative

      What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, other than the safe knowledge they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure with large amounts of ordinance.

      The game is politics, not war

      As others have mentioned, they don't benefit from nuking Japan, they benefit from the ability to nuke Japan. The threat of violence is often a more powerful political tool than actually committing violence.
      The reaction to a North Korean nuclear strike would greatly depend on the scope, level of casualties, and capabilities for further destruction.
      Complete annihilation of Japan would surely result in a glowing North Korea. However, hitting Japan with a single nuke may not result in nuclear counterattack.
      Any retaliation would be muted by political pressure from Russia and China, fear of enormous civilian death tolls, and the potential spread of radioactive fallout. Think any neighbors want a nuclear counterattack given their land and water could be poisoned?
      Limited nuclear action against Japan would likely receive only a conventional response, Iraq style invasion. The North Korean government may think it possible they could "win" such a scenario.

      Why would any nation want to isolate itself the way the DPRK is isolated?

      Total control. Trade leads to the introduction of foreign ideas, which could destabilize the existing social structures. People, especially those with wealth and power, fear potential changes in government, economics, and culture. Isolationism is not unprecedented, Japan went through such a period which only ended after some gunboat diplomacy by the US.

      US-DPRK relations are an artifact of the cold war, and unlike the USSR, no state large enough to actually compete with the US emerged there, so the tiny country is being stomped on for no good reason other than for siding with the losing superpower from the twentieth century.

      North Korean isolationism stems from their own foreign policies. The US trades with communist China and Vietnam, while Europe also trades with Cuba.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    89. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't even imagine what they'll come up with if DPNK nukes them again...

    90. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they wanted to be the world's friend, they could just not act aggressively (it's not like South Korea is really waiting for their chance to strike, they are fine letting North Korea just do their thing.) So, why the attitude?

      North Korea does not want to be the world's friend. KJI wants to stay in power. That's all. KJI's self preservation is entirely adequate to explain all of NK's "crazy" behavior.

      To keep his own people under control, he uses the well-tested methods of repression and propaganda. To keep from becoming another Maurice Bishop, Manuel Noriega, or Saddam Hussein, KJI needs a substantial deterrent, and the ability to nuke SK, or Japan, is a substantial deterrent.

    91. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your views intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

    92. Re:... lol. by vlm · · Score: 1

      What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, other than the safe knowledge they'd need a pretty accurate stopwatch to measure the very short span of time between them doing that and their government being vaporized as every other nation on Earth expressed their displeasure with large amounts of ordinance.

      Disagree. According to:

      http://www.thewoodexplorer.com/countrydata/Korea-South/home.html

      The prevailing winds in Korea vary by season and at one time or another seem to come from every direction. There doesn't seem to be a politically irrelevant wind direction. The fallout from vaporizing N.K. either falls on our allies in S.K. or Japan (or a zillion other places) or falls on the ChiComs and they would likely not appreciate the fallout. So, the N.K. are nuke-proof, more or less. Worst case, weird as this sounds, they nuke a wasteland area of their own country when the fallout lands perfectly on Japan and use that as the excuse to start the invasion of the south. Or they nuke their own territory when the winds are blowing south, and they follow the wind.

      What a convenient time to begin the invasion of S.K. anyway, while everyone is distracted by the third big crater in Japan... Especially since they control the "when" and they can perfectly well mobilize everyone on the border and depopulate their cities and other hard targets.

      Now, how do we respond to a human wave with no hard targets worth hitting, possibly in a nuclear fallout scenario?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    93. Re:... lol. by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Do you pay attention to the news? Do you read anything about how incredibly paranoid and isolated North Korea actually is? Despite attempts from Japan and South Korea to set up better relations? Do you read anything about how heavily militarized the North is? How it keeps its own citizen in ignorance and poverty? The US has established good relations with many former "cold war" enemies, and yet you assert that the problems with North Korea are all due to the US cold war hangovers? You might want to engage in some of that "analytical thinking" yourself.

    94. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The British monarchy has no political power, that rests with Parliament and the prime minister. We had a civil war some time ago about that.

    95. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they came back with tentacle porn despite the nukes.

      It's a lesson in persistence we should all be thankful for.

      "Post anonymously"? Why yes, yes I will.

    96. Re:... lol. by taskiss · · Score: 1

      ...OR, you're just not playing with a full deck.

      Guess which one I'm inclined to believe?

      --
      - real hackers don't have sigs -
    97. Re:... lol. by Syberz · · Score: 1

      OK, but where does the Film Actor's Guild (FAG) fit into all of this? What do they have to gain from North Korea being able to nuke Japan?

      Guess North Korea just wants to be big in Japan.

      --
      ~Syberz
    98. Re:... lol. by Chicken04GTO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because accidental friendly fire on our Canadian allies is the exactly the same as the deliberate kidnapping of non-hostile citizens from other nations. As far as a few individuals who got sent to Gitmo or Syria, they were Muslim extremists who *happened* to be Canadians. Moron.

    99. Re:... lol. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Did he name any particular nuclear power? Last time I looked, China and Russia were much closer to NK.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    100. Re:... lol. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I can't see any reason why NK would refuse to sell it's arms to the US, if the price is right then they'll sell. As to how much it would cost the US that depends on how keen they are to prevent other parties getting their hands on these weapons.

      I would imagine the US might presume its self to be a target for other parties who do manage to buy NK nukes so the only question is how much do they value not having New York or Washington atomised by a nuclear capable terrorist. NK is obviously well within it's moral rights to manufacture goods for sale and sell them on the free market, once the US became a valued customer for their weapons its likely the NKs would take this into consideration when setting their prices for random terrorist groups so eventually the terrorists would be priced out of the market.

      I'd like to the see the actual US citizens organise this themselves rather than rely on the federal government but until that is dismantled its probably the best organisation in a position to act.

    101. Re:... lol. by rumith · · Score: 1

      Seoul, one of the greatest free cities on Earth

      Uh. South Korea, while being pretty rich and having lots of economical freedom, has less than ok political freedom, at least judging from information available to me. Capitalist + pro-American != free, unless you define "free" as pro-American, which is quite widespread nowadays.

    102. Re:... lol. by gtall · · Score: 1

      There are many reasons they might not want to sell it all the U.S. They might like to make trouble for the U.S. by selling to those other high and honorable people in Al Qaeda. Or the Taliban might want a piece of the action. Selling to the Pakistanis would keep the U.S. occupied as well. That's only if their motive was to keep the U.S. occupied elsewhere. There are other motives. N. Korea doesn't trust any agreement would hold over the long haul, so they'd want to develop their markets.

      And consider what happens if the U.S. does offer to buy them out. What a wonderful precedent that would sent to every two-bit dictatorial regime. How much do you figure they'd change, something reasonable I presume you presume.

    103. Re:... lol. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I don't ever want to meet the person who considered a link on tentacle porn "informative"... ;)

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    104. Re:... lol. by db32 · · Score: 1

      Really? I am pretty sure that whole yellow cake uranium thing was about...well...you know...nukes. Then there were all of those things about how he had the equipment to enrich uranium...which last I checked had nothing to do with biological or chemical weapons. Now, that certainly isn't to say that the bio and chem weapons weren't in the list given that the hospital in Baghdad was being used as a research center for bio weapons at one point and it isn't exactly a secret that Saddam liked using chem weapons, but to say that nukes weren't at the forefront of that little battle is pretty wrong.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    105. Re:... lol. by db32 · · Score: 1

      The AC you were responding to was hidden so let me apologize for misunderstanding what you were getting at with your post. My point still stands about the nukes, but that article he linked is pretty stupid and gross oversimplification of a wide variety of subjects.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    106. Re:... lol. by Stele · · Score: 1

      The irony of course is it was our nukes that CAUSED said horny tentacles in the first place.

    107. Re:... lol. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like sending submarines into the territory of sovereign nations, just to laugh at them

      [citation needed]

      detaining Canadians, then sending them to Syria or Guantanamo Bay

      Are you fucking serious? Yeah we've detained a Canadian, we found him in Afghanistan shooting at US troops, frankly he's lucky to be alive at all.

      Killing Canadian troops.

      Shit happens in war, do you honestly think those friendly fire accidents were intentional?!

      your description is remarkably close to fitting your own country

      Honestly you are simply way off base.

    108. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure? Perhaps someone else should verify the drop besides USA. They were wrong about nuclear weapons in Iraq too. Maybe news like this just favors them while denying something that Korea might have after all.

    109. Re:... lol. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea, we'll just invade a country filled with nut jobs and an infantry of almost 10 million. No problem...

    110. Re:... lol. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The DPRK is heavily dependent on aid from the West...

      I have never understood this. Sure, feeding people in North Korea is "humanitarian" and all, but history has proven, a starving proletariat brings political revolution.

      Sure, the ends don't justify the means, but if we cut off humanitarian aid, we shouldn't blame ourselves. The only person to blame is Kim Jong Il.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    111. Re:... lol. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Uh. South Korea, while being pretty rich and having lots of economical freedom, has less than ok political freedom, at least judging from information available to me.

      If your information is more than 15 years old, it's out of date. South Korea stopped being a military dictatorship around the end of the cold war. Today, it has its accusations of corruption and scandal, but no more than your average democracy.

      But more importantly from a geopolitical perspective, it's where all the cell phones and memory chips come from, and it would be bad if they got blowed up.

      (Actually, I'm prepared to make the case that countries that make cell phones are countries that make freedom, but that's a topic for another thread.)

    112. Re:... lol. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      As far as a few individuals who got sent to Gitmo or Syria, they were Muslim extremists who *happened* to be Canadians.

      However, there's a number of well-documented cases where innocent people were abducted by American forces in other countries and sent off to countries with more lax views on proper interrogation techniques. Often it's a matter of the Americans not doing their job properly (confosing similar names or mistranslating telephone conversations).

      Quite seriously, I don't feel safe knowing that not only do the States intercept my communications and (completely ignoring the sovereignty of the country I'm in) may randomly abduct me if I say something they don't like -- no, they're also incompetent! The people who can randomly abduct and torture you anywhere on the globe are not even good at what they're doing! Holy shit.


      In case you want to defend them for not being infallible: For something as severe, inhuman and illegal as extraordinary rendition, any nonzero false positive rate is completely inacceptable. If you can't afford to double- and triple-check your shit you either call off the War On Terror(TM) or take the money from somewhere else. Doing a half-assed job of violating other countries' sovereignty and basic human rights just makes you look like an unusually rich third-world banana republic.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    113. Re:... lol. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      I'll start worrying about Glen Beck when he can command an army of a million brainwashed fanatics with guns...

      Oh wait.

    114. Re:... lol. by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      You forgot

      Pakistan - Known to be hiding the most wanted man in the world, but is also known to have nukes - No invasion.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    115. Re:... lol. by Herr+Brush · · Score: 3, Informative

      The GP was NOT talking about enemy combatants but about this guy: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/5/94852/0804 He's now suing the govts involved and will likely get a big payout as the authorities' treatment of him was totally abhorrent.

    116. Re:... lol. by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      Russia and China tolerate him, as he is their geo-political bishop piece.

      Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, the will is gradually building to thoroughly and vigorously bash that bishop.

    117. Re:... lol. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Unless the real goal was to prove that they can nuke Japan.

      Except their nukes don't work either...

      So Kim Jong Il's master plan is to send a duck of a missile somewhere near Japan with a fizzle capable warhead? Hey maybe he saw it in a movie...

    118. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Also: Killing Canadian troops.

      Yeah, well if the Canadians could have bothered to change the batteries correctly on their GPS-based targeting device they wouldn't have called JDAMs on their own heads.

    119. Re:... lol. by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      You mean Maher Arar? He was held captive and tortured for 10 months before being returned to Canada after they figured out he wasn't a terrorist.

      No criminal charges were ever filed, either against him or against the people who kidnapped him. (oops sorry I meant "renditioned" him). While an apology was issued by the US House of Representatives, they vowed to fight any attempt to ban the practice.

      So, don't be dense. Canadian's are some of the least likely to be terrorists. I can't think off the top of my head of a single example where a US terrorist attack had a Canadian participant.

      Can you name one?

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    120. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      Iraq - Everyone pretended they could have nukes, but most people knew they didn't - Invasion!

      Yeeaahh... riiiighhhht...

      Iran - Can barely produce enough petrol to comply with the OPEC quotas - No invasion.

      NK - Does not have petrol - No invasion.

      Iraq - Thought to be holding the largest reserve of petrol - Invasion!

      May I add that the US and its allies could most probably intercept any ballistic missile sent by Iran or NK?

    121. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lesson here, don't try to assassinate the President's dad... it really pisses them off.

      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm

    122. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot:
      Israel: has nukes, no invasion
      And if anyone doubts it: they tested near Antarctica in the eighties, together with the South African Apartheid regime. Even the CIA (!) mentioned it in their reports on the world political situation.

    123. Re:... lol. by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      You're just trying to get me fired for clicking that at work.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
    124. Re:... lol. by dtzitz · · Score: 1

      Hey, go easy on them. They worked really hard on that rocket. I don't see you making one.

    125. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so not only is he head of state, but he's also their religious figure. Got God complex anyone?

    126. Re:... lol. by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      There's enough BS in your post to solve world hunger.

      As if the problem of world hunger boils down to a lack of fertilizer and fuel alone. I like your optimism, but don't let it blind you.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    127. Re:... lol. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The parent post was talking about Bush sarcastically, because he's become the scapegoat for anything possibly perceived as wrong in American policy.

      Which is totally Bush's fault.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    128. Re:... lol. by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 1

      Error.
      Maher Arar
      Moron.

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    129. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Did you seriously quote Wikipedia?

      Zalgo. he comes.

    130. Re:... lol. by ArtuRock · · Score: 1

      Okay, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine.

    131. Re:... lol. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Yes I'm fully aware he was talking about him.

      The official position of the United States is that he in fact was involved in terrorist activity. The lack of information forces the assumption that they are telling the truth, they had no reason at the time of his arrest to both with extraordinary rendition if they did not truly believe that he was involved.

      Do you honestly believe that he was deported to Syria just because they didn't like him?

    132. Re:... lol. by akboss · · Score: 1

      No.... Just as long as you keep buying our cars. and our porn and anime.

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    133. Re:... lol. by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Your taste of food is problematic..

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    134. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but for the few decades since, they have been going along fine with no militaristic tendencies and they haven't been overthrown by Turks n' Caicos or one of the many other nations drooling at the chance to storm Havana."

      Uhh, what "other nation" wants to overthrow Cuba?

      Cuba is in no man's land. Invade Cuba, the US takes it as a threat to our security directly. Cuba stays quiet, we tolerate them.

      So Cuba has one big problem--the US as a nearby neighbor who doesn't like them but isn't going to invade. North Korea doesn't have anything people want to invade them for.

      Also, no one sides with North Korea really. China and the USSR simply tolerates them. OTOH, many NATO countries who want to stick it to the US indirectly promote trade with Cuba. Lovely European allies we have. Not that the US doesn't back off of N Korea when South Koreans go anti-US bonkers (for whatever stupid reason they come up with), but it's nothing like trading with N Korea like EU nations do with Cuba.

    135. Re:... lol. by operagost · · Score: 1

      I don't know. You might ask why they would abduct young Japanese? Or whether they are bothered by Japan's publicly expressed concerns about N. Korea's nuclear program?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    136. Re:... lol. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Slightly OT, but why is it that people call Americans a bunch of perverted Puritans when the Japanese have laws explicitly banning images of genitalia, thus spawning tentacle and bukkake?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    137. Re:... lol. by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan

      I don't know. I just know that the DPRK announced that Japan was planning its re-invasion of Korea the day before they launched the rocket.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    138. Re:... lol. by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      STOP FAILING THE TURING TEST!!!! Mmmmm... kay? Seriously, could you possibly speak more while making fewer points?

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    139. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We thought Iraq had Chemical WMD because we supplied him with it to battle those evil Iranians in the 80's. And no one really gave a shit when he used the chemicals we supplied to kill a bunch of swamp arabs and Kurds. I'm betting Turkey sent a nice thank-you note to Saddam for slapping down the Kurds. The media and the published reason was for Nuclear WMD. It wasn't there. Someone either caved to political pressure or was incompetent and y'all invaded Iraq. Deal with it, and quit trying to rewrite history to hide the incompetance.

    140. Re:... lol. by eap · · Score: 1

      You have more faith in the UN than I do.

      UN doesn't enter into it. Japan is still essentially a protectorate of the United States of America -- nuking Japan would be legally equivalent to nuking Hawaii in international law, and the response would be just as swift.

      The UN does play a role, historically. The US and other countries fought the war under UN Resolution 84. Among the often forgotten participants were UK, Canada, and Australia.

    141. Re:... lol. by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Reading up on the topic, the UN knew about the uranium before the gulf war in 1991. They knew where it was, and that nothing had been done with it.

      That's why the (fake) story about the Niger yellowcake was at all noteworthy. They didn't know where this (entirely fictitious) new yellowcake was, and assumed the worst.

      So yes, nukes were at the forefront of the issue, but only as a pretext.

    142. Re:... lol. by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Sort of... but we caught the gent that he enabled enroute.

      http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/16/millennium.plot.sentence/index.html

    143. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason they might start a war they couldn't possibly win -- because their leader is an unpredictable nutjob.

      Good to know why we went into Iraq....

    144. Re:... lol. by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      Plus, AFAIK, there IS only one defined response to an intentional nuclear attack on the U.S. or its protectorates. We nuke them back.

      In the case of NK China might intervene and somehow keep the U.S. from retaliating but such an action against Japan would have the Japanese building their own nuclear weapons and delivery platforms. Those systems would be completed by years end and 1/1/2010 would see NK as nothing but a glowing crater.

      Being the only country in the world nuked not only once but twice would provide strong incentive for Japan to go back to becoming a major ass kicker.

    145. Re:... lol. by Kagura · · Score: 1

      I guess you have obtained all this information from the same people that informed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? I see no reason to trust any information provided by the US

      I'm in a bit of a hurry to get back to work, so this is just a copy/paste of a previous comment I made a few weeks ago. It doesn't quite match up with your comment, but it contains everything I wanted to say in my response, anyway:

      I like talking about this, so let's rumble. We all know the Korean War officially began in 1950, and unofficially ended in 1953, with only a ceasefire, but no proper "end of the war", etc. I'll only cover the main post-war incidents:

      In 1968, the Blue House Raid occurred, in which 31 highly trained North Korean operatives were sent across the DMZ in secret to assassinate Park Jeong-hee, then-President/dictator of South Korea, and nearly succeeded.

      One week later in 1968, the signals intelligence ship "USS Pueblo" is captured in international waters, and the crew were held for a year before being released at the JSA. The ship is still held by North Korea and is used as a floating anti-US museum. The ship is also still on the US Navy's register.

      In 1974, a North Korean agent attempted to assassinate Park Jeong-hee during a speech, missing the President but fatally wounding his wife by chance (she was in the line of the bullets fired at the President). He continued his speech a few minutes later in the same auditorium, even after his wife was rushed out of the room to the hospital, where she later died. Youtube video of the attempt (the person being carried is his wife).

      In 1976, the "Axe Murder Incident" occured in which American soldiers attempting to trim a poplar tree that was blocking line-of-sight to a friendly checkpoint, where numerous attempts by North Korean soldiers stationed at the JSA had been made to kidnap South Korean soldiers. On the day of the Axe Murder Incident, US soldiers began trimming the tree, only to be assaulted by North Korean soldiers carrying blunt weapons. They picked up axes dropped by the trimmers, and went on to kill two US soldiers and wounding eleven other US troops. The US reaction (code-named Operation Paul Bunyan) was very interesting, but you should visit the link above to read about it.

      Between 1977 and 1983, the North Korean government orchestrated the abductions of dozens of Japanese citizens semi-randomly for use in educating their agents abroad.

      In 1983, North Korea placed three bombs in the ceiling of a Rangoon, Burma mausoleum memorial that South Korean president Jeon Du-hwan was to visit. Due to a mistake in the performance, the music announcing the arrival of the President was initiated a few moments too soon, and the bombs were detonated prematurely. 21 people were killed and twice as many wounded, and amongst the dead were several of the highest-ranking Korean cabinet members. Youtube video of the destructive and bloody aftermath.

      In 1987, two North Korean agents planted a time bomb in Korean Air Flight 858, which exploded in mid-air, killing 115 people. Both agents were arrested for use of fake passports, and both bit down on cyanide capsules hidden in cigarettes. One of the agents survived, and said that the attack was undertaken to destabilize the South Korean government, disrupt upcoming el

    146. Re:... lol. by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Among the often forgotten participants were UK, Canada, and Australia.

      And Turkey, Greece, Ethiopia, ...

      The US commander had overall command of the UN Forces, but quite a few of the non-Warsaw Pact countries sent at least a few units to assist the RoKs.

      OTOH, the poster ignored that the parent poster was referring to nuking Japan, not South Korea. Japan is not covered by UN resolutions, but bilateral treaties.

    147. Re:... lol. by jafac · · Score: 1

      The DPRK is heavily dependent on aid from the West,

      The Mafia actually calls it "insurance".

        having a nuclear stick allows it to demand aid on far more favourable terms and remain relevant on the world stage.

      Yes - the ability to commit Nuclear Extortion makes one very relevant.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    148. Re:... lol. by jafac · · Score: 1

      Possibly you mean, "why would the leader of a nation want..." or "why would the party leadership want..." or "why would the man on the street want...",

      Okay - why would {insert_stakeholder_here} want their country to be isolated?

      stakeholder.ManInTheStreet = "I want communism because before we were communists, we were poor and starving. . . "

      stakeholder.PartyLeadership = "Man, this gig is good. We keep the people happy with their communism mythos, and we get to live the posh-life as party-leaders!"

      stakeholder.Dictator = "Well, I'm stuck as the figurehead of this thing, and I know the party leaders will kill me if I step out of line, but on the other hand, it's GOOD to be the King!"

      Man in the street was starving BEFORE communism. Now they're starving, and they have guns pointed at their heads.

      As long as they stay ignorant and isolated, they won't have the chance to live the posh-posh life that the East Germans got to live in the first 10 years after the Berlin Wall fell, with no western/modern education, no business skills, in fact, no skills at all. They've been SHELTERED from the necessity of competition by the artificial convenience of National Sovreignity. And this sheltering has bred massive incompetence; as it always does - whether you're talking about a real slave, or a deluded wannabe communist, or a deluded wannabe capitalist who does not understand that their Commons (public roads, public schools, social safety net, etc.) also shelters them.

      What's the difference?

      In communism, man (party) exploits man (people). In capitalism, it's the other way around.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    149. Re:... lol. by jafac · · Score: 1

      FWIW: Iran is not psychotic. Neither Ahmadinijad nor Bush. Their reason for bellicose language is to get the rabble exited, and to energize their wingnut base. Also the reason Bush tortured: not to actually gather good intel or protect us - but to get voters exited about voting for Bush. (Bush=torture=safety).

      Iran is not likely to "wipe Israel off the map".

      But Ahmadinijad is very likely to get votes from angry (scared) anti-semites.

      It worked for the Romans, it worked for Hitler, and it worked for Bush, for a while.

      What Kim Jong "License to" Il has going for him, is he controls the message: the press. That's what worked for the Romans, what worked for Hitler, and what works for Ahmadinijad. And this is why Americans got sick of Bush after 5 years. Even with Fox News - we still had a semi-free press.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    150. Re:... lol. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Ok, so post a video to Youtube first, and THEN nuke NK to oblivion.

    151. re:... lol. by ed.han · · Score: 1

      i'm inclined to think that the proximity of the ROK, japan and china are precisely why deploying ordnance would be an exceedingly measured process.

      ed

    152. Re:... lol. by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      I know I'm late to the party, but...
      Not only that, but we didn't nuke them from orbit. And that's the only way to be sure.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    153. Re:... lol. by db32 · · Score: 1

      That really isn't eliminating them from the pool of psychotic. All of these people envisioned a nation (or world) ruled by them. I am reasonably certain that Iran would indeed wipe Israel off the map the very moment they think they could get away with it. Much like Hitler did... Just because they are politically savvy and know what they really can't get away with doesn't make them any less psychotic. Fox News is hardly the only one guilty of propaganda. I almost question whether or not we really have anything resembling a free press. Ultimately the vast majority of our media outlets are owned by a handful of people/organizations. So, rather than having a free press, we really just have rich people with disagreements and very loud voices.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    154. Re:... lol. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Meh... it's been done.

      </badtaste>

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    155. Re:... lol. by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      That being said, it is nice (as a US citizen) having an international jerk around, it makes the US not look so bad.

      Don't kid yourself. A comb-over still looks stupid no matter how many people are wearing it.

      Get what I am saying?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    156. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You nuked them twice during WWII, you ignorant yank!

    157. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a stupid thread. Seriously?
      Gizmodo is your "source" on this one?
      EVERY time NK launches a "sat" they say it works and everyone else says it doesnt.
      This one is supposedly broadcasting revolutionary music, which we would all believe if NK would give out the frequency of it lol

    158. Re:... lol. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      "Iran - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      NK - May have nukes or very close - No invasion.

      Iraq - Everyone pretended they could have nukes, but most people knew they didn't - Invasion!"

      You're comparing apples to colonoscopies. Iraq didn't have the ability to kill a half a million people and do trillions in damage in a matter of a few hours. NK is by far worse to it's own people, but hadn't invaded anyone for over 50 years. Iraq invaded two of her neighbors in 30 years.

      Many people shove their fingers in their ears and close their eyes about why we took out Saddam. They change the subject to oil, 9/11, missing WMDs while ignoring the fact that the sanctions and no-fly zones were about to go away. No inspections would have meant the WMD programs would have been in full swing. Russia and China had billions in arms deals waiting for those sanctions to end. The other primary UN objectors to us taking out Saddam also had billions in oil concessions and debts that they would lose if we did. But let's not have that get in the way of a good smug off.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    159. Re:... lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems they accidentally their missle

    160. Re:... lol. by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Plus, the US allows Pakistan to spend aid money on weapons against India

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    161. Re:... lol. by 7+digits · · Score: 1

      Sure. Communist China or ex-USSR invading or nuking Communist North Korea...

      You are not fan of geopolitical plausibility, are you ?

  2. Woo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GO KOREA!

    1. Re:Woo by linhares · · Score: 1, Funny

      GO KOLEA!

      There.

    2. Re:Woo by Macrat · · Score: 1

      You think Koreans are Japanese?

      Koreans can pronounce 'r' just fine.

    3. Re:Woo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YesbuttheywritelikethisasKoreanhasnospaces.

    4. Re:Woo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they want to be.

    5. Re:Woo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Koreans are Japanese?

      Koreans can pronounce 'r' just fine.

      Japanese can pronouns 'r' fine too. but not 'L'. you fail like a North Korean Missile.

    6. Re:Woo by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think Koreans are Japanese?

      Koreans can pronounce 'r' just fine.

      Usually, Koreans can only pronounce an 'R' if it comes at the beginning of a syllable.

      eg. they can say "rock" just fine, but 'hear' usually comes out like 'heal', so when Koreans use English words ending in an 'er' sound, it is usually replaced with an 'aw' sound. eg. 'com-pu-taw' 'key-baw-d'

      Disclaimer: I lived in Korea.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    7. Re:Woo by KanSer · · Score: 1

      Japanese pronounce neither letter. They have some strange hybrid of L, D, and R and it depends on the Japanese person whether it sounds most like one of those three. They have a hard and obvious D, but they also have the one that straddles L and R.

      (So off-topic...)

      --
      • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
    8. Re:Woo by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I lived in Korea.

      So wait, are you being infolmative or was that just govelment plopaganda? :P

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    9. Re:Woo by iNaya · · Score: 1

      Actually Korean does have spaces between words. The Chinese and Japanese don't.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    10. Re:Woo by iNaya · · Score: 2, Informative

      A lot of native English accents (such as New Zealand) also do not pronounce the 'r' at the end of words such as "hear", which often comes out as something like /hia/. In fact most New Zealanders also do not pronounce /l/ at the end of words like "school" unless followed by a vowel at the start of the next word. Instead it is often replaced with a /w/, a /j/ (where /j/ pronounced like in a German "ja") or replaced with nothing.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    11. Re:Woo by bitrex · · Score: 1

      The tendency of many natives of the Boston, Massachusetts area to substitute "ah" for "r"s is a well known stereotype. It's often possible to fairly accurately determine someone's birthplace (North Shore, South Shore, etc) just by the particular way they mangle their "r"s. Not being much of a linguist, I've often wondered if the reason places like New Zealand have somewhat similar quirks to their speech is because the settlers of New England and New Zealand came from related parts of British society.

    12. Re:Woo by iNaya · · Score: 1

      Mangled... That's very linguacentric of you! Anyhow, it would be hard to believe that the speech of New (England | Zealand) were related for that reason, because NZ was settled by the British in 1840, ~220 years after NE.

      I don't actually know much on the subject, but the fact that New England produced so much literature and philosophy, while NZ produced meat and wool (and still does, haha) would suggest different levels of education, and therefore different parts of society for the early settlers.

      Interesting point though - I might even bother to find out. One day. Maybe.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    13. Re:Woo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a New Zealander in the USA, I can confidently say 90% of my country do not speak English but a crass slang derivative of English =P...but for that matter, 90% of Americans do not speak English either! Where you say we don't pronounce the "r" - I say you add two "rr"s. American - "We'rre goin two tha barr in tha Carr afterr we get some gas and petzaa" I've loved my time in the US =D

    14. Re:Woo by shanen · · Score: 1

      So far a perfectly typical thread of /. know-nothingism.

      However, I can address one counterfactual point from way back near the beginning of the branch. It is not the "r" sound that causes trouble for the Japanese, but the "l" sound. Yes, the Japanese "r" is not exactly like the English "r" sound, but it does exist in Japanese. The "l" sound is the one that has no counterpart, so their trained-from-childhood-to-ignore-"l"-like-sound ears try to map the English "l" to the closest Japanese sound, the "r". (And of course it's very hard to learn to make a new sound that you can't distinguish from a different sound that you already know how to make.)

      I could approach it in more detail from a phonological perspective, but I've already wasted more time than /. deserves these years.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    15. Re:Woo by bitrex · · Score: 1

      So far a perfectly typical thread of /. know-nothingism.

      Yeah. Thanks for being so magnanimous to drop in on it and impart your knowledge to the unwashed masses. I don't think anyone in the thread claimed to be a linguistics expert, and throwing insults right off the bat makes people inspired to learn more I'm sure.

      I could approach it in more detail from a phonological perspective, but I've already wasted more time than /. deserves these years.

      Then stop typing and haul your ass out. However, I bet we'll see you again, as it probably gets lonely sitting by yourself knowing everything there is to know about everything.

    16. Re:Woo by shanen · · Score: 1

      I would tell you to read my sig with attention, but if your reading disability is that severe, then it isn't worth the effort. On the other hand, if you're simply blocking sigs, let me add that you're a rude moron, too.

      You've already convinced me that you are a leading part of the problem, and the greatest accomplishment you could probably accomplish in your miserable life would be to designate me as your foe. I have never suffered fools gladly, but /. has sunk far below THAT level.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    17. Re:Woo by iNaya · · Score: 1

      Ah! Typical prima donna "I know everythingism".

      Talk about it from your phonological perspective all you like, but no one actually said anything within this thread that disagreed with your point. There was one statement that said

      You think Koreans are Japanese?

      Koreans can pronounce 'r' just fine.

      Which implies Japanese have difficulties pronouncing 'r', which they do. To say that the English 'r' exists in Japanese is completely stupid, because it simply doesn't. Their 'r' is somewhere between an English 'l' and 'd' and an Italian/Spanish/(some parts of UK) 'r'. Not to mention that it varies in different parts of Japan, in some places being almost exactly like our 'l'.

      Your point about sound mapping was somewhat correct, but you equated things that were not equal. Yes, of course, it is very difficult to learn new sounds that one did not grow up hearing around them - but it's not even fully for that reason that Japanese mix up 'l's and 'r's, and yes, they mix them up and swap them around (well, I know a lot of Japanese that don't but...). It is in effect, both the sound they knew, and the sound they had to learn that are the problem. Yes, they have trouble distinguishing them. Is it all 'l's fault? No.

      So by all means, approach it from your "phonological perspective", but that's what we were doing anyway. We were talking about the sound were we not? Or did you mean from an academic perspective? Yes, I too can be an egocentric fool, and completely misinterpret what others are saying. Yes, I can insult people too! Man, I like myself even more now.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    18. Re:Woo by shanen · · Score: 1

      Sorry, time is too valuable to waste reading your crap. Noticing the volume in passing, you must have wasted several minutes of your worthless life. From your first few words it seems you have sufficient rationale to justify designating me as your foe. Of course, if my assessment of you is correct, then your stupidity may make prevent you from figuring out how to do so. Well, actually, if my assessment of your stupidity is correct, I can't understand how you remember to continue breathing.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    19. Re:Woo by iNaya · · Score: 1

      Shanen,

      I can see that you are an intelligent person. However, may I be so rude as to tell you that your ability to communicate effectively is hindered by your quickness to anger, and dislike of being disagreed with.

      I insulted you merely, because you insulted bitrex with no justification whatsoever. I was hoping that you would see the pointlessness of the insults. I am not prone to insulting others myself, and I apologise if you were insulted by what I said. However, I was saying it merely to make you think, and realise how reasonless angry vitriol can be. I failed to make that point to you.

      And I would suggest you did further research into phonology before insulting people merely for disagreeing with you. And even then, an insult is wasted breath, or in this case, finger movement.

      I do get a feeling that I am wasting my time writing this. But I do hope that you will at least try and understand what I am saying.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
  3. Silly Koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ICMBs are for first world countries.

    1. Re:Silly Koreans by MacColossus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to be confused with ICBM's. :-)

    2. Re:Silly Koreans by narcberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Both are correct. I prefer Inter-Continental Missiles, Ballistic. It makes document filing more practical when dealing with I-C Missiles, Vomit and I-C Missiles, +5 Arrows.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    3. Re:Silly Koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you mentioned was actualy ballistic.

    4. Re:Silly Koreans by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      What kind of Document Filling do you do if it's Ballistic?

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    5. Re:Silly Koreans by mindcorrosive · · Score: 1

      I see blasted missiles?

      --
      + 3.14 Transcendental
    6. Re:Silly Koreans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Russia and China have them too.

  4. Opportunity by johnsonav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This might be a great opportunity to see exactly how far advanced their missile/rocket program is, assuming we've got salvage vessels in place to pick up the pieces.

    --
    ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    1. Re:Opportunity by The+Rickster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is the Glomar Explorer still in service?

    2. Re:Opportunity by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Funny

      The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis (which is of course precisely why they were performing the test).

      I'm sure you could put Kim Jong Il in a hissy-fit by saying you found it and were reverse engineering secret NK technology, however. ;)

    3. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wouldn't be surprised if they dredge the thing out of the ocean only to find some North Korean expletive scrawled on the side - something like "screw you America, and your little submersible too!".

      -AC

    4. Re:Opportunity by XorNand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not necessarily. I'm sure Western scientists would love to know *why* it failed. It would be interesting to know if we have the capability to salvage it though (assuming North Korea didn't include an auto-destroy mechanism onboard).

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    5. Re:Opportunity by isa-kuruption · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or... better yet. We could salvage the bottom of cereal boxes for the secret decoder rings.

      Even if they are cheap plastic toys made to amuse 4 year olds, they are certainly more advanced than anything North Korea has.

    6. Re:Opportunity by RoboRay · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The US definitely have the ability to salvage it, if it were found. Locating it would be the hard part. Just estimating, but I'd have to put the probability at just about zero.

    7. Re:Opportunity by maxume · · Score: 1

      Pasteboard incorporating recycled stock may well be more advanced than an AK-47, but it isn't actually more useful during an international conflict.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Opportunity by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that even contemporary western satellite launches, with a few decades of technology and refinement at their backs and with paying customers on the line, fail from time to time; I strongly suspect that there are a lot of people who would very much like to know if this launch was "the tech is utter shit, I'd be surprised if 1 in 100 actually perform as advertised" or "eh, probably ~10% chance of this happening on a given launch, bad luck for the first go".

      Might also be interesting to see what sort of "communications satellite" was heading for Tokyo and/or orbit.

    9. Re:Opportunity by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis (which is of course precisely why they were performing the test).

      I don't think so. The remaining pieces of the rocket might be able to tell us quite a lot.

      It could be the case that the North Koreans are bumping up against some of the same problems that we did 60 years ago, when we were developing our own rocket program. If we know what made it fail, we'll know what they'll have to change to make it work, and exactly what technological advancements NK will need for future rockets to be successful. We can target our intelligence/diplomatic/military energies on those precise technologies.

      Also, we'd probably be able to tell exactly what the purpose of this rocket was: ICBM or satalite. That can drastically alter the type and severity of potential US/UN retaliation.

      More knowledge is always better than less.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    10. Re:Opportunity by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The missile had to land in the Pacific. The NK leadership may be crazy but they are not stupid. Flying a launcher over the USA creates a risk that hardware would drop on to the USA. If that happened North Korea would be in all kinds of trouble. They know that and will not allow their launchers to leave the pacific ocean. I would be interested to see how high this launcher flew though. That would tell us how much energy they have available.

    11. Re:Opportunity by glueball · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Western scientists would love to know *why* it failed

      Maybe. What might be more interesting is to know the precise machining and designs that worked so that a "signature" NK ICBM was cataloged. This way, if the same machining shows up in Iran, Syria, or others the world community can trace the lineage.

    12. Re:Opportunity by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      assuming North Korea didn't include an auto-destroy mechanism onboard

      If they did, they better hope it worked better the the rest of the mission.
      Turns out, it IS rocket science! Who'da thunkit?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    13. Re:Opportunity by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis

      I suggest that you do not attempt to apply your one-data-point analysis technique to, say, Russian Roulette. "It just clicked? Well, it must be safe!"

    14. Re:Opportunity by ehintz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your estimate is almost certainly far too pessimistic.

      The USN was doing skunkworks stuff during the cold war, with purpose-outfitted subs, finding interesting bits of Soviet hardware in some crazy deep waters. I seriously doubt that they've forgotten how to do it. My money would be that they've continue to develop the capability, but even if all it's done is stagnate they've already proven very competent at finding Soviet needles in oceanic haystacks. And NORAD will have some very accurate tracking to help them start the search. Hell, I'd bet even money they've already got something out in the Pacific somewhere waiting for just such an opportunity. Or there's a lot of crewmen who just went off leave all of a sudden.

      Have a read of "Blind Man's Bluff" sometime, there's some rather fascinating escapades in there.

      --
      ehintz
    15. Re:Opportunity by eliphalet · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the US Air Force tracked it and the Navy had vessels in the Pacific ready to go after the pieces. In any case, they are not likely to announce it if they find anything, so either way we'll never know.

    16. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then it explodes. That'd be a great way to discourage other nations from salvaging your stuff. Booby-trap all of it.

    17. Re:Opportunity by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Not the first go, but yes.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    18. Re:Opportunity by S-100 · · Score: 1

      Probably not worth the trouble. They're about 50 years behind the USA/Russian space capabilities, and the intelligence networks probably know already from where they have stolen or misappropriated the technology.

    19. Re:Opportunity by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      If it hit the ocean, you can count on an American Sub being in route, as we speak.

      Provided they can free it up from previous cable-cutting duty, of course.

    20. Re:Opportunity by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Western scientists would love to know *why* it failed.

      Folks, when the Navy recover the remains of the vehicle they will know it didn't fail. What they will salvage will not be the payload they thought, that part is in orbit now, but the life-size effigy of Kim Yong-Il placed on top of the rocket with fingers pointing toward the sky.
      Muhahahhahhaaa!!!

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    21. Re:Opportunity by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Well, since we are going to pedantically argue the ridiculous by escalating the scope of discussion to ludicrous scenarios, then I posit that if you had enough "Pasteboard incorporating recycled stock" to bury North Korea in a 10 kilometer deep layer, no amount of AK-47's will help them in an "international conflict".***

      Now go find your sense of humour...you're not interesting, informative, or funny without it.

      His comment seemed to be jokingly alluding to the fact that the majority of NK's high tech efforts of late, amount to a dismal failure after much boasting and posturing by Kim Yong-il...Epic Fail FTW!? [head a splodes]
      (hint:check out the photo in the 2nd link in TFS-notice the 'graffiti'?)

      ***Here is how it will play out:

      *scene cuts to a NK Colonel talking on phone while rigidly standing at attention in an underground bunker*
      Col. Dong: "Yes General! We are BOXED in!....Yes General, I DO have a plan!...I have massive waves of troops ready to heroically over-run them!...No sir, they are armed with boxcutters! Bwahahahaha!!"

      P.S. Just to save you some confusion: 'Why yes, I did have trouble typing that first sentence with a straight face!" ;-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    22. Re:Opportunity by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as an ex-submariner, I pretty certain you're right on target.

    23. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all mothballed (pumped full of nitrogen) but finding the people who actually remember how to use it might be a challenge.

    24. Re:Opportunity by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It might have had help failing. It strikes me that this could have been a perfect opportunity to test some of that "star wars" equipment that's in orbit.

    25. Re:Opportunity by joocemann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't matter. We have missile intercept technology since over a decade ago. Remember how the Chinese shat bricks over our starwars program? Furthermore, if N.Korea decides to truly do anything in that caliber, they will be strongly smitten by all major forces of the world ---- to the point of nonexistence. ... The true worry is what would we do with the N. Koreans that survive! Is it appropriate to rebrainwaish them to be 'unbrainwashed'? If not, do we let them freely into the rest of the world that they are so heavily influenced to hate and wish harm upon? Do we leave them there to rot and die, and regain a small existence that is simply a smaller version of what they currently already have?

      Bananas.

    26. Re:Opportunity by beav007 · · Score: 1

      Both the CIA and NSA knows where Chuck is. The problem is actually getting him to remember.

    27. Re:Opportunity by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      Well, if we had vessels in place and time to pickup the pieces, that would mean we already know exactly how far advanced their missle program is :-)

    28. Re:Opportunity by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if they dredge the thing out of the ocean only to find some North Korean expletive scrawled on the side - something like "screw you America, and your little submersible too!".

      Hopefully they do find it, and the guidance system computer consists of a North Korean soldier.

    29. Re:Opportunity by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope they don't hit a lighthouse en route, as it were.

    30. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US would take the salvage for study? What a joke! If any other country were to pick up a US project's remains, it would be considered an act of aggression, and war wound ensue. Yet the US should be able to step in and interfere with another country's project?

      There are reasons why countries outside the US don't like the US. Double-standards applied to every single situation is one of them. The US wants to be at the top of everything, and therefore condemns anyone but themselves for every little thing.

    31. Re:Opportunity by caller9 · · Score: 1

      They are probably on their way.

      If they think it is important enough, they will go to great lengths to recover things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Glomar_Explorer

    32. Re:Opportunity by lmckayjo · · Score: 1

      assuming North Korea didn't include an auto-destroy mechanism onboard

      If they did, they better hope it worked better the the rest of the mission.
      Turns out, it IS rocket science! Who'da thunkit?

      I was thinking that might be the only part that DID work... which would have to be kinda mixed news to the engineer in charge of that subsystem.

      Then again, I also wonder if they would even have a destruct-mechanism. If it has to be enabled remotely, what are the chances that someone's jamming or "educated-guess" control interference signals might set it off?

    33. Re:Opportunity by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that anti-missile technology is far better in theory than in practice. Literature on the failures of anti-missile systems abound, from credible scientists, such as http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0102-02.htm. Much like North Korean missiles, US anti-missile technology is far better in theory than in practice and should not be relied on for actually stopping missiles. The major use of the 1980's "Star Wars" effort was to drive the Soviet Union to military bankruptcy, trying to keep up with crackpot schemes they didn't have the money or technical manpower to develop or even properly refute.

      North Korea's potential nuclear arsenal, and the ability to deliver warheads, is extremely effective as a deterrent against the kind of "regime change" that was tried in Iraq and Afghanistan. And North Korea can sell the technologies to keep the US off-balance, especially since the sale of Pakistani nuclear technologies is being monitored much more closely now with so many US troops nearby and their previous nuclear secret sales revealed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece).

    34. Re:Opportunity by caller9 · · Score: 1

      I almost forgot: Type o' Dong. HAHAHA.

      obligitory, low brow, sorry

    35. Re:Opportunity by jd · · Score: 1

      For that matter, since the really tough part is the guidance system, I'm sure that a lot of countries would be very happy learning if such a system can be jammed or otherwise interfered with remotely. Much easier and much less politically risky than anti-missile missiles, if it can be done.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    36. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More knowledge is always better than less.

      Not necessarily. Consider:

      You're surfing porn and you recognize family. ):

    37. Re:Opportunity by caller9 · · Score: 1

      Drilling platform now. We've probably built better in the last 40 years though.

    38. Re:Opportunity by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      If it had help failing, the U.S. would have bragged about it.

    39. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the USS Jimmy Carter is the sub assigned to those type of duties now, it has been lengthened by 100 feet to incorporate more ELINT gathering equipment as well as facilities for the type of operations you are discussing here

      Blind man's bluff is indeed a good read, I lent my copy to a friend and she lost it
               

    40. Re:Opportunity by ehintz · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, I'd forgotten. That's quite fitting, with Carter being an ex-submariner, and a keen fan of Rickover. IIRC he was also quite supportive of the USNs sub black ops. Given her homeport is Bangor, I wonder what her status is... Perhaps her crew are the ones that just went off leave (if they're not already out there)... :)

      --
      ehintz
    41. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'd probably have an even bigger hissy fit if we were "kind" returned it to them - amidst much pomp and ceremony. Even if a handful of people start to doubt the veracity of the NK news service, it would probably be worth the effort. And getting the little dictator all upset would be an added bonus.

    42. Re:Opportunity by iNaya · · Score: 1

      Meh. They can just ask the dolphins.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    43. Re:Opportunity by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Did you hear about the joint venture of the US and NK to raise the Titanic? The US wanted the gold in the safe, NK the technology and the band that kept playing 'til the end.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:Opportunity by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't rule that possibility out...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:Opportunity by bitrex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      North Korea's entire ballistic missile program has essentially based on cobbling together different variations of Soviet Scud missiles, a design which the essentials of are approaching 60 years old. The major advance for the Taepodong-2 would be the use of the R-27 first stage, which I believe actually has gimbaled main engines instead of graphite fins for thrust vectoring. If it's true that the failure occurred at second stage ignition instead of with the first stage only a few seconds after launch (as has been the case in the past) then they've overcome a major hurdle, as a gimbaled first stage is essential to get good efficiency for long ranges. The Nodong based second stage appears to be a proven design, so if the problem is just the interfacing my somewhat-educated guess is that they're 90% of the way there. Of course the second stage probably is still using fins for thrust vectoring so the CEP of the unholy combination would probably something laughable by modern standards like 10 miles, but obviously one gets the feeling that range is their big concern right now, not accuracy.

    46. Re:Opportunity by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you're allowed to go ghugging around the oceans picking up other people's harwdare are you? I'm sure the US would be up in arms (literally) if someone else snuck in and picked up a failed test launch of some sort.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    47. Re:Opportunity by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Well, every other news site has a bit more context : no one ever believed that it really was a satellite launch. It was a missile test. But NK agreed to stop doing missiles test flight (Japan was not too happy with these prototype missiles flying over its territory). When it said it would put a satellite in orbit (a thing they are allowed to do) no one really believed it. The missile went a bit shorter than what it was expected (it could reach Alaska in theory)

      Oh, and NK claims that it has successfully launched a satellite in orbit by the way...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    48. Re:Opportunity by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      And? Let's see NK try to stop the US from salvaging that secretly.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    49. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPAWAR tracking capability plus whatever replaces the NR-1 is likely to be up to task. It's not like a ballistic trajectory once identified isn't fairly predictable, and that we don't have things watching ocean weather and currents. If we can locate it, I'd suspect it's likely we can recover it in about a month if not sooner.

      The technology is probably nothing new, but it would be interesting to see just what the Chinese and Russians have been giving them lately.

    50. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you somehow accidentally the sentence

    51. Re:Opportunity by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The USN recovered the cargo door which blew off of United flight 811 over the Pacific Ocean about 20 minutes into a flight out of Honolulu. If they have a radar track of it, they most likely can find and recover it. Course we probably won't hear anything about it for 50+ years.

    52. Re:Opportunity by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      The Japanese self-defense forces (military) took a photo of a whitish 50m by 3km spot in the Pacific (Japanese only, but if you click on the image you can see a video) that they think might be where the missile went down.

    53. Re:Opportunity by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For years now we have had 747s with chemical lasers in them, which have already successfully been tested destroying missiles. The only problem really is a long refire delay - if you have a decent tracking system (all RG jokes aside) you can hit things pretty easily with a laser. This is an extremely well-developed technology, only scaled up. We couldn't shoot down a full launch from the former soviet union or anything like that, but stopping one missile is cakelike.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The outcome of the test says a lot more about that than anything we would discover by forensic analysis

      "Forensic" means pertaining to a court of law. It doesn't mean "detailed scientific analysis".

      Kind regards,

      The Vocabulary Nazi

    55. Re:Opportunity by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      I would assume that the *launcher* stayed on the ground, while this missile/rocket (the media can't make up its mind) is what was launched and landed in the Pacific.

    56. Re:Opportunity by Odonian · · Score: 1

      I'll buy that we have the ability to find the debris. I think though that the impact of something like this vs. the water was very energetic (much more than say a plane crash), and probably didn't leave very big pieces.

    57. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you could put Kim Jong Il in a hissy-fit by saying you found it and were reverse engineering secret NK technology, however. ;)

      It would probably give President Ubama a hissy fit, considering the tech probably came from the husband of his unconstitutional Secretary of State.

    58. Re:Opportunity by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an ex-submariner, I pretty certain you're right on target.

      I can see why you would have gotten out of that gig. I mean, who would want to be a lame rip-off of the already lame Aquaman?

      But yeah that does explain how you got an up-close view of U.S. naval recovery operations using submar.... waitaminute.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    59. Re:Opportunity by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's radar-guided missiles, just blasting it with radar signals across a wide range should fuck with the guidance system enough to throw a missile off course.

      Fly by Wire might be a little harder to deal with.

      Laser guidance - good luck doing anything to stop it except EMP the area and fry the electronics or attempt to intercept it with an anti-missile missile or some antimissile ordinance

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    60. Re:Opportunity by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      It is amazing, sometimes, how we can (collectively) forget information.

      It's not just military stuff. It's any "institutional knowledge", including legislative. Want to know just why a particular nonsensical law got passed? Bet you can't find out: the legislators involved may well be gone, and even when they were around, they may have had reasons to lie about it.

      Someone becomes an expert, then retires/gets fired/is hit by a truck, and 3 years later, something breaks. Suddenly, you have a system that nobody left knows the passwords to, and sometimes, one that nobody knows what does.

    61. Re:Opportunity by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      If it had help failing, the U.S. would have bragged about it.

      No, the U.S. would "neither confirm nor deny" their involvement.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    62. Re:Opportunity by treeves · · Score: 1

      "...she lost it"

      It was a good book, but the one that really made me "lose it" was Body of Secrets. I mean, can you believe the gall of those Israelis, attacking the USS Liberty?!

      -another ex-submariner (USS Kamehameha SSBN 642 Gold Crew 1988-1992)

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    63. Re:Opportunity by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "a cakewalk", not "cakelike". Apparently the term comes from a dance called "cakewalk" that was easy to do, at least according to Wikipedia.

    64. Re:Opportunity by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But they claim the launch was successful. If you want to say that whoever recovers the wreckage was stealing, then they'd have to admit their failure.

    65. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: salvage rights.

      If it's in international waters and it's been abandoned, it doesn't belong to anybody. If you had the resources available, you'd be able to pick it up yourself and auction it to the world.

    66. Re:Opportunity by atamido · · Score: 1

      The US does indeed have the technology to recover all sorts of things that fell out of the air. The problem is trying to do it so that no one can prove that you're doing it and ask for their stuff back. Even if you technically have the right to get it, you want to avoid making a "scene".

      It's a real pain in the butt.

    67. Re:Opportunity by Son+of+Byrne · · Score: 1

      actually...I'd put my money on most North Koreans being decent folks.

      This is based upon the history of Japan and the people versus the leadership.

      Maybe you didn't mean to sound hateful...but gee it was a pretty good bluff

      --
      I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
    68. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an ex industry person, I'd say you're dead on. I bet we already have the payload.

    69. Re:Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given my educated opinion I'd say you are wrong on most accounts.

    70. Re:Opportunity by jd · · Score: 1

      If you loaded a missile up with aluminium foil and detonated it almost anywhere in front of the approaching missile, it would certainly scramble radar and should give any kind of laser guidance a tough time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    71. Re:Opportunity by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I didn't write anything hateful at all. I wrote about reality. There is a difference.

    72. Re:Opportunity by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      I bet that the so-called satellite was actually three cinder blocks!

    73. Re:Opportunity by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The Harpoon missile's RGS isn't easily fooled by metallic chaff countermeasures.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    74. Re:Opportunity by Son+of+Byrne · · Score: 1
      There certainly is a difference, so I'll quote,

      ...do we let them freely into the rest of the world that they are so heavily influenced to hate and wish harm upon? Do we leave them there to rot and die...

      Reality is different from what you wrote. The reality is that there are a large number of people in countries like North Korea and Iran that do not deserve to be pigeonholed as hatemongers. There are some that are brainwashed, sure. I, however, would not be so casual as to consider them *all* brainwashed.

      Your kind of thinking is just as bad as someone who naively assumes that every stranger they meet is going to only wish them good intent.

      --
      I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
    75. Re:Opportunity by joocemann · · Score: 1

      1) We are talking about North Korea. I don't know how or where you got Iran involved in the discussion.

      2) You need to learn a bit more about N. Korea, the hermit kingdom --- and subsequently just how amazingly influenced the people there are.

      and

      3) Read what I wrote in the context it was written in, not the false and ignorant impression you have decided to receive it in (honestly, how the hell did you involve Iran in this at all?). What I was addressing is the immensely difficult and awkward situation that would arise from knocking out N. Korea as a power, but preserving the people that live there.

      I suggest you watch the National Geographic video "Inside North Korea" for a bit of insight.

      I'm not treating all N. Koreans (or Iranians, lol) as 'evil'; I'm talking about the reality of how heavily influenced the N. Koreans are and what their extreme measures of isolation for over 50+ years have led up to. Iran is much different from N. Korea and I am still laughing at why you would bring Iran up in this discussion.. W T F?!

  5. Such a simple thing... by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

    You'd think even North Korea could get a missile launch right. I mean, it's not rocke...err, oh yeah, nevermind.

    1. Re:Such a simple thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the subject of the OP, watch all of this it's worth it.

    2. Re:Such a simple thing... by scorp1us · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, but they are ASIANS!

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:Such a simple thing... by rts008 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, in NK's defense, they did not expect SK to counter with the Lolcat Missle Defense System.

      You just can't plan for something like that!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:Such a simple thing... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm just surprised nobody in this thread has mentioned NASA's rather similar failure to launch a satellite into orbit all of one month ago.

    5. Re:Such a simple thing... by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      As long as you mention the countless dozens that get launched successfully all the time, sure.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    6. Re:Such a simple thing... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      "Countless dozens" is overstating things. The shuttle has flown under 12 dozen missions, and two ended in catastrophic failure.

    7. Re:Such a simple thing... by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      I was talking more about routine satellite launches. They happen all the time.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  6. SCAVENGER HUNT!!!! by Roy+Hobbs · · Score: 0

    I'll draw a cool map

    1. Re:SCAVENGER HUNT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, Blizzard beat you to it.

  7. Obligatory Nelson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haaaaaaaahaaa!

  8. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US government and the popular media have been spouting this nonsense that it was a "failure."

    BS.

    I guarantee you the NK engineers learned from this "failure." Tests aren't failures as long as you learn from them. Since we don't know whether or what NK learned from this, calling the test a "failure" is pure speculation.

    1. Re:Wrong by hedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I disagree, the point was putting the rocket up. The sanctions were for attempting it, so they'll end up with sanctions, the missed the successful launch and they're missing the PR victory that a successful launch would have provided.

      They may end up getting some PR by claiming that it was sabotaged or shot down, but I wouldn't count on getting anything from that. And they're not going to learn much without getting one into orbit. Which coincidentally will probably won't be possible with the increase in cooperation that this is likely to result in between the surrounding nations.

      If they manage to salvage a little bit of information it's unlikely to be worth the problems.

    2. Re:Wrong by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Hehe, you sound like Elon Musk.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Wrong by Zancarius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US government and the popular media have been spouting this nonsense that it was a "failure."

      I guarantee you the NK engineers learned from this "failure." Tests aren't failures as long as you learn from them. Since we don't know whether or what NK learned from this, calling the test a "failure" is pure speculation.

      I halfway agree with you. The fact that the missile made it over Japan was a success. However, be aware that in our own space program, whenever we had failures, we were often able to recover enough debris to determine precisely what the cause of the failure was. With the rocket splashed down somewhere in the Pacific, NK is only going to have pure speculation as to what the probable cause was. I can guarantee you that the US and her allies probably have a good idea where the upper stage and payload landed, and are probably planning on recovering it. After all, we need to know: 1) what the payload really was and 2) what the failure mode of the missile was in order to estimate how advanced their technology is.

      Plus, there's other advantages to having a splashdown in our backyard: We can prevent them from recovering the rocket and learning about their own failures except through further trial and error. Will NK eventually solve these problems? Probably. However, our best bet is to delay them.

      Remember, early in our space program, test failures were what happened when the rocket blew up on the launch pad. We could learn from that. No doubt NK did the same thing. However, whenever we had launch failures where a rocket came down a significant distance from the launch point, few things beat examining the wreckage for probable problems. Yes, we had extensive telemetry during flight, too, and maybe NK has that; but until the wreckage is recovered--hopefully by us--there's no telling how it failed. We stand to learn a lot from their failure, too, as I've mentioned before.

      One other poster below made the point about this being successful if the intent were to test the range of the rocket. I find that to be much more likely. As far as the story goes, however, the rocket itself was most likely a failure.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    4. Re:Wrong by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      It's a good point. I'm fairly sure I'd be on solid ground if I stated that the first ICBM launch attempt of either the Russians or the US "failed" too.

    5. Re:Wrong by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Going one step further, who are we to say that this was a "failure" at all? Sure, North Korea stated that this was a launch to deliver a satellite to orbit, but we have no idea what the real intention of the launch was. For all we know, the second stage could just have been a dummy and the real purpose of the test would have been to test the first stage of a ballistic missile still in development.

      Gloating over N. Korea's apparent "failure" in this test smacks of hubris to me.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    6. Re:Wrong by c · · Score: 1

      > As far as the story goes, however, the rocket itself was most likely a failure.

      Of course, that won't stop the North Korean population from throwing a spontaneous demonstration celebrating their newly launched space satellite from which their Dear Leader can now beam his messages of strength and hope throughout the world.

      Rockets are great for brainwashed populations. They see it go up, they don't see it come down, so it must be in space!

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    7. Re:Wrong by AlexBirch · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tests aren't failures as long as you learn from them.
      Can you tell that to Dr. Boldyrev, my chemistry professor?

    8. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surrounding nations like China?

    9. Re:Wrong by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      The US government and the popular media have been spouting this nonsense that it was a "failure."

      No kidding. For a more nuanced view, check out the headlines from the North Korean Times:

      "NORTH KOREA SENDS ROCKET TO HABITABLE PLANET REPLETE WITH RESOURCES AND NATURAL LIFE. CONFOUNDS IDIOT CAPITALIST NAYSAYERS. PLANET TO BE NAMED AFTER DEAR LEADER."

    10. Re:Wrong by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Just don't let anyone see you loot the wreck... IIRC the debris is the sovereign property of the state that launched it.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    11. Re:Wrong by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Of course, that won't stop the North Korean population from throwing a spontaneous demonstration celebrating their newly launched space satellite from which their Dear Leader can now beam his messages of strength and hope throughout the world.

      Rockets are great for brainwashed populations. They see it go up, they don't see it come down, so it must be in space!

      Exactly. I did neglect (intentionally) to mention the impact on propaganda. You do raise valid points about where this test was highly successful.

      What's interesting is that eleven years ago, the north had launched a satellite and also suggested it had been playing revolutionary melodies. I guess they need a lift me up every decade or so.

      Anyway, yes, thank you for mentioning the propaganda aspect, which most certainly is successful. I suppose I suffer from intellectual myopia when deliberately disagreeing with someone. ;)

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    12. Re:Wrong by S-100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, the NK engineers responsible for the failure could be facing a firing squad as we speak. In their regime, the actual cause of the failure may be less important to them than simply avoiding getting the blame.

    13. Re:Wrong by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you the NK engineers learned from this "failure." Tests aren't failures as long as you learn from them. Since we don't know whether or what NK learned from this, calling the test a "failure" is pure speculation.

      Yeah, but are those engineers still alive and thus able to learn from their mistakes?

    14. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying it was shot down can only possibly be positive PR for whomever is accused of shooting it down. It'd be awesome if we could claim Star Wars took it down.

    15. Re:Wrong by afidel · · Score: 1

      Hmm, since the launch was pre-announced it would seem that the possibility of a shootdown are far from zero. I imagine this was potentially the perfect demo platform for the US ABM COIL laser =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    16. Re:Wrong by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      This ownership is dependent on the country involved being a signatory of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967. N. Korea recently signed this and is trying to use this treaty as justification for being able to carry out these tests.

      Since the UN has passed a resolution banning ballistic launches from N Korea it is questionable as to whether signatories of the OST have to honor the provisions of this treaty. And of course the signatories can dispute the question of whether or not the N Korean launch is an effort to do legitimate space exploration under the provisions of the OST or to develop missiles they can sell to Syria, Iran etc. for use as weapons.

      Given that it is known that N Korea is already selling missiles to Iran and Syria, and that there were observers from these countries at this launch it seems to me that there are not reasons to believe that anyone will pay attention to the OST in this case.

    17. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays is retrieval of the missile by NK necessary? (yes for us, but for them?) With all the electronic doodads that can report speed, pressure, direction, altitude, etc., I'd think most of the flight data could be simply sent back to them over radio frequency. While the second stage failed to separate, chances are they have data of exactly what parts of the mechanism worked and didn't work and can make educated guesses about what happened.

    18. Re:Wrong by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Just don't let anyone see you loot the wreck... IIRC the debris is the sovereign property of the state that launched it.

      Considering past cover stories in recovery, I honestly don't see why it would be such a concern. :)

      And besides, what do you think could be done if the US or Japan happened to raise the wreck? Go to the UN? Whine about us stealing their technology? Complaining that someone has stolen your satellite from the bottom of the ocean is a little counter to suggesting that same satellite is in orbit... (Yes, I'm intentionally ignoring the contortion of information flow in an Orwellian society, but play along with me.)

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    19. Re:Wrong by nizo · · Score: 1

      Of course if we recover the upper stage and there wasn't/isn't a satellite in it, it would be hard to argue that it was anything but a ballistic test, so it seems like the NK claim to it claiming it was a spacecraft wouldn't be relevant.

    20. Re:Wrong by usul294 · · Score: 1

      Of course if this was a SPACEX launch we'd all be calling this a failure.

    21. Re:Wrong by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Nowadays is retrieval of the missile by NK necessary? (yes for us, but for them?) With all the electronic doodads that can report speed, pressure, direction, altitude, etc., I'd think most of the flight data could be simply sent back to them over radio frequency.

      Yes, because we might want to know if they have such telemetry instrumentation installed. I mentioned this in a previous post, also somewhere in this thread. Certainly, if NK had such instrumentation, they could intimate what the failure mode was based upon their flight data. However, discovering what they know will help us infer their sophistication. So really, discovering both the root cause of the failure and how they intended to measure it will be useful to us. On the other hand, absence of any such instrumentation may indicate that they had other motives (ballistic or political rather than orbital).

      While the second stage failed to separate, chances are they have data of exactly what parts of the mechanism worked and didn't work and can make educated guesses about what happened.

      IANARS (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist), but if you read any published story from NASA, the ESA, or the likes, you get the idea that a failure is vastly more complex than "it didn't separate." I do agree that they can infer a great deal about what fundamentally caused the failure, but assuming they have limited or no instrumentation, inferences are going to be of little value.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    22. Re:Wrong by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Of course if we recover the upper stage and there wasn't/isn't a satellite in it, it would be hard to argue that it was anything but a ballistic test, so it seems like the NK claim to it claiming it was a spacecraft wouldn't be relevant.

      Exactly. Considering how much valuable data for South Korea, Japan, and the US hinges on knowing more about the payload, I think it's important to recover the wreckage.

      Wouldn't you surmise that discovering a potentially ballistic payload (rather than a satellite) might trump international laws of ownership claims over the wreckage?

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    23. Re:Wrong by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends on the telemetry they were getting. If they laced sensors throughout the rocket and were transmitting back every last detail, then yes, they will have learned a hell of a lot.

      Chances are they didn't, which means they won't know what warning signs were evident, nor will they know precisely what bit failed, nor will they know how it failed or even exactly when it failed.

      Yes, failure can tell you a lot. Rolls Royce experimented with deliberately burning out their early aircraft engines to see where the points of failure were. They then re-engineered those parts. Not long after, they had perhaps the world's most powerful, most reliable engine built.

      A parallel would be for North Korea to do static test after static test, each time pushing the engine up to (and maybe beyond) design limits to see what fails, then re-design that part. Static tests can only tell you so much, but this would eliminate what are probably very fundamental design flaws.

      That is not the direction they are going, however. They are opting for political showmanship. A very dangerous form of showmanship at that.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:Wrong by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you the NK engineers learned from this "failure."

      Indeed. Half-dozen more iterations, they'll have an ICBM capable of delivering a ton of... satellite... to Washington, DC.

    25. Re:Wrong by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Speaking of lunatic demagogues bent on world domination...

      Why is the U.S. so concerned about Kim Jong Il, while they're *giving* Elon Musk free launch facilities to hold the world under his thumb with a reign of ballistic missile terror?

      The good news is, when SpaceX holds your nation hostage with its ICBMs, you'll be able to pay the ransom with PayPal.

    26. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      space program

      You keep using this term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      NK has NO INTEREST in a peaceful space program. This was an obvious workaround to demonstrate their capability to launch missiles.

      One other poster below made the point about this being successful if the intent were to test the range of the rocket. I find that to be much more likely. As far as the story goes, however, the rocket itself was most likely a failure.

      This was a perfect success, they got to say "look how far our rockets go".

    27. Re:Wrong by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      You keep using this term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Ah, an overused meme. Thank you. I realize you're probably trolling here, but I'll bite.

      NK has NO INTEREST in a peaceful space program. This was an obvious workaround to demonstrate their capability to launch missiles.

      I honestly don't think you're reading my replies in their entirety. For one, I was referring to our space program; our knowledge of ballistics could be considered derived from both the purposes of weaponry and space flight. Oftentimes, it is difficult to see where one begins and another ends. Two, we're discussing the NK launch as it stands under the guise of a peaceful space program. Perhaps my impartiality confuses you, but I will say this much: I agree with you. I think it is largely an effort to bring international attention on Pyongyang. While I consider it possible that NK may be attempting to create a ballistic missile system capable of attacking the US, I suspect it is more an effort to gain attention. If it is intended to be a weapons delivery platform (a possibility, most certainly), then it will most likely be used to test the current administration's ability to defend the US from foreign attacks. However, given NK's history, it appears that their launches happen whenever their despot feels he needs to draw attention to himself.

      Seriously. Take a deep breath, you might find some folks more in agreement with yourself than you think. :)

      This was a perfect success, they got to say "look how far our rockets go".

      I addressed this notion briefly in another post, but I forgive you for not being able to see it. I never look at other comments individual posters have made unless I have them "friended." You might be interested in reading my reply there.

      Although you're an AC, I look forward to your reply.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    28. Re:Wrong by Fancia · · Score: 1

      That did in fact happen pretty much exactly like how you described.

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    29. Re:Wrong by jshackney · · Score: 1

      I suspect if these folks are given plentiful opportunities to identify and correct their mistakes they will. And it looks as if the U.N., et alia, will happily oblige at this time.

    30. Re:Wrong by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Chances are they didn't, which means they won't know what warning signs were evident, nor will they know precisely what bit failed, nor will they know how it failed or even exactly when it failed.

      Why do you feel that is the case? While the technological progression of making a long-range rocket may not be that far removed from the process nations went through in the 50s and 60s, and the knowledge still only held by a select few, that doesn't apply to the electronics and sensors that would make up a telemetry system. Even a place under sanction like NK would be able to easily acquire all of this, and would have the electrical engineers to make it work.

      Given that for them every such launch is an international incident I would think they would want to get as much information as possible from each launch. Yes their ultimate goal is showmanship, but being able to get to the end point of a functional missile to demonstrate while burning as little of the remaining tolerance other nations have for them in the meantime seems like something they would aim for. They want to be seen as strong and threatening, not bumbling, so an endless series of trial-and-error tests with each one escalating tensions and costing them at the aid negotiating table seems like a bad idea.

      Kinda like the semi-dud nuke they tested a few years back. I'm thinking they gathered every piece of data possible from that event, so that they could use the data to feed into their computer models and work out the kinks without further tests in the hopes that when they're ready for another test it'll be a full-on success and NK can declare themselves a nuclear power.

      But if you have a reason to think differently, I'm all ears.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    31. Re:Wrong by o2binbuzios · · Score: 1

      "Tests aren't failures as long as you learn from them. ..." But if each iteration of test/ education costs something like 10% of your GNP...you can't afford to fail often. N Korea is bankrupt in every sense of the word...

    32. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but didn't they loft a rocket over Japan back in 98? With almost the exact same story about a satellite playing patriotic songs?

    33. Re:Wrong by drerwk · · Score: 1

      I have been wondering myself how much damage a couple of Aegis Radars at 4 MW each could do to the electronics on board. Not much I thought at first, but if there were antenna sending back telemetry, then maybe a bit more of a coupling would be there for the radar to cause problems.

    34. Re:Wrong by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And then NK just watches our news programs to find out where it landed, and to see all the data they want. Maybe they're not stupid after all.

    35. Re:Wrong by jd · · Score: 1

      The main problem is with getting receivers sensitive enough. Normally, you'd do this with a dish antenna which is then locked onto the rocket - probably by radar.

      There is nothing in principle stopping the North Koreans from having such technology. It IS 1960s-era and most of that is no longer considered verboten under export laws. However, it's still not trivial and possibly beyond their ability to manufacture or maintain.

      However, there is another aspect to consider. There were a hell of a lot of nations with SIGINT gear parked in their neighbourhood. Each and every one of them would be compiling every scrap of telemetry transmitted on top of every single photo and radar track they were gathering themselves.

      If the rocket transmitted significant telemetry, it would tell the US and other nations a lot about the weaknesses in the rocket design, the limitations of metalwork, the limitations in fuel technology, the sophistication of the guidance systems, etc. All information that North Korea would be very unhappy other nations having.

      That sort of technical information, given the US' superior number-crunching technology, would limit the deterrence value of the missile and strengthen the US' hand in talks - the exact opposite of the effect North Korea could possibly want.

      The only option that makes sense would be for the rocket to have been nearly silent, transmitting little or nothing, with North Korea relying entirely on reports from observers from countries sort-of sympathetic towards it. Then it could conceal where the problems lay - maybe even for long enough to fix them.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. Shocker! by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Wow, never expected that! If only there was a use for a launch vehicle that doesn't make it to orbit..

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Shocker! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Just cross out "strategic" and pencil in "tactical"...

    2. Re:Shocker! by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      You do realize that ICBMs actually do into orbit or near-orbit for a short period of time right?

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    3. Re:Shocker! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      By height, not necessarily by speed. Still, all reaching orbit does is prove that you can hit any target on earth - they don't have to be able to do that. They can easily hit Japan.

    4. Re:Shocker! by Bill+Currie · · Score: 1

      No, they are in orbit. When you fall out of a tree, you are in orbit. That orbit just happens to intersect with the ground.

      --

      Bill - aka taniwha
      --
      Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

  10. They should have asked Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me guess, they couldn't figure out how to get the Photoshop crack to work.

    You have to overwrite the .dll file!

    1. Re:They should have asked Iran by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      .dll? i thought all Communists used linux!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    2. Re:They should have asked Iran by wmac · · Score: 1

      Iran put their satellite into the orbit successfully. And that photoshoped pic was from a newspaper, not the government. Government published the correct photo but one of the newspapers modified it.

      I am now understanding the reason behind your nickname.

    3. Re:They should have asked Iran by incripshin · · Score: 1

      Well, communists actually call it GNU/Linux.

  11. Anyone find it? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    Just wondering what exactly they payload was.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Anyone find it? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear the rocket was carrying a load of BS ... and that, given the international community's response to the launch, we can say that the rocket did, in fact, hit its target.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Anyone find it? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Yawning and saying "Not a threat"? Now, if the Japanese had tried to shoot it down and failed...

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Anyone find it? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Not 24 hours after the launch Obama's up there making his big speech on nuclear disarmament... the UN is having emergency Security Council meetings, Japan is screaming, Russia is annoyed, China and Indonesia are mildly concerned due to rising tensions, Mexico is going to come up with a Strongly Worded Statement... and random Congress-critters are making statements to the media... Heck, check out the BBC's quotes from various worldwide officials on the matter.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:Anyone find it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Last Updated: Wednesday, 5 July 2006, 20:57 GMT 21:57 UK"

      "GEORGE W BUSH, US PRESIDENT"

      Something subtle tells me 'these aren't the quotes you're looking for.'

    5. Re:Anyone find it? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I hear the rocket was carrying a load of BS ... and that, given the international community's response to the launch, we can say that the rocket did, in fact, hit its target.

      OMG - the rocket hit Washington, D.C.!

    6. Re:Anyone find it? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Yawning and saying "Not a threat"? Now, if the Japanese had tried to shoot it down and failed...

      Dude, even a freaking Samurai Pizza Cat can take out anything North Korea is capable of launching.

  12. Failure in what sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this a failure? They launched an ICBM that cleared Japan before hitting the water, thus proving they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan.

    If this was a test to see what the effective range was of the missile, then they absolutely determined that and there was no failure. While I dislike the way North Korea interacts with the rest of the world, I find the highly suggestive wording of the write-up to be misleading and inaccurate.

    I think we all knew the 'satellite' story was BS, so we can't evaluate the launch in terms of whether they put something in orbit or not. That part is irrelevant.

    1. Re:Failure in what sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, since when did they have a nuclear device capable of being fitted on such a small rocket? Everything I've read in the past two days seems counter to them being capable of anything more than a "dirty" bomb strapped to a rocket.

      North Korea's claim was that they were trying to launch something into orbit, if it landed in the ocean that's sort of a failure to me. If we're disregarding the whole orbit thing, the US is only concerned if it poses a threat to Hawaii/Alaska, and it isn't.

      How do we know they even fueled the whole thing to max, and that it was even supposed to go any farther? Maybe they got it to hit exactly where they wanted?

    2. Re:Failure in what sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they have the capability of launching a nuclear strike as long as the nuclear payload weighs nothing.

      Launching a rocket is easy. Launching a rocket with accuracy and enough payload to cause enough damage is another.

      I'd be more impressed (or worried) if they launched something of value (or weight) instead of just dumping this stupid rocket off the coast of Japan then claim the satellite is in orbit broadcasting "patriotic songs."

    3. Re:Failure in what sense? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Korea to Japan, or just over, is not exactly in the 'intercontinental' range.

    4. Re:Failure in what sense? by ushering05401 · · Score: 2, Funny

      How funny would it be if they actually called their shot and put the vehicle down right where they told NATO they would.

      And the free world news outlets are trumpeting the failure - all the while our generals are having aneurysms in the war room.

    5. Re:Failure in what sense? by Reapman · · Score: 4, Informative

      They've had missiles that could reach Japan for quite some time already... this was quite the failure for them.

    6. Re:Failure in what sense? by John3 · · Score: 1

      It didn't complete the mission, so it failed. That makes it a failure. Was it a total failure? No, it didn't blow up on the launch pad so it wasn't a total failure.

      In the court of world opinion, it definitely is a total failure. Rather than inspiring fear, people are now snickering and ridiculing the missile's premature splashdown.

      --
      "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
    7. Re:Failure in what sense? by carlmenezes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sheldon Cooper, is that you? This is Leonard. I disagree. The Taepodong 2 that they launched was a 3 stage rocket capable of delivering a 500kg payload. That's enough for a nuke. The first stage landed in the ocean west of Japan. The second stage landed in the ocean east of Japan. So that says they had a successful launch, successful separation of the first and second stages and a successful flight of the second stage - over 200 seconds of continuous flight. That's quite a bit considering their previous test blew up only 40 seconds after launch - the first stage exploded. Now, do you still think they didn't learn from their mistakes? Sure, there might be a nut in the seat of power, but don't let that discredit their scientists' and engineers' capability.

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    8. Re:Failure in what sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're not quite right either, unless by "nuclear strike" you mean a dirty bomb. Can they miniaturize a nuclear warhead to fit onto a launch vehicle yet?

    9. Re:Failure in what sense? by Zancarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is this a failure? They launched an ICBM that cleared Japan before hitting the water, thus proving they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan.

      If this was a test to see what the effective range was of the missile, then they absolutely determined that and there was no failure. While I dislike the way North Korea interacts with the rest of the world, I find the highly suggestive wording of the write-up to be misleading and inaccurate.

      As I mentioned in reply to another poster, this is still technically a failure--though, I suppose you're right, as it depends on what their intent was. If in fact the initial report from the US and Japan is correct (and I think it is) that there was a failure in stage separation, the launch was most certainly a failure. For the developed world, the best course of action we have is to recover the debris and determine precisely what that failure was. One, we stand to learn more about their technology, how progressed they are, and how they've corrected previous engineering mistakes and oversights. Two, we can learn more about the payload, if in fact it was a satellite, or if it wasn't, what they were attempting to launch. We can probably also learn more about their telemetry, if any, and what sort of instrumentation they had installed. This is valuable information in its own right, because we can determine what they probably learned from their own launch. (My gut feel is that they didn't have much in the way of telemetry; if they were intent on developing a serious weapon system, they wouldn't make quite so much noise. This is a political ploy as much as a test--maybe more so.)

      To be honest, I have a feeling that this is more along the lines of what other posters have mentioned. The launch is an attempt to get attention from the developed world, drag the US back into six party talks, and possibly seek aid from Washington (or bargain for lesser sanctions so they can work on more nefarious programs). Of course, there's the other side of the coin: Kim Jung Il could be a raving lunatic who honestly doesn't understand that dropping a nuke on Japan, US, or Australia would imply that his regime would suddenly disappear overnight. Still, I think it's a test of the Obama administration, and sabre-rattling.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    10. Re:Failure in what sense? by xianthax · · Score: 1

      thats like saying a pitcher has proven he can throw strikes because he can throw a ball to the backstop... FFS getting the thing up is the easy bit, getting it to come down and hit anything close to what you were aiming at is the hard part, especially when your aiming at a narrow island like japan, clearly they have failed at getting it up, perhaps some more junk mail from cialis is needed?

    11. Re:Failure in what sense? by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      Why does Japan always have to be the one who gets the nuclear strike? There are tons of other countries out there that haven't had a turn.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    12. Re:Failure in what sense? by syousef · · Score: 1

      How is this a failure? They launched an ICBM that cleared Japan before hitting the water, thus proving they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan.

      I'm sorry but if you go to the firing range and hit something to the left of and behind the target, it does not prove you can hit the target.

      I'm amazed at how supposedly intelligent people here on /. - engineers, scientists, IT professionals - often have no concept of what constitutes a proof.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    13. Re:Failure in what sense? by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      The first stage landed in the ocean west of Japan. The second stage landed in the ocean east of Japan. So that says they had a successful launch, successful separation of the first and second stages and a successful flight of the second stage - over 200 seconds of continuous flight.

      Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you wrote or the general news reported, but if the second stage successfully separated, then wouldn't that imply the third stage failed to ignite? All of the sources I've seen seem to hint that the first stage separated but the second stage--and all subsequent ones--splashed down east of Japan.

      I'm not disagree with you, I'm just interested in clearer verbiage. Perhaps you have access to a more recent, more detailed report.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    14. Re:Failure in what sense? by S-100 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then maybe Japan should change its flag so that it looks less like a bullseye.

    15. Re:Failure in what sense? by ameyer17 · · Score: 1

      Hell, do they even have the capability to manufacture a nuclear warhead?

    16. Re:Failure in what sense? by dlenmn · · Score: 1

      North Korea has long had missiles that should be capable of hitting Japan. I don't think they've shot them over Japan before, but they're based on proven designs (they're based on Scud missiles), so it would be surprising if they didn't have that range. In other words, this launch was not a success because it didn't prove any new capability. Moreover, the missile didn't seem to have the intended range (they can already hit Japan, they want this missile to go farther). If it landed off the coat of California, that would be another story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodong-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodong-2

    17. Re:Failure in what sense? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Nuclear warheads aren't that hard anymore, with the published details available from Pakistani's nuclear weapons programs on the black market for the last decade or two. And once you have the fissionable material, the theory is trivial: enough explosive, closely timed to drive enough high energy fissile material (plutonium, u-238 or the like) into a single small space is quite enough. All the rest is optimization, and if you're rushed and sloppy, you don't care if it's optimized.

    18. Re:Failure in what sense? by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      Heh, heh. You said "dong".

    19. Re:Failure in what sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this a failure? They launched an ICBM that cleared Japan before hitting the water, thus proving they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan.
      Their Taepodong-1 missile achieved that feat some years ago so it's not exactly progress is it?

    20. Re:Failure in what sense? by goodmanj · · Score: 2, Funny

      How is this a failure? They launched an ICBM that cleared Japan before hitting the water, thus proving they now have the capability to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan.

      They've been able to throw payloads as far as Japan for years.

      If you're defining "success" as "no progress since 1993", then yeah, this latest test is a success.

      Which is funny, because that's exactly the definition the U.S. anti-ballistic-missile program has been using...

    21. Re:Failure in what sense? by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      The info I got was from a pretty detailed article in the NZ Herald print edition (http://www.nzherald.co.nz). The article seems to have dissappeared into the archives, or I've not searched hard enough. I was wondering the same too. The newspaper article however, had a picture of the rocket and the third stage was mentioned to be a solid fueled one capable of carrying a 500kg payload. The third stage was carried inside a shell at the top of the second one. So I'm not sure what happened to the third stage - but I suspect the rocket never carried one.

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    22. Re:Failure in what sense? by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the link, it isn't often posters reply on Slashdot constructively!

      I don't think I was able to find anything other than what the AP and other outlets have been reporting (just as you indicated would happen), but I'll examine it a little more tomorrow when I have time. I'm half-asleep right now, so I'd imagine conducting any sort of search might be a fruitless endeavor. :)

      Not surprisingly, US government sites are fairly tight-lipped about it. I have my speculation as to why this might be, but it's simply conjecture void of fact at this point.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    23. Re:Failure in what sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think it more likely that there was a stage separation, the second stage successfully ignited, but a problem then caused the second stage engine to shut down prematurely. Basically, think of something like SpaceX Falcon 1 Flight 2, but for any number of reasons.

    24. Re:Failure in what sense? by sean.peters · · Score: 1

      Which is funny, because that's exactly the definition the U.S. anti-ballistic-missile program has been using...

      Funny, but not exactly true. While the Army's system has had lots of issues, the maritime system - AEGIS BMD, SM-3, et. al. - has had many, many successful tests.

      One frequently noted criticism of the system is that it's unknown how it would perform in the presence of countermeasures such as decoys. While there's some validity to this, it's not particularly relevant to the NK situation, as I think it's unlikely that they've got the technology to deploy such countermeasures. By the time they do, US ability to distinguish countermeasures from real warheads is likely to improve, so I think we'll stay ahead of the game there.

      A more serious objection is whether the system is cost-effective - in other words, whether it's worth spending truly enormous amounts of money to defeat a threat that's not all that likely to materialize anyway. I don't know enough to say... but I have my doubts.

  13. now we can find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. maybe if it was communication satellite or not... the CIA just have to send out an other deep-sea Titanic exploring expedition.

  14. Fireworks by Joebert · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are we even sure these are actually rockets ?
    Given how much Kim likes to party these could just be really big fireworks.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Fireworks by narcberry · · Score: 1

      You mean a 3 story tall bottle rocket that can fly over Japan? Yeah, that'd be a rocket, and I guess they could be called "really big fireworks".

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    2. Re:Fireworks by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Are we even sure these are actually rockets ?
      Given how much Kim likes to party these could just be really big fireworks.

      Dude, do you always suck that bad at telling jokes ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Fireworks by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Given how much Kim likes to party these could just be really big fireworks.

      Obviously, someone never saw the movie Ragtime, where a fireworks designer offers his services as a bomb maker.

  15. shrug by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    Two out of three ain't bad.

    --
    -Dave
  16. Eh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Informative

    First-world nations had plenty of problems with their space programs at first too. Considering that North Korea has isolated itself, it's not surprising that they're going through the pain everyone else went through 60 years ago.

    1. Re:Eh by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Err, of course the USSR didn't count as first world. What I meant was "developed".

  17. north korea is a troll by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and like any troll, the only way to react to it is ignore it

    trolls feed on attention, any attention, psotive or negative. currently, north korea is basking in the joy of the world condemning it. just like a troll basks in the glory of watching people lose their temper over a purposely vitriolic post of theirs. just like westboro baptist church enjoys the hatred as they picket funerals

    it doesn't matter that it is being condemned. what matters is that it is the focus of attention. this is the essential psychopathology of their behavior

    if you ignore north korea, it will do progressively more and more dangerous things, all calculated to garner attention again. and then it will screw up, and then it can finally be taken down like the rabid dog it is

    not that any of this will happen though. all that will happen is it will continue to get way more attention than the basket case human suffering machine deserves

    north korea can't feed its own people. but it can launch icbms. pathetic troll of a country

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:north korea is a troll by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > if you ignore north korea, it will do progressively more and more dangerous things, all
      > calculated to garner attention again. and then it will screw up, and then it can finally
      > be taken down like the rabid dog it is

      At the cost of how many hundred thousand South Korean (and possibly Japanese) lives?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:north korea is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live in Seoul, you insensitive clod!

      I am serious.

      And since you are an insensitive clod and most likely an American, consider this. Tens of thousands of American soldiers and civilians live in or near Seoul. Right now. That means they are within artillery range of North Korea. (No, I'm not kidding.)

      Feel better?

      It's so easy to make bold assertions when you don't know or care about the consequences...

    3. Re:north korea is a troll by lseltzer · · Score: 1

      Let's also ignore them selling nuclear technology to Iran and Syria. Maybe nothing will come of it.

    4. Re:north korea is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly person! Everyone knows you can't take a troll donw by ignoring it. Now on the other hand if you use acid or fire...

    5. Re:north korea is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if you ignore north korea, it will do progressively more and more dangerous things, all
      > calculated to garner attention again. and then it will screw up, and then it can finally
      > be taken down like the rabid dog it is

      At the cost of how many hundred thousand South Korean (and possibly Japanese) lives?

      You mean several *million* South Korean lives.

    6. Re:north korea is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you've never personally gotten into a flamewar with nuclear weapons...

    7. Re:north korea is a troll by wmac · · Score: 1

      Or like you sold to Israel and now the entire world is into sh***i

    8. Re:north korea is a troll by syousef · · Score: 1

      and like any troll, the only way to react to it is ignore it

      trolls feed on attention, any attention, psotive or negative. currently, north korea is basking in the joy of the world condemning it. just like a troll basks in the glory of watching people lose their temper over a purposely vitriolic post of theirs. just like westboro baptist church enjoys the hatred as they picket funerals

      How many trolls do you know with a nuclear launch capability (or soon to aquire one).

      By the way ignoring trolls sounds nice in theory but relies on rational attention seeking behaviour. Trolls most often aren't rational and ignoring them works no better than feeding them. The former allows them to bask in their own dillusional triumph, while the later boosts their self worth and sense of pleasure at the annoyance of others. The way to deal with them is to conclusively demonstrate that what they are saying is complete bunk and then refuse to argue further on the basis that they're not being rational.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    9. Re:north korea is a troll by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      You've had that signature for years, where's the movie damnit.

    10. Re:north korea is a troll by Winckle · · Score: 1

      So what we need is UN mod points?

    11. Re:north korea is a troll by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      > if you ignore north korea, it will do progressively more and more dangerous things, all > calculated to garner attention again. and then it will screw up, and then it can finally > be taken down like the rabid dog it is

      At the cost of how many hundred thousand South Korean (and possibly Japanese) lives?

      I reckon China have a kill switch for that eventuality. They don't want to lose customers.

    12. Re:north korea is a troll by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      and like any troll, the only way to react to it is ignore it

      And like any troll, it would be far more satisfying to nuke them from space.

    13. Re:north korea is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      At the cost of how many hundred thousand South Korean (and possibly Japanese) lives?

      Don't forget the thousands of American troops also stationed there.

    14. Re:north korea is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I did some in depth research about the Korean war a few months back, I was amazed how many times Seoul exchanged hands. Tactically, you guys are in a tough bind. Even though he forces of NK are not exactly modernized, if they pushed over the border with their full capabilities, Seoul is definitely going to be abandoned to them.

      What's even funnier is how easily offhand people dismiss the DPRK, even going so far as to claim the US is to fault for the current bind. Are you kidding me? The DPRK is a tool of China, the Chinese sit and laugh about it. How could they not love a country that the upkeep on their end is minimal, yet thinks it's at a constant state of War with the West and as such has one of the largest field armies in the world? Not only that, an army that thinks the West is inches from killing their babies and taking away their women (if life in North Korea is hard, yet at the pinnacle of the world, it must be an outright zoo over here in the US!). If China ever had issues with the West, South Korea would fall easy, and they can then send on tons of cheap battlefield fodder over to Japan and Taiwan. It's a total joke. North Korea is not going to change unless it happens internally, and the way everything is locked down it doesn't look likely anytime soon.

      (Russia doesn't get involved as much as China as they have too many of their own problems to deal with, but they definitely laugh at least as much.)

      They had famines in the 90s that grew to a scale that rivaled the evil of Hitler and there was no power struggle. Anyone who apologizes for the way America has dealt with the DPRK is completely separated from reality.

    15. Re:north korea is a troll by GlobalEcho · · Score: 1

      The problem with ignoring North Korea is that they'll collect hard currency by selling scary weapons to anybody who can pay -- including those who want to burn cities or foment wars.

      The South Koreans are no help with this. They're worried about the economic and possible military consequences of North Korean collapse and are constantly spoiling arms control efforts. They're perfectly happy to let the rest of the world suffer proliferation of nuclear weapons. They tend to take these missile tests as a point of pride, really, just like lots of countries were happy to see Pakistan test a "muslim bomb".

    16. Re:north korea is a troll by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      This difference is most trolls can't level a city of 24 million people when you make them angry.

      Most troll's power come from being able to suck people into the conversation. NK's power comes from very realistic military threats (with or without nukes).

    17. Re:north korea is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Seoul

      What is the tastiest part of a dog?

  18. Probably shot down by our new ... by Jerry · · Score: 1

    airborne laser, the Boeing YAL-1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

    Not being able to see the laser beam from NK, it would appear to be just a malfunction.... an act of Nature ... the fuel tank just ruptured and exploded.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    1. Re:Probably shot down by our new ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occam's Razor, dude, Occam's Razor.

    2. Re:Probably shot down by our new ... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Except that according to the reports there was no explosion: just a seperation failure.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Probably shot down by our new ... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Not being able to see the laser beam from NK

      A beam that powerful wouldn't make the missile glow, or ionize the air, or glow on water vapor, etc?

    4. Re:Probably shot down by our new ... by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      From the Wikipedia atricle on the Airborn Laser:
      The ABL does not burn through or disintegrate its target. It heats the missile skin, weakening it, causing failure from high speed flight stress.

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    5. Re:Probably shot down by our new ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or.... the massive amounts of popcorn that come pouring out.

  19. PROPAGANDA by linhares · · Score: 4, Funny

    How do you know that's true if you're not reading the official North Kolea Blog?

    1. Re:PROPAGANDA by Lucky75 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If I wanted to know if it were true or not, the North Korea blog would be the last place I'd look ;)

      But no...not *woosh* ;)

      --
      DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
    2. Re:PROPAGANDA by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe that's exactly what the North Koreans want us to think! It really worked, so they are reporting that it did, and we assume everything they say is a lie!

    3. Re:PROPAGANDA by binarylarry · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's funny how much that reads like the Time Cube website.

      Maybe there's a connection? Perhaps we ARE educated stupid.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:PROPAGANDA by bky1701 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Quick, I think they launched another one!

      Oh wait, that was just the sound of a joke flying past.

    5. Re:PROPAGANDA by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you know that's true if you're not reading the official North Kolea Blog?

      Uh, don't you mean "Nolth Kolea Brog"?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:PROPAGANDA by spacefight · · Score: 1

      Hans, Hans, Hans...

    7. Re:PROPAGANDA by buswolley · · Score: 1
      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    8. Re:PROPAGANDA by Phasma+Felis · · Score: 1

      Uh, don't you mean "Nolth Kolea Brog"?

      Ha ha, wow, those crazy Asians sure do talk funny! Man! That one never gets old!

    9. Re:PROPAGANDA by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      If they want a war with the pacific ocean they can get one!

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    10. Re:PROPAGANDA by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Uh, don't you mean "Nolth Kolea Brog"?

      Ha ha, wow, those crazy Asians sure do talk funny! Man! That one never gets old!

      Hey, he said it first.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  20. Third party verification? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    according to the US Northern Command and NORAD

    Not to get all tinfoil-hat on everyone, but has anyone closer to a neutral third party got any information?

    I don't doubt the NORAD report, but it might be nice to have a source without a vested interest make a report as well.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Third party verification? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they were going to lie wouldn't you expect them to say the test was a success so that they could get ABM funding?

      In any case, I don't think that there is anyone with the resources to provide your verification that doesn't have a "vested interest".

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Third party verification? by RoboRay · · Score: 4, Informative

      Few sources without a vested interest are equipped with the tracking radars and other equipment needed to verify whether or not the launch failed.

    3. Re:Third party verification? by rnelsonee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, phrases like "complete and utter failure" don't really help. As far as I know, this was 100% successful - who's to say the second stage was even present? And a satellite? I know the administration told the public that they launched a satellite, but that doesn't mean they were really trying to do so. Many North Koreans aren't aware that we've even landed on the moon yet (according to a NatGeo documentary I saw), so it's not too hard to fool them.

      We do know that they launched a rocket a considerable distance - enough to hit the largest metropolitan area on Earth, and one of U.S.' closest allies; and once they get a second stage, chances are they can us US territory. It's not something we should just write off.

    4. Re:Third party verification? by sysusr · · Score: 1

      It would probably be more beneficial for them to say the test was an unprecedented success.

      --
      \x72\x6D\x20\x2D\x72\x66
    5. Re:Third party verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is anyone going to spend the money for a global missile tracking system unless they have some sort of "vested interest"? I don't think so.

    6. Re:Third party verification? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, according to KCNA, the launch was a total success, a shining product of Korean self-reliance and an inspiration to the whole Korean people. No, really.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:Third party verification? by Huntr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, phrases like "complete and utter failure" don't really help

      Read the news release concerning this event from the U.S. Northern Command and NORAD. They did not use the word "failure" at all. Just your standard, dry, government news release.

    8. Re:Third party verification? by rampant+mac · · Score: 1

      It is official; Netcraft confirms: North Korea is dying

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered North Korea community when IDC confirmed that the North Korean market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all ICBMs. Coming on the heels of a recent North Korea survey which plainly states that North Korea has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. North Korea is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent ICBM launch test.

      You don't need to be a pinko Communist to predict North Korea's future. The hand writing is on the wall: North Korea faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for North Korea because North Korea is dying. Things are looking very bad for North Korea. As many of us are already aware, North Korea continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

      ------

      Is that better?

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    9. Re:Third party verification? by Torodung · · Score: 1

      Yeah, after all, it could have been an elaborate PRaNK. ;^)

      --
      Toro

    10. Re:Third party verification? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Few sources without a vested interest are equipped with the tracking radars and other equipment needed to verify whether or not the launch failed.

      Where are the Lone Gunmen when you need them?

    11. Re:Third party verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/05/north.korea.rocket/index.html

      "Chinese and Russian officials had a softer response, calling for restraint and calm. Russian officials also appeared to differ from the U.S. military in terms of their assessment of the launch's success."

      "North Korea sent an artificial satellite into an Earth orbit on the morning of April 5. The parameters of the satellite's orbit are being specified now," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement on the ministry's Web site."

    12. Re:Third party verification? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Not to get all tinfoil-hat on everyone, but has anyone closer to a neutral third party got any information?

      Well, I'm something of a third party. I know I haven't been nuked, so there's that. And my north korean GPS device isn't working, so I'm going to assume that either they weren't serious about the sattelite, the launch was a failure, or I was sold a very defective north korean GPS. I mean, it looks like a painted rock, but that's about what I would have expected...

    13. Re:Third party verification? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      The news outlets took this tiny piece of information, and rephrased what it said in many more words to write "stories" -- but I preferred these few sentences straight from the source. The only thing one would need to add to to it to make it "complete" would be one sentence stating that North Korea continues to claim that the launch was a success.

      It'd be nice if there were a news source that cut out all the crap and just gave the facts in quick, terse sentences. That's all I want: Facts and numbers, sans frills.

      Don't get me wrong; I like editorial. It's just best kept separate.

    14. Re:Third party verification? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't think this is a complete failure. Especially considering their last few attempts either exploded on the launch pad, or ditched into the ocean just offshore after barely going a few miles.

      This one successfully launched, dropped its first booster stage west of Japan, flew over Japan, dropped its second stage booster neatly on the other side of Japan ... and eventually did fall into the Pacific. But they are getting closer to orbit, that's for sure.

      That's not even considering the possibility that they were in fact ~intending~ to hit that spot randomly in the middle of the Pacific (i.e. "if we can hit this spot, we can hit anywhere within that radius...).

    15. Re:Third party verification? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Factual correction - the second stage did not detach properly and fell, along with the payload, into the ocean east of Japan. Rest of the post remains valid though.

    16. Re:Third party verification? by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      At least Russia now says that the satellite isn't in orbit. Not that they're a neutral party, but they have somewhat different interests than NATO. In the absence of neutral parties with sufficient equipment, this confirmation may be as good as it gets.

    17. Re:Third party verification? by xkcdFan1011011101111 · · Score: 1

      At the thought of a nuclear war, are there any sources without a vested interest?

  21. How long is this gonna go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They can't even keep their people fed, and yet they're trying stupid shit like missle tests. I wonder how many years this regime has left in it. I mean, it can't last forever. They're pissing away all their money on that massive army, and living on handouts from the likes of China. I really feel for the average citizen living there. They can't even fucking leave. They're practically living in the nightware world that Orwell described decades ago. I'm curious as to what this country's fate will be.

    1. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder how many years this regime has left in it. I mean, it can't last forever. They're pissing away all their money on that massive army, and living on handouts from the likes of China.

      Are you talking about North Korea, or the USA?

    2. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Recent U.S. debt auctions have been well subscribed, you apparently hold the minority view, or, at least, there are plenty of people with money to lend who disagree with you.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Arguably, the North Korean regime is propped up by China simply to ensure that South Korea (which is a US ally) does not gain a direct land border with the Chinese homeland. That, and the fact that any collapse of the North Korean state would send a flood of refugees into the Chinese countryside, causing even more displacement and unrest.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    4. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Recent U.S. debt auctions have been well subscribed,

      For the moment.
      Your credit card functions perfectly right up until the first "transaction denied" message too.

    5. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I really feel for the average citizen living there. They can't even fucking leave. They're practically living in the nightware world that Orwell described decades ago.

      Why would they want to leave? They're told that the rest of the world is even worse.

    6. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The situations are only comparable in the cutest sort of way.

      Anyway, the U.S. has the problem that we want to spend ~$15 trillion, but only produce ~$14 trillion (or so, there is lots of room for those numbers to be different depending on the year and a bunch of other stuff, but those two numbers are a reasonable representation of the situation, at least for this decade). Not having the extra trillion would certainly be very noticeable, but it would merely be painful, not catastrophic.

      I would certainly prefer less spending, being solvent and not doing as much as might be possible seems preferable to trying to do too much and going broke.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      har har har.

      The rate of people actually going hungry in the US is much smaller than NK. Also, the US isn't pissing away all of its money on the army.

      Its pissing away trillions of dollars on bailouts. The military budget for ten years isn't even half what Obama has promised/pissed away in a few months.

    8. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Not having the extra trillion would certainly be very noticeable, but it would merely be painful, not catastrophic.

      Compound interest is a bitch when you're in debt.

    9. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      the US isn't pissing away all of its money on the army. Its pissing away trillions of dollars on bailouts.

      The point is that we are pissing away all our money.

    10. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Many of them don't seem to believe that propaganda though, judging by the flood of refugees into China.

    11. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Not really. At least, not all that much (for instance, many people seem to be happy to finance the purchase of a house using compounds interest, and a not inconsequential number of those people manage to end up owning a home).

      If you assume that my first figures didn't include servicing the debt and assume that all of the U.S. debt is financed at 10% (it is actually much lower than this), you are only (which may be a poor word here) talking about another trillion dollars in pain. That still leaves $13 trillion for the running of the country. In reality, it would probably be a maximum of around 0.4 trillion in additional money down the hole.

      And I do think that this sucks, but we are still pretty far away from unsustainable (with hints of going for it over the next few years, but why hope for the worst?).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Ummite · · Score: 1

      I think some people in USA doesn't have 3 meals per day, am I wrong? So what the heck US soldiers are doing in Irak?

    13. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Not really. At least, not all that much (for instance, many people seem to be happy to finance the purchase of a house using compounds interest, and a not inconsequential number of those people manage to end up owning a home).

      And we all know that this is working out just fine at the moment.

      And I do think that this sucks, but we are still pretty far away from unsustainable (with hints of going for it over the next few years, but why hope for the worst?).

      Hope has nothing to do with it. Math does not change based on hope, desires or votes in congress. See the graph in this article.

    14. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Depends ... does Kim Jong Il have any children? It was the current dictator's dad that caused the big problems originally. Jong Il is just carrying on with the legacy.

      --
      .
    15. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of mortgages are fine.

      And take a close look at that graph. Last time lending peaked, there was the Great Depression; lending fell drastically, while government borrowing rose considerably. A notable fact about the depression is that we came out of it (and then experienced the greatest expansion of standard of living in history; if you credit WWII for pulling the U.S. out of the depression this won't carry much weight, but that is far from a universal interpretation). So "things are like they were then" doesn't particularly imply doom.

      I don't mean to suggest that the next decade is going to be awesome, but the numbers, especially right now, really do not suggest that the U.S., and the U.S. economy are going to fall apart.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many years this regime has left in it. I mean, it can't last forever. They're pissing away all their money on that massive army, and living on handouts from the likes of China.

      Are you talking about North Korea, or the USA?

      Well, given that U.S. citizens show no evidence whatsoever of starving to death, I'm guessing that he means North Korea...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    17. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Give it time, give it time... the recession and bailouts just started, takes a while to catch up with economy leaders like, well, NK.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Eating. Army food may be bad, but it's food at least.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      And take a close look at that graph. Last time lending peaked, there was the Great Depression; lending fell drastically, while government borrowing rose considerably

      That graph shows the ratio of debt to GDP. It spiked in 1934 because borrowing rose and also because GDP shrank.

      Now look at the right side. We exceeded the peak achieved during the great depression while our economy was still growing. The decline in GDP just got started...

    20. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by gtall · · Score: 1

      I think he has two or three sons. There were a few articles in the western press talking about succession and how none of his sons seemed to have an inside track. I'm guessing the old fart trusts his sons as much as his generals.

    21. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      osnapz!

    22. Re:How long is this gonna go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not funny it is insightful. Stupid mods.

  22. i said it would never happen, in the next sentence by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    of course getting rid of north korea does more damage than letting it stick around

    that's what north korea counts on

    like any kidnapper with a gun to a hostage's head

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  23. Quite so... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Particularly cause they DO plan to launch a few more.

    http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13432014&source=features_box_main

    For weeks, American military intelligence, using its own satellite images, had followed launch preparations at the Musudan-ri missile site near North Korea's eastern seaboard. Given that a brand-new missile complex is nearly finished on the western seaboard from which the next Taepodong-2 launch had been expected, the timing and place of these preparations caused some experts to scratch their heads. Yet South Korea is due to launch its first satellite into space this summer, so from the North's viewpoint, a space race is on. Other international factors probably played a part, of which the most important was to test President Barack Obama's new administration. Marginalisation ranks high among the regime's fears.

    Makes one wonder if they perchance don't have another one ready to be launched from the new launch site?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Quite so... by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      I'll go ahead and start the stopwatch for how long it's going to take someone to destroy their missile complex. Funny part is, that will probably be accomplished using missiles.

    2. Re:Quite so... by iNaya · · Score: 1

      And more than likely, their own missiles.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
  24. maybe it wasn't a space satellite after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and now it's circling Japan 20m _below_ the ocean surface.

  25. Glorious Success! by Auzzie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Far from a failure. North Korean Scientists put their satellite in an extremely low geosynchronous orbit!

    A bit wetter than they thought it would be though.

    1. Re:Glorious Success! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! Too bad its negative altitude above the Pacific Ocean means it is lacking line-of-sight with anything important.

    2. Re:Glorious Success! by hugorxufl · · Score: 1

      No, I think the lauch failure was the handywork of Gary Seven and his cat.

    3. Re:Glorious Success! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ancestors were Coelacanth, you insensitive clod!

  26. ICBMs by actionbastard · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are designed to do one thing well, deliver a payload to a distant target within a certain CEP. That's why the 'B' in 'ICBM' stands for 'Ballistic'. Just like the NK ambassador to the UN said, "The test was a complete success." Duck and cover, children!

    --
    Sig this!
  27. rocket science by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To me that N. Korea got a vehicle even past first stage is impressive. Launch vehicles are hard. If nothing else managing a project that size requires a great deal of skill, I doubt the average MBA can do it. I recall at one place I worked we tried to find an MBA to help us manage. We couldn't find anyone so had to send on of the techs to MBA school.

    Even if we get the launch, space is not something we have a lot of first hand experience with. Getting things to work in space is hard. The world is getting more experience now that we have an international space station, and more countries are getting experience operating in space. This can only help everyone long term as innovative solutions are developed.

    One may fall to jingoistic and chauvinistic temptation when it comes to this, especially since we have been trained to fear those that are different from us, but I doubt that is useful here. From what I read, the trajectory was orbital, not intercontinental. As we have seen, there are much easier ways to deliver mass destruction than these vehicles. It could be that N. Korea wants to be in the space game, and have such things as communication satellites of their own.

    And it would be good that the US does not get too cocky. We are stuck in LEO. To get back to the moon is going to require a learning curve after a generation of inactivity. At this point we may not want to fund it. People think we can magically make it Mars without any baby steps. If there is anything to fear it is that N. Korea is doing science while we are arguing over evolution.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:rocket science by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      Only stuck in LEO in terms of manned missions...we send autonomous to other planets fairly regularly. The theoretical knowledge is well-known, the technical skill is also available. What are we missing in terms of having to go through a learning curve?

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    2. Re:rocket science by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Only stuck in LEO in terms of manned missions...we send autonomous to other planets fairly regularly. The theoretical knowledge is well-known, the technical skill is also available. What are we missing in terms of having to go through a learning curve?

      Launching a small robot probe weighing a few hundred kilos and designing, building, testing, and launching an entirely-new Apollo-class CM/SM & LM manned interplanetary spacecraft system weighing many tons along with an entirely-new Saturn-V class launch vehicle are two entirely different things. The Saturn-V launch vehicle has reigned for decades as the worlds' most complex and powerful machine ever built by Man.

      To build a launch system of that magnitude would, at this point, require almost another Kennedy-esque program to get it done in anything like ten or more years. We can't simply copy the Saturn-V, as even if they could even find all the plans and specs that have been lost, many many materials & components are obsolete and the companies that made them history along with the plans & specs, or couldn't be manufactured any longer due to environmental laws and regulations.

      Not to mention that most of the aerospace engineers with the knowledge & experience have retired or died, with few to replace them as there has been no market for those skills, therefor few getting the necessary education. It could require a whole generation or more to design, build, and successfully launch another system equivalent to the Apollo/Saturn-V.

      It would also necessitate a political change to the current risk-averse political atmosphere, as there will almost certainly be some spectacular failures with the possible deaths of more than one crew of astronauts. Politically, it's much safer to maintain what was started in other administrations, as failures can be blamed on others.

      Besides, there probably won't be much of a US space program of any sort whatsoever before long, as soon we'll be too busy trying to pay back the staggering debts this administration is running up for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, and taking wheelbarrows of near-worthless US dollars to the store for a loaf of bread.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:rocket science by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      If there is anything to fear it is that N. Korea is doing science while we are arguing over evolution.

      I bet you could persuade some of the anti-evolution petitioners to drop their case by properly casting the threat of the Red Peril (or Yellow Menace or whatever it's called these days).

    4. Re:rocket science by daemonenwind · · Score: 1

      To me that N. Korea got a vehicle even past first stage is impressive. Launch vehicles are hard. If nothing else managing a project that size requires a great deal of skill, I doubt the average MBA can do it.

      Let me tell you something about MBAs.

      This one time at computer camp, we had an MBA on-staff to run the project. We kept her out of our hair with a simple plan.
      We obtained a 12 x 7 x 17" rectangular brown enclosure from a local merchant. They were just giving them away. We placed the MBA inside with orders to manage an escape utilizing the skills she obtained from her education.

      Suffice to say we completed the project on-time, on-budget and with great results. And no, the MBA did not make it out to "assist" us.

    5. Re:rocket science by evilviper · · Score: 1

      As we have seen, there are much easier ways to deliver mass destruction than these vehicles.

      "Easier" only if things like speed, accuracy, and reliability don't matter to you at all...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:rocket science by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd call it Nutjob Nuisance... but then, the crowd you mentioned would just call me a pinko commie and tell me to stop harrassing Bush, after all, he's out of office now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. in the next sentence i said it would never happen by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    taking north korea out does more damage than letting it continue existing

    a kidnapper holding a gun to a hostage's head counts on the same logic

    which is what seoul is: the hostage that lets the sleazbags to the north continue to draw breath

    the regime in pyongyang has 0% legitimacy. the onyl reason it exists is due to the number of guns it has pointed at everyone else. not like it even cares about its own people or good relations with any of its neighbors

    its just the rabid dog on china's leash to give south korea, japan, and the usa indigestion

    if china ever became convinced the regime in pyongyang no longer served any geopolitical purpose, it would disappear overnight

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  29. NORAD, acronym FAIL by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Informative

    North American Aerospace Defense .. always laughed at the way the military has no respect for acronym formation. They often take the letters from where-ever they can get em and sometimes they just throw in a letter from no-where. It used to be North American Air Defense.. but then they had to deal with ballistic missiles, which are clearly out of the air when you want to detect them, so they upgraded to "Aerospace". Personally, I thought they should have upgraded to "North American Orbital and Air Defence" .. of course that still leaves the R being borrowed from ORbital, but hey, it's an improvement. Having the R stand for "Realtime" would be good, if only NORAD did realtime tracking, which they don't. The oldies among us may remember when NORAD announced that civil defense training was pointless, as no-one would have time to get to a bunker.. because they just can't detect launches, and the target of launches, fast enough. This hasn't changed in 30 years. There's still an airman sitting at a terminal doing this monitoring. There's no Googlesque computer doing search for launch indicators and tracking flight trajectories. The only reason they're not still using slide rules is because pocket calculators are government subsidized.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if only NORAD did realtime tracking, which they don't.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Support_Program

    2. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Troll

      What part of this don't you understand?

      The 460th Space Wing, with headquarters at Buckley Air Force Base, Colo., has units that operate DSP satellites and report warning information, via communications links, to the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Strategic Command early warning centers within Cheyenne Mountain, located near Colorado Springs, Colorado. These centers immediately forward data to various agencies and areas of operations around the world. Air Force Space Command's SBIRS Wing [2] at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, California, is responsible for development and acquisition of the satellites.

      units = people. People sit there and monitor terminals looking at blips and determining if they are launches by following procedures. They then get on "communications links", aka "phones" and call NORAD. It's all done manually. War Games was science fiction, not just then, but also now.

      If I built a rocket ship and blasted myself into space (ala The Astronaut Farmer), none of these people would even notice. More likely someone would see a blip on a radar monitoring station and report that to NORAD.. again, via a telephone, and NORAD would write it off as an operator error. Maybe a few months later a satellite monitoring system would spot me in orbit, if I maintained one for that long, but that information would only be delivered to NORAD as part of a space debris avoidance report.. and most like amateur astronomers would spot it first.

      There's no Michael Bay movie style realtime monitoring of satellites and missile launches. Those big screens in the war room are updated by technicians entering data into terminals, by hand. This isn't to say that it could not be done. It could be. But it would require a lot more hardware and the continual updating of that hardware, and that's the kind of thing the private sector does, and only if there's actual customers who will take their money elsewhere if the systems stop working. Governments continue to reward contractors for failing to do their jobs, so any system like this would likely become outdated in a few years (as in, unable to keep up with changing conditions) and, although that is exactly the situation we have now, that is considered too much of a risk.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Christmas our TV station shows the NORAD feed from Cheyenne Mountain and Santa is on it. And it's realtime, assholes!

    4. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I built a rocket ship and blasted myself into space (ala The Astronaut Farmer), none of these people would even notice. More likely someone would see a blip on a radar monitoring station and report that to NORAD.. again, via a telephone, and NORAD would write it off as an operator error. Maybe a few months later a satellite monitoring system would spot me in orbit, if I maintained one for that long, but that information would only be delivered to NORAD as part of a space debris avoidance report.. and most like amateur astronomers would spot it first.

            Oh, bullshit. Like the condescnding tone, though, nothing like ignorance to foster arrogance.

                There would be all sorts of people who knew about it. The boost is a huge IR source for a duration of minutes, there would be 10 different things tracking it from 10 seconds after launch. It would show on ATC radar for the entire time like a gigantic flare (since the ionized exhaust is a fantastic radar target). If nothing else, the NASA Debris monitoring fence would catch it in about one rev, then everyone would know about it and we could all get TLE's to watch it.

              Brett

    5. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Completely wrong. There are no automatic systems. But hey, don't let the truth get you down, it's not like I can prove a negative.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who ever said NORAD was an acronym? Obviously it is not, due to the definition.

    7. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      On slashdot you can prove a negative. It simply requires you to point out reputable sources that back you up. Why don't you try that instead of your lame-ass "believe what you want to believe" post. At this point Brett comes off as MUCH more credible than you to any unbiased observer.

      But hey, take all your toys and go home if that's where you're at.

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    8. Re:NORAD, acronym FAIL by big_paul76 · · Score: 1

      Here, here.

      But ATC "radar"?

      Military installations have radar like that, but most civilian air traffic control centers track aircraft by transponders, not by any sort of radar contact.

      When I was doing my pilot's license, one of our instructors used to joke about going up in a Cessna with a mode-C (transmits altitude as well as location) transponder, then get out to our practice area, put yourself in a spin, at 1000' AGL recover from the spin, scream into the radio, then turn off your transponder.

      --
      The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
  30. With whom was this satelite going to communicate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given N Korea's lack of communication rights, wouldn't their communication needs be satisfied with a 50 foot tower on the palace grounds?

  31. Quality Article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, this was the best coverage of the story available? The Giz article is QUALITY reporting, right there...

  32. Thanks for the free nuke, Kim! SUCKER! by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now that we know that the rocket was a test for an ICBM missile, now would be a perfect opporitunity to show them how the big boys (that means AMERICA) how to properly operate a guided missle.

    One glass parking lot coming up! !

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
    1. Re:Thanks for the free nuke, Kim! SUCKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awful Jingoist for someone with an anti war signature.

  33. whoooops. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    You, sir, are completely right. Google has failed me and I didn't even notice! haha. :( You may continue your mockery of my 1336 internet ski11z.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  34. Unfortunately.... by darkharlequin · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...even by failing, they obviously learned something about the performance of that missile, and will draw conclusions that will allow them to build better missiles in the future. This reflects poorly on the United States, NATO, China, Japan, and S. Korea, since they couldn't prevent this clearly provocative activity from occuring and get N. Korea back to the table. The UN will do nothing, even with Ban as the secretary general.

    --
    i am so very tired....
    1. Re:Unfortunately.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are they really going to do to stop North Korea? Unfortunately we really can't embargo them much more than we already do and any UN resolution requires the cooperation of other foreign countries who generally don't care all that much about what the UN says or are perfectly happy with dealing under the table.

      Unless we're willing to commit to an invasion of North Korea to depose the current government, which is going to require support from China as this is their neighbor and they're about the only country that can keep North Korea at least half inline.

      Even then, North Korea has the ability wipe Seoul off the map if they really wanted to do so. We'd need to take a lot of their combat ability out before they could strike back or the damage would be severe.

      It's a complete stalemate. North Korea probably isn't stupid enough to launch an attack. They'd like the rest of the world to think that they easily could, which keeps the stalemate going. They're not in a place to make any demands as no one would put up with any more crap from North Korea than they already do.

      The only way I foresee this ending remotely peacefully is if the North Korean people rebel and overthrow their current government. Either that or the next dictator after Kim Jong Il snuffs it is a little more benevolent and wants to crawl out from underneath the rock that North Korea's been hiding under for so long.

  35. conspiracy theory by sir_eccles · · Score: 1

    Or the US anti ballistic missile system is a lot better than we were led to believe!!!

    Failed? Or shot down by lasers on sharks!!!

  36. Remember Project Vanguard? by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nope, many of you probably don't. Around the time the Russians put up Sputnik, the American space program was centered around Project Vanguard. It was going to put our first satellite into orbit. And our first satellite was going to be way better than Sputnik.

    Only the rockets kept crashing. It became a source of national embarrassment and the subject of jokes.

    See this image, for examp.e.

    1. Re:Remember Project Vanguard? by Jubedgy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another contributing factor to losing out to the soviets was the issue of overflight rights. At the time, we had been sending spy planes to take pictures of soviet territory (despite their objections). Since satellites would be flying over foreign countries, the issue of satellite overflight rights had to be decided (especially so we could use them to spy on the sovs). The US had two options: get their first (with the glory of being first), and hope that their were no foreign objections. After an orbit or two, the issue would be settled much like the right of free passage in the ocean. The second option was to let the soviets get their first and not bring the issue up. The latter option provided the easiest route.

      I'm not saying Vanguard rockets were sabotaged, but it may have slowed down the acquisition bureaucracy enough to give the USSR the edge.

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    2. Re:Remember Project Vanguard? by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      Beer and slashdot don't mix. Their->There (x2)

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    3. Re:Remember Project Vanguard? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The second option was to let the soviets get their first and not bring the issue up. The latter option provided the easiest route.

      That's part A. Part B apparently involves several launch attempts blowing up on the pad...

      You know, to avoid USSR objections, or something...

      It was all planned! Planned I say!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Remember Project Vanguard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vanguard was a political thing. The US had Wherner Von Brown but certain people felt uneasy at employing him, so he was sidelined while the US Navy got their one piece of pork to develop Vanguard. The Army could have done it on first attempt with Redstone, but the idea of having what was essentially an upgraded V2 designed by a German launch an American satellite was just too much. So the US twiddled its thumbs while the Navy continued to very publicly fail.

    5. Re:Remember Project Vanguard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice try.

  37. does kim jong-il count as a godwin? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    does kim jong-il count as a godwin?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  38. Worst job in the world coming up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a North-Korean astronomer, and each day having to "detect" what sort of signals your proud national sattelite is sending. For the next fourty years.

  39. I guess ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... they couldn't blow up their economy. So now they'll sink it into the Pacific.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  40. I can't be the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that had Nelson's "HA Ha!" running through my mind while reading the title.

  41. Japan must have shot it down :) by BobSixtyFour · · Score: 1

    You know, with their secret arsenal of GUNDAMs.

    1. Re:Japan must have shot it down :) by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The Ministry of Agriculture denied being involved so it must be true.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  42. Re:in the next sentence i said it would never happ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the regime in pyongyang has 0% legitimacy...

    Is that what the waiter at Mandoo Bar tells ya?

  43. Uncle Kimmy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you suck Uncle Kimmy's cock much? North Korea wants to export these Missiles. That is a business they would like to be in. That is not a good thing.

    I suggest you get out of the fantasy life you live in and get clued into the real world.

  44. This whole opeariton is supported by Iran by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5994905.ece

    I guess the Koreans may be selling this technology to Iran.

  45. how do you judge a government's legitimacy? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i see it as a government that derives from the will of its people

    i don't see the slightest interest in the people of north korea from its own government

    i see a small clique interested in massive military muscle and provocative hostililty, and its people be damned, they can eat leaves if their threats don't garner enough blackmailed food and oil shipments

    you tell me how i am wrong in my conception of the pacific dprk

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:how do you judge a government's legitimacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can see all that from your back yard, Ms. Palin?

  46. Silly Commie ... Trix are for kids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... yeah that about sums it up.

  47. i see you've never dealt with trolls before by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "The way to deal with them is to conclusively demonstrate that what they are saying is complete bunk and then refuse to argue further on the basis that they're not being rational."

    nor do you have much familiarity with the long established behavior of the dprk

    the dprk must keep its population and its neighbors on constant war preparations. this is the only way it can continue to exist. because if you try to judge the dprk in the usual ways you would measure governments, like, gee, an ability to feed to population, then its an instant failure

    constant war preparations is all the dprk knows, and its also the only thing its capable of, and its only toehold in power. it doesn't know how to remain in power and do anything peaceful. then its entire reason for being disappears, such is its hostility so deeply ingrained in its psychology

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  48. With apologies to Monty Python... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the Gorrd Metah go to: Peopahs Repubric of Nolth Kolea!!!!!

    And sclew you Hans Brix! Meet my shalk!

  49. Well if you know someone else with PAVE PAWS radar by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I'm all ears. However there aren't so many organizations that have the capability to track this sort of thing, much less using the equipment to do so. NORAD is the primary, maybe only these days, organization with the means and interest to track this sort of thing. There aren't civilian organizations with massive radars looking for this sort of thing.

  50. Second Stage.. by ieatcookies · · Score: 1

    Actually contains nimble special agents with a directive of compromising the US recovery process ! This was no failure, run !

  51. A Failure?? by nukemall · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't think launching a missile over Japan is a failure.. It may have broken up, but don't think for a minute that it was a failure.. That's the height of stupidity to say something like that.. And don't think for a second that the U.S. doesn't know exactly where that thing came down. They know exactly where it came down within a few feet. Just think about the technology we know about.. The GPS that you have in your car can peg you within a few feet. The satellite cameras in conjunction with GPS technology has it pegged. You don't need to know any top secrets to understand that. Nukemall

  52. who will be executed for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If little kim is anything like Stalin, someone will have to die for this embarrassment.

  53. Utility by vik · · Score: 1

    So, which is more use to North Korea:

    a) A nuclear launch capability they can't use, or

    b) An orbital launch capability for their own satellites and maybe some foreign cash spinoffs?

    Remember, the easy way to smuggle a nuke into the US is to stick it in a sack of cocaine.

    Vik :v)

    1. Re:Utility by daemonenwind · · Score: 1

      Actually, all the research and money put into developing an ICBM would be better spent feeding the North Korean people.

      According to the UN's World Food Program, 8.7 million North Koreans will need food aid this year. That's roughly one third of the population.

    2. Re:Utility by goodmanj · · Score: 1


      So, which is more use to North Korea:
      a) A nuclear launch capability they can't use, or
      b) An orbital launch capability for their own satellites and maybe some foreign cash spinoffs?

      c) a couple dozen textile mills making cheap clothing for export.
      d) an automobile manufacturing infrastructure making cheap cars (hell, mopeds) for export.
      e) a few hundred miles of decent roads and a deep-water port for foreign cargo ships.
      f) a few thousand tractors and combines, and a fertilizer plant to allow them to feed their people.

      All of these are proven by other Pacific rim countries to be a better long-term strategy for success than playing global games of Chicken.

      But all of these make it rather difficult to force your citizens to treat you like a demigod. Which is why North Korea isn't using them.

    3. Re:Utility by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Give a man a fish and he will eat today, give a man a nuke and he can browbeat the world to feed him for quite a while...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Utility by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But all of these make it rather difficult to force your citizens to treat you like a demigod. Which is why North Korea isn't using them.

      Worse, all this forces you to open yourself to the forein market, and thus to foreign ideas. I have to admit, the information you get out of NK directly is minimal, but it seems that the propaganda there depicts the rest of the world as even worse, to the point where Orwell would have a field day. You can't keep up that facade when your workers would get into contact with workers from other countries (a harbor alone would accomplish that) and see that those few foreiners you get to see who seem well fed and healthy are not some sort of princes and kings, but mere normal men like you.

      If you want to rule a land like Nutty Kim, you have to ensure that your people don't see that not only the grass is greener on the other side, but that there actually IS grass.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Utility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't half of asia and america outsource their animation to north korea via third parties?

    6. Re:Utility by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Remember, the easy way to smuggle a nuke into the US is to stick it in a sack of cocaine.

      So it'll eventually end up in a congressperson's nose? :-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    7. Re:Utility by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In fact, I'd say that NK's insane foreign policy is actually just brilliant (but hideous) domestic policy.

      Say you're a dictatorial lunatic. You look around and see your fellow dictatorial lunatics dropping like flies, as the lunatics' careful brainwashing of their people is undone by a toxic combination of abundant food, satellite TV, cell phones, internet, movies, and rock 'n' roll. So what do you do?

      You act like a belligerent lunatic on the world stage. The rest of the world ostracizes you, and refuses to sell your people satellite TV, cell phones, etc.

      You win!

  54. stability of DPRK leadership? by sandysnowbeard · · Score: 1

    What would the DPRK possibly benefit by nuking Japan, ...?

    As Dostoyevsky explains and demonstrates in "Notes from Underground," human beings will act unreasonably, and often not out of ignorance but out of spite.

    I can't think of something the DPRK gains by nuking Japan, but if one crazy old coot got satisfaction by pressing the big red button, the end result is still the same.

  55. Failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is only known that the payload and second stage landed in the pacific east of Japan. Was the payload attached to the second stage when it fell into the ocean? Or did the second stage and the payload fall in different parts of the pacific? Only the first of these scenarios can be assumed to be a failure, the second may or may not be.

  56. NK failures by WSOGMM · · Score: 1

    While it makes me smile every time North Korea fails, they're going to get something right sooner or later.

  57. This was not an ICBM by fjo3 · · Score: 1

    They launched an ICBM

    According to Wikipedia: "An intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, is a long-range (greater than 5,500 km or 3,500 miles) ballistic missile" They cleared Japan, but that is what, less than 1,000 miles from NK? It takes a lot more than that to hit Australia, Africa, or the Americas. Don't add to the hysteria by calling this an ICBM.

  58. North Korea by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An alternate hypothesis.

    First off, we know that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons. So please be quiet about them nuking everything.
    Secondly, it would make no sense at all for NK to shoot anything. They are isolated, NK might make poor decisions but they won't choose to get every cubic meter of NK bombed.
    We also know Kim is full of himself. If he lived 5000years ago we would have people building him giant pyramids as monuments to his greatness. At the moment, the greatest achievement a country can make is space travel. Sure the US did it first so what? Right now china, japan and india have space programs and hope to stick a man on the moon. Space Race Asian Edition. Many countries think NK is a crazy backwards land that can't do anything since they are under a horrible tyrannical rule. If anyone felt that way about you wouldn't you want to prove them wrong? Show them how awesome and advanced you are by making it into space.

    NK is a bit nutty and isolated from the world. Clearly they must be assholes. But lets look at both sides. The korean war 'ended' poorly sure. Remember the end of WW1 where the global community basically fucked Germany in the ass after winning? Which lead to the bitchiness allowing/causing WW2. A mistake we did not repeat after WW2. So we decide to not trade with NK. Even put up trade barriers/embargoes internationally. Many thousands of people starve in North Korea while the world at large says, give up tyranny and we'll help you eat. (how well does that work?). North Korea is stuck on an island with enemies to the south. Enemies that are much better funded and better armed. They are also probably jealous of the fact and maybe a little pissed that their neighbors are doing so well. They need a bargaining chip. NK starts developing nuclear technology in the early 90s. Out of fear the US promises to provide electricity and normalized trade in exchange NK would disassemble their nuclear plants and join the NNPT. Korea agrees! They take apart their factories. The US changes to the republican party. They do not provide electricity, they do not normalize trade, they spit in NKs face. Bush calls NK part of the axis of evil and lists them as elligable for preemptive nuclear strikes. How the fuck the north koreans are the badguys in this one is beyond me. They were willing to normalize international relations given the chance and it was thrown in their face. So of course they will begin work on nuclear weapons again, they need a bargaining chip.

    Clearly NK does not have a good human rights record. Clearly it is terrible that people are starving. But the US policy of Good vs Evil is NOT helpful. Isolating a country, not letting them trade with you, threatening them, hating them does not help. I don't understand the idea that we can fix the problem by giving them an ultimatum they cannot possibly accept then never talking. It is like the 'hard on crime' laws that never seem to help either. Maybe if we offered a hand to NK that we dont use to stab them with they'll be a bit more trusting. Maybe with more money and education, a link to the rest of the world they can join us. A country cannot be evil it isn't a demon or even a person. If we keep going as we have how can you EVER expect countries like North Korea and Cuba to rejoin the rest of us, or maybe the truth is you don't really care.

    (man this went longer than I intended, sorry /.

    1. Re:North Korea by Dravik · · Score: 1

      Quick note, the reason Bush didn't do those things and listed them as part of the "axis of evil" is that North Korea did not follow through on any of their commitments. The North did not stop or slow down its development at all. Carter got a Nobel Prize out of the deal and the North got a bunch of oil and food aid but the North did not fulfill a single commitment they made in the bargain.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    2. Re:North Korea by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read your history. When the republican party took control the deal was essentially killed. The fuel/electricity provided was rarely enough or very late. And the only reason that was provided at all was emergency funds and international support. With the reps in control the normalized trade never happened (the biggest part of the deal). Funding to build replacement powerplants didn't happen so people had to beg the international community to pay for it since the US wouldn't. NK warned repetatively that if the US did not keep up its end they would restart research. The powerplants they were promised didn't start until years later. The funds were late. The economic sanctions were never lifted.
      For NKs end, NK did stop research. They shut down their reactors as asked. They submitted to searches. And begun dismantling the reactors. What more could you possibly expect?

    3. Re:North Korea by InspectorPenny · · Score: 1

      But the US policy of Good vs Evil is NOT helpful.

      It's good to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. The whole "'us' vs. 'them'" syndrom seems remenicent of the Cold War-- heck, any modern war in general.

      Even when we're not at war with people, we're at war with people. Our mentalities don't change. That's why we can never seem to make peace.

    4. Re:North Korea by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you look at it, the same applies to most other "Axis of Evil" countries.

      Iran? Now, what would you do in their situation? A country that does not like you at all attacks and invades the countries left and right of you (look it up on your map, Iraq and Afghanistan, and look what's wedged right in the middle). Imagine Iran invading and maintaining beachheads in Canada and Mexico. Also imagine you're a wee bit smaller. Would you be confident that they don't sweep you off the map next? Also, consider that you have one of the most important strategic resources of the planet.

      Wouldn't you want to have something to discourage invading you? Keep in mind that your enemy has the army with the most conventional punch in the whole world. Not the largest, but certainly the one that can deal the most damage in the least time.

      You do want bargaining power. If you want to see what happens to countries that have no strategic resources and that are "unwanted" by the power that is, look at Cuba and NK. If you want to see what happens with countries that have those strategic resources but no nukes, look at Iraq.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First off, we know that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons. So please be quiet about them nuking everything."

      Did you live under a rock in 2006?

    6. Re:North Korea by Dravik · · Score: 1

      The problem in your statement is "restart". They never stopped. All the events your complaining about attempts to progressively increase pressure on North Korea to stop the research they said they would stop.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    7. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... how can you EVER expect countries like North Korea and Cuba to rejoin the rest of us....

      Cuba HAS joined the rest of the world. Only the US government still chooses to believe that Cuba hasn't yet.

    8. Re:North Korea by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Remember the end of WW1 where the global community basically fucked Germany in the ass after winning? Which lead to the bitchiness allowing/causing WW2. A mistake we did not repeat after WW2. So we decide to not trade with NK. Even put up trade barriers/embargoes internationally. Many thousands of people starve in North Korea while the world at large says, give up tyranny and we'll help you eat. (how well does that work?).

      It works very well. You see, after WWI Germany was the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic was a peaceful semi-presidential republic. It was after they got "fucked in the ass" that they became a dictatorship.

      If you want to bring about a regime change, you have to let the proletariat starve. The mistake made in Germany after WWI was that people were left starving in a peaceful country.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    9. Re:North Korea by Maladius · · Score: 1

      Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons )

      Granted it says they probably have less than 10. But I'll bet they could do a lot of damage with 10 nukes.

    10. Re:North Korea by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      A blatant fallacy as your first point is not a good way to start an extended rant.

      Sorry about the time you wasted typing the rest of your post. Some of it might have even been worthwhile, not that many would bother to read past that first sentence.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    11. Re:North Korea by Kotukunui · · Score: 1

      North Korea is stuck on an island with enemies to the south.

      A metaphorical island, perhaps?

      Last time I looked at an atlas, the Korean peninsula was firmly attached to China.

      Or it is the tail on the rump of the Chinese dragon. (metaphorically speaking)

    12. Re:North Korea by jafac · · Score: 1

      I don't know - after WWII, the world also fucked Germany in the ass. DP-style if you count West Germany/East Germany.

      The difference is - we kept doing it for some 40-odd years afterwards. Just to be sure Germany knew they were our bitches.

      What great gift did we give to Germany when we were through?

      We let them reunify: West German businesses got a very nice source of EXTREMELY cheap skilled labor; in the form of starving East Germans.

      Then Daimler bought Chrysler.
      Whose yer daddy now?
      Then Daimler SOLD Chrysler.

      Yeah, that was some sweet action.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:North Korea by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Yeah I meant it more politically. They don't really have any allies near them. Thailand.... Iran? .... And the land they ARE attatched to, china and SK have giant fucking walls with lots of guns and hundreds of guards. Not exactly Europe where you can drive through. To get into the country you go by plane not by car which basically means it is an island. Impressed only you chewed me out about that haha.

    14. Re:North Korea by Igneous · · Score: 1

      First off, we know that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons.

      In October 2006 North Korea successfully tested a nuclear weapon. See the following URL for one of thousands of news stories about the blast:

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article666501.ece

      With slipups of that magnitude, I'd say you're not building much of a foundation for your argument.

    15. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so they're just misunderstood?
      really? amazing, it's not their fault the people starve, it's the USA's continued embargo. not that the government would rather spend more money on it's military then the benefit of the people.
      more money and education wouldn't be spent on the people, maybe it would if the people had their say, but the insane dictatorship of Kim won't allow it.
      the truth is, we care, but we can't give much cause of the government. you say 'enemies' what enemies? who says we're enemies? who spits in whose face?

    16. Re:North Korea by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      At the moment, the greatest achievement a country can make is space travel. Sure the US did it first so what?

      Uh... wasn't Russia first? Sure, they were beat to the moon by the US, but they did fire off the first successful satellite and had the first man in space... Heck, even with aging tech and suffering a huge defeat in the space race, they still had MIR in orbit for a while-- not what one would call a space colony, but an important first step.

      Legend has it that a Russian magazine scoffed at Star Trek for not having Russian cosmonauts in the cast, and Roddenberry did use that as a justification for bringing in Chekov, although the scoff in question was never verified.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    17. Re:North Korea by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      No, I completely agree. I was thinking of the moon specifically. Honestly if I hadn't said asian space race and just said space race 2. I'd probably have listed the US amongst the countries trying to make it to space given recent history haha.

    18. Re:North Korea by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Nope. They are nuts and holding a big gun. But spitting in their face isn't likely to get them drop the gun and play nice. Amazingly simple concept that the US doesn't seem to get.

  59. Made In Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well there's your problem!

  60. Re:i said it would never happen, in the next sente by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    trolled.

  61. Don't assume it was a failure. by cadu · · Score: 1

    How do you guys know it was really a failure? have someone already salvaged the parts and found the main part which contains the 'program' for the missile, and its destination? i'm pretty sure they were testing range, and as they're TESTING they can't allow it to fall on land, so they could just have hit the 'drop dead' button on the command central.... isn't that a bit more logic than saying that it was a failure?

    If it was a failure, what was the original destination? land? are they already calling for war? wtf.

    I live in japan and these days the media has been hammering us with the fact that north korea is not happy with Japan and they're threatening to throw us a present....showing anti-missile apparel and whatnot on the tv is already saying 'we're prepared but scared' .... think again the failure already cleared Japan so they're SPOT-ON.

  62. That's what I'm looking for, thanks! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perfect. From the link you provided:

    Unha-2, which was launched at the Tonghae Satellite Launching Ground in Hwadae County, North Hamgyong Province at 11:20 on April 5, Juche 98 (2009), accurately put Kwangmyongsong-2 into its orbit at 11:29:02, nine minutes and two seconds after its launch.

    The satellite is going round the earth along its elliptic orbit at the angle of inclination of 40.6 degrees at 490 km perigee and 1 426 km apogee. Its cycle is 104 minutes and 12 seconds.

    Mounted on the satellite are necessary measuring devices and communications apparatuses.

    The satellite is going round on its routine orbit.

    It is sending to the earth the melodies of the immortal revolutionary paeans "Song of General Kim Il Sung" and "Song of General Kim Jong Il" and measured information at 470 MHz. By the use of the satellite the relay communications is now underway by UHF frequency band.

    With that kind of info, there should be dozens of observatories that should be able to spot it. Or HAM radio guys to find the signal it's broadcasting.

    Anyone been looking for it yet?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:That's what I'm looking for, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much. If they were telling the truth, by now every nation on Earth with radios would have confirmed this. That's how it was with Sputnik back in the day.

      Instead there's probably a station in Pyongyang broadcasting for one minute every 104 minutes for the benefit of the locals...

    2. Re:That's what I'm looking for, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copypasta from August 1998
      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-04/06/content_7650739.htm

      Launching a "satellite" , nothing new here.

    3. Re:That's what I'm looking for, thanks! by xkcdFan1011011101111 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the North's government will set up fake UHF transmitters to duplicate the transmissions that North Koreans would have heard if the satellite was successfully launched?

    4. Re:That's what I'm looking for, thanks! by querist · · Score: 1

      Does North Korea even HAVE Amateur Radio operators?

      This is right next to the 70cm band, and I know that my 70cm hand-held can receive on this frequency. Anyone with a fairly standard amateur "satellite" rig should be able to pick this up easily enough, though.

      I _really_ wish I had the proper hardware to listen in on this one - I don't have a good enough directional antenna to pick up the transmissions.

      It should be fairly easy for someone with the proper hardware to determine if there is something up there that matches the description of what the DPRK government stated, since there are a large number of amateur radio operators who do this sort of thing frequently.

    5. Re:That's what I'm looking for, thanks! by jafac · · Score: 1

      Too bad NK folks can't get on the WWW and look up heavens-above, to see the satellite pass schedule. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  63. New all time low for /. by nitro77 · · Score: 1

    /. has hit a new all time low in the quality of the news articles it posts. Any news site that has pictures with dumb ass on them and quotes such as "And that's yet another pathetic failure by the North Korean clowns, boys and girls." I tend to dismiss any information in the articles as nothing more than total BS.

    At least post articles from sites that at least try to be reputable!

    Yes, I have been reading /. for about 10 years. This is by far the worst article I have ever seen posted. It is even worse than the 12 year replies that I have seen of late.

  64. Maybe another angle? by __aajoqa250 · · Score: 1

    Can Kim Jong Il even wipe his ass without guidence from the Chinese government? Could it be a smokescreen attempt to trick us into believing that North Korea poses no plausable threat? I think that NK and Iran are just a few finger puppets of China's.

    1. Re:Maybe another angle? by Corxeaus · · Score: 1

      The truth may be a bit late showing up.

    2. Re:Maybe another angle? by __aajoqa250 · · Score: 1

      Appearently, the big red button to Russia from the Secretary of State was a signal of some sort..

    3. Re:Maybe another angle? by Corxeaus · · Score: 1

      Prophecy slowly unveils itself, while self-fulfilling prophecy compels it into view.

  65. Oblig. by conureman · · Score: 1

    I'm with Nelson Muntz on this one.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  66. Success is immaterial by claysdna · · Score: 0

    North Korea does not need a successful missle launch at this time. They just need a missle launch and a bunch of press. By doing this early in the regime of the new American fearless leader, they will scare the skirts off of the ladies in the white house. The only way these yahoos know how to deal with a show of force is by sitting at a table and negotiating something away. A good talking to is what those boys in Korea need. There are gonna be some scolding going on tomorrow. LOL All North Korea has to do is do something crazy every now and again (and their fearless leader has that game down pat) and the pansy's running the new US government will provide them will all the technology, food, and world legitimacy that they could ever want. By the time the likes of Pelosi and Franks have finished bending over, North Korea will have met every goal they have. Billy Clinton was a blessing to them but Obama and the other ladies are going to make Billy seem hardcore.

  67. Sounds like a conspiracy to me by grilled-cheese · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like a nice cover story... *puts on tinfoil hat*

  68. Our news is the truth by noz · · Score: 1

    One man's trash is another man's propaganda.

  69. why nk would want an orbital rocket by voss · · Score: 1

    1) bargaining chip
    2) hard currency... some pragmatic nk general may actually be trying to create a way to make NK economically self-sufficient with space launches

    3) political prestige inside NK

  70. covert ops by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        The covert operation worked. We sent in an agent under the cover of darkness to snip the fuse cord between stages. I don't know who they were fooling, no one uses solid fuel, and centuries old fuse cord in between them.

        Your operation was taken down with fingernail clippers smuggled through customs! HAHAHA!

        Now you know why the TSA had such a hard on for banning fingernail clippers. It was to reduce the number of clippers in circulation, for the protection of North Korea! Little did they expect that we'd hide them in a bag of Doritos! Not only great for smuggling, but they made a nice munchie snack afterwords. Did I forget to mention, these were our Dutch operatives? :)

        I still feel sorry for the guy with the Bic lighter that had to light the first stage. It brings a new meaning to "light it and RUN".

        BTW, this is all classified, so don't tell anyone else, ok? :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    1. Re:covert ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you high, or just retarded?!?

    2. Re:covert ops by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Aw, come on, you have to laugh once in a while. It was a joke.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  71. Fails? Repeatedly? Like, on Sundays? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    It failed, in the past, otherwise I wouldn't be reading this. It would be "Psychic says missile test will fail" or "CIA says Korea can't figure out how to build a bomb right."

    I know I'll get flak from those trained to do it like this, as if being a journalist gives you the right to ignore the language your readers understand.

    Missile launch failed. Don't tell me someone dies, tell me they are dead. Bulls win in overtime, Chicago wins in overtime... these tell me habitual tendencies. Normally, Chicago wins in overtime. Did they win tonight? I want to know who won, not who usually wins, you dickballs.

    Jim Smith dies at age 71. People named Jim Smith? Or do you mean Jim typically dies when he's 71? Because neither one makes sense. Is someone goihng to tell me it's more respectful that way? What about "Jim Smith passed on today, to whatever it is he believes is the next stop after nearly half a century of touching the hearts of the best and the brightest, inspiring billions, yes billions of people to be more than they ever thought they could be. Here's our own Reporter McTalksalot with a look into his life."

    It failed.

  72. US find remains ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the number of "lost" nukes the US has sitting on sea floors around the world - I'm not sure they are a moral to find anyone else's junk down there!

  73. Oh for mod points by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

    (man this went longer than I intended, sorry /.

    No need to apologise here. An absolutely insightful post.

    If you do get modded to death by those who think pragmatism and honest assemssment of history is pinko leftist liberal crap, but whatever, you're real world karma is excellent.

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
    1. Re:Oh for mod points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiomatick is a 'tard and you are too.

      His real world karma? Man if there is any thing such as karma then hopefully he'll get shot by a North Korean border guard or have his head sawed off somewhere in the tribal regions of Pakistan as he sings Kumbaya and proffers a fruit basket as a peace offering.

      Stupid goddamn pinko leftist hippies so wrapped up in their own little delusion that their own government is the most evil thing in the world that they're completely, willfully blind to real evil.

  74. why would the US want to take that risk? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Also, we'd probably be able to tell exactly what the purpose of this rocket was: ICBM or satalite. That can drastically alter the type and severity of potential US/UN retaliation.

    And why would the US be interested in spending millions of dollars to retrieve and analyze the parts, only to find out that the missile was in fact for satellite purposes?

    It'd be some serious egg on the face of the world if North Korea really is just trying to get a satellite into orbit. Has anyone except the US and South Korean military confirmed that the launch was a failure?

    1. Re:why would the US want to take that risk? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Because they would want to know what exactly the enemy has in case a war breaks out. Hell, even if it's a satellite that could already give data about any future satellites they might launch.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:why would the US want to take that risk? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The US will spend millions of dollars to buy a hammer, we'd probably spend billions to retrieve pieces of a possible NK ICBM.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:why would the US want to take that risk? by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      If it was found and determined that it really was a satellite, what would require that information to be made public? Or even the fact that anything was found?

  75. Re:...phat living. by zmollusc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For North Korea, it's not about the welfare of the citizens, it's about maintaining the phat lifestyle of the people in charge

    Hahahaha! Stupid foreigners and their corrupt self-serving governing class! Glad I live in the UK.

    brb, hate time on telescreen.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  76. This is just sad... by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

    The ONE country most likely to get nuked right now is the one and only country which ever got nuked (twice, even) in history.

    I'm usually a moral relativist when it comes to global politics, but this just seems ridiculously unfair somehow.

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  77. rational = predictable by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are predictable people just walk all over you. See Iraq for an example. If you appear insane they keep away.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:rational = predictable by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "If you are predictable people just walk all over you. See Iraq for an example. If you appear insane they keep away."

      I'm not quite sure Saddam Hussein was considered "sane" by any stretch of the imagination.

      In fact...if he had simply FULLY cooperated with the sanctions and inspections, and quit trying to appear he was hiding nuke asperations...he'd likely still be breathing, and in power.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:rational = predictable by Troed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Buy a history book not written in the US, please.

      Remember Hans Blix - stating for the record that Saddam did not hide anything?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix#Iraq_disarmament_crisis_.282002-2003.29

      You know he was right?

      You understand that the US invasion had absolutely nothing to do with any "Iraqi threat"?

    3. Re:rational = predictable by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      In fact...if he had simply FULLY cooperated with the sanctions and inspections, and quit trying to appear he was hiding nuke asperations...he'd likely still be breathing, and in power.

      Bullshit. The Neocons in the US were absolutely determined to invade (as a step in their Grand Plan of restructuring the world to their liking) no matter what Saddam did. In fact every time he tried to comply, they just changed their demands, each time more belligerent and each time more humiliating. It is in no doubt whatsoever that if he kept doing what they told him to "comply", eventually they would have demanded that he runs around naked at some market in Baghdad's to "demonstrate that he is not hiding any WMDs in his underwear".

      The invasion of Iraq was a done fact, no matter what anyone but the Neocons and the ruling elites behind them thought, the moment Bush II was elected, and very likely even if Gore were, as the Neocons had monopolized the national US discourse and established a firm hold on the media in the US, a position which was greatly enhanced by the events of 9/11. The only thing in doubt was when the invasion were to occur.

      This is an obvious fact to anyone who was not watching the self-censored US corporate media spin, as the US-instigated machinations were very, very crude and quite transparent to most independent media in the world. In the US people were presented an image of "UN" inspections, while in fact the UN was continuously undermined by the US efforts at scuttling the whole process, complete with CIA planting their agents amongst the US contingent of the UN "inspectors", who promptly engaged in blunt, belligerent activities aimed at ensuring that the "inspections" fail.

    4. Re:rational = predictable by PitViper401 · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]

    5. Re:rational = predictable by cyberchondriac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah but what cayenne8 is saying is that Saddam acted like he had weapons he was hiding, and because Saddam used stalling tactics on Blix's crew time and time again, giving the illusion (if not for real)that he was cleaning up areas and moving weapons before the UN could get there to inspect. IIRC, Saddam flatly denied access to many areas in some cases (even if he rescinded later) which still bought him time. How could Blix have known if there were weapons there or not with all that going on? Forensic testing? Is that 100% foolproof? So the UN report's credibility was questioned - whether it was right or wrong, there was too much uncertainty. When cops do a drug raid on a house they don't announce their intent 2 days prior - they'd never find anything either.
      I guess the big question is, how many UN inspections did they manage to pull off without prior notice being given (or tipped) to the Iraqi government, and without the ever present Iraqi "minders"? We still don't know if any weapons were smuggled to Syria, but that's still a possibility too. We may never know.
      There was good reason for suspicion; Saddam had bio weapons scant years earlier, so there was definitely a precedent there - it was not just a fairy tale made up out of thin air. The guy had made and used bio weapons before, that much was solid fact. Considering Saddam's behavior and actions during the inspections, even if just a bluff, he was sending the wrong signals.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re:rational = predictable by Troed · · Score: 1

      How could Blix have known if there were weapons there or not with all that going on?

      Read his reports.

      There was good reason for suspicion

      No. Bush wanted to invade and just needed something that could fool enough of the populace.

      He succeeded - in the US. In the rest of the civilized world we just shake our heads time and time again.

    7. Re:rational = predictable by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Sigh. For example, Scott Ritter, who was a senior member of the "UN" inspection team (the UNSCOM) on the ground in Iraq, tell his experiences in an interview here. Note that after Ritter voiced his objections in the run-up to the war, a US-based police "sting" operation, by a miraculously-timed poof of magic, claimed to have caught him talking to an officer pretending to be a teenage girl on the Internet, for which he was arrested. The arrest was most effectively used to ensure that most US media did not try to ask his opinion. Naturally, all charges were dropped after the war started as the "evidence" against him, also by magic apparently, evaporated completely.

      The poster before me already pointed you to the statements by Hans Blix who managed the overall UN inspection process.

      As to the Neocon designs, they proudly published them as part of The Project For New American Century, as far back in the 1990s. Note the "signatories of the statement of principles", amongst them: Wolfowitz, Rumslfeld, Cheney etc.

      As to the non-US media, I have no time to dig up the articles from 2002/3 for your pleasure, but there is plenty of them on Google if you have the inclination. But one hint that should be immediately obvious to you is the size of anti-war demonstrations that occurred in Europe before the war. The head count was into millions.

    8. Re:rational = predictable by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Wait, I thought they delivered a huge pile of documentation of their nuclear activities that GW Bush asked for, before the invasion.

      The GW Bush said "it's all lies" and invaded.

      Then, GW Bush said "oops! guess that sucker wasn't lying!" after we invaded and found that Iraq's statements about everything related to their nuclear program were true, as presented in the disclosure before the war.

      They hadn't been able to do anything much since the first Gulf war, because of the impact of the embargo.

      I'm thinking that we're not getting our money's worth out of the CIA if we can fuck up that badly on an intelligence operation.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    9. Re:rational = predictable by barryjoe54 · · Score: 1

      I was fairly clear that even if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction he wanted them and pretended he had them. That was not the reason the US invaded him and toppled his government. Saddam was a known sponsor of terrorism and was documented to have paid for or provided training for the terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11. When a state participates in an attack on the US it's government is removed and we put one in place that we like better. We did it for Japan, We did it for Afghanistan and we did it for Iraq. The solution to not having the US stomp on you is to let us be. We are used to everyone not liking us. We really don't care that much about that. If you attack us we will hurt you badly and make sure you cannot do it again. When you grab a sleeping tiger by the tail you should have a plan on dealing with his teeth.

      --
      "Beer is Proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Ben Franklin
    10. Re:rational = predictable by Troed · · Score: 1

      Saddam was a known sponsor of terrorism and was documented to have paid for or provided training for the terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11

      No.

      Now, you might want to spend a few minutes researching how come you've fallen for untrue propaganda.

    11. Re:rational = predictable by drik00 · · Score: 1

      So the four* UN Resolutions demanding that Saddam "disarm" and allow inspectors back in _or else_ was just what? US driven posturing? The UN hates the US, that's dum.

      * it was either 3 or 4, I'm not interested enough to go look it up.

      J

      --
      Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    12. Re:rational = predictable by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes it did have to do with the Iraqi threat. Completely stupid and misguided, but that's why.. Or do you think it was for the oil we don't get from there?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:rational = predictable by Troed · · Score: 1

      If you're unsure of the history, feel free to look it up. You do know that there are UN resolutions on practically everything, right?

    14. Re:rational = predictable by Troed · · Score: 1

      Oh you do get a lot out of the occupation. Basically your country needs to go to war on a regulary basis.

      There never was an Iraqi threat. Just an excuse.

    15. Re:rational = predictable by println( · · Score: 1

      If you are predictable people just walk all over you. See Iraq for an example. If you appear insane they keep away.

      Aha, like "us" during last 8 years.

  78. missle defense is a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have missile intercept technology

    This is utter crap, pork barrels. Imagine shooting a bullet with another bullet and you get an idea of what is involved in star wars. It took 8 patriot missiles to intercept *portions* of Iraq's Scud missiles.

    "The proposed GMD expansion to the European theater has not accomplished
    system engineering adequate to support the development of a test program sufficiently
    detailed to certify a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner once
    deployed."

    http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/euro-gmd.pdf

    more info:

    http://fas.org/rlg/Zagreb%20Croatia%20Nov2008%20Beyond%20a%20Threat%20Assessment.pdf

  79. Intent of Internet by otenki · · Score: 1

    I dont think this is what Al Gore had in mind...

  80. Just not that important... by i_b_don · · Score: 1

    Look, NK already has the capability to do massive damage to SK and drop missiles on Japan but they haven't. This missile wouldn't have changed anything.

    Success or failure... it's simply not that big a deal.

    It's really much more scary that they would sell one to Iran. That's the more scary scenario for international relations... but even that isn't that big a deal.

    d

    --
    all language nazi's will burne in heil!
  81. ICBM and Sun by curmi · · Score: 1

    I'm confused. I thought ICBM were trying to buy SUN?

  82. Kim's title by vuo · · Score: 1

    North Korea's "president", "speaker of parliament" and "prime minister" is Kim Yong-nam, who is the "Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly" (a kind of a parliament that rarely convenes) and "Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly". A "presidium" is like a cabinet, and is formally the highest organ of the state. Kim Jong Il's title is not really "dictator" or "president", but "Chairman of the National Defence Commission". (To compare, in the U.S., the president chairs the National Security Council.) Because North Korea is a military dictatorship, the holder of this position effectively controls the entire government both in real terms and legally. Kim is also the "General Secretary of the Workers' Party", and because this party controls the political decisions of the civil government, this makes Kim the sole final decisionmaker in other matters as well. In conclusion, the amount and depth of fuckedupness in communist states is incredibly and almost mesmerizingly large.

  83. Not a failure, a learning experience by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    It's not a failure, it's part of the learning curve. Every large rocket design, except maybe for the Sat 5 had multiple launch failures the first few times. The US Atlas had like FIVE blowups before a successful launch. Ditto the Redstone and Jupiter and Vanguard. The Atlas was never very reliable, blowing up a good 25% of the time.

    What's mildly of concern was if the NK's had sufficient telemetry downlink to figure out what went wrong this time so they can try harder in those weak areas next time.

  84. First stage success is not... by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    "complete and utter failure"?

    So we can't expect the unbiased truth from North Korea's propaganda ministry, but what the hell is this about "complete and utter failure" when the first stage apparently worked?

    Was Space-X's initial failure to orbit payload portrayed here at /. as "complete and utter failure"?

  85. Metric System Is To Blame by TheLeopardsAreComing · · Score: 1

    Oh those Koreans, still using the SI units. When will they learn the only way to get things into space is using FEET and POUNDS?

  86. It's Strange to think that... by Damn+The+Torpedoes · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in this country there is a scientist, or team of scientists being interrogated as to why the satellite launched failed. Someone, somewhere, is being executed for this. Gives me the willies!

  87. What's your point? by Phasma+Felis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My point? Bush didn't put the North Koreans up to anything, but your description is remarkably close to fitting your own country.

    Is that supposed to make me feel better about North Korea being one step closer to global nuclear capability?

    1. Re:What's your point? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Is that supposed to make me feel better about North Korea being one step closer to global nuclear capability?

      Nope. What should make you feel better though, is their leader isn't a suicidal fool. I seriously doubt he'd attack another country - if he did, North Korea would be bombed into the ground shortly thereafter.

      Contrary to popular belief, evil tyrants actually require a country in order to be an evil tyrant, and thus their actions tend towards preserving their country rather than ensuring its utter destruction.

      Nobody that makes it to the top is a complete idiot. Regardless of his motives, he must know the result of nuking any other country, and that result is very bad for him and his people.

  88. You don't even need to use a submarine by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    It was pretty routine for US surface ships in the Pacific to linger around the predicted impact area of Soviet test ICBM shots, in hopes of picking up pieces. It's not hard to track the missiles, and in fact the Russians pretty much always put out a Notice to Mariners, so it wasn't any big mystery to get at least the approximate target location.

  89. I doubt it. by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    I doubt it. That system is meant to be employed much earlier in the flight profile than this... the NK missile got all the way to stage separation, and I really doubt the 747 could get itself into position to shoot it there.

  90. Ummm, what? by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    First off, we know that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons. So please be quiet about them nuking everything.

    Best estimates are that NK has 6-7 nuclear devices.

    I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

  91. Hirrary Crinton: So Nice To See You: +1, Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stand a little to your left, a little more.

    Good !

    Yours In Freedom,
    K. J. iL

  92. Not a failure by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    They launched an ICBM and it flew. No one interfered with either the launch or flight.

    They learned quite a bit of both technical and political data.

    Sounds like a success to me. Sure, it could have been better, but it wasn't a failure by a long shot.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  93. North Korea invaded the South. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you know North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war due to the fact North Korea invaded the South?

    1. Re:North Korea invaded the South. by 7+digits · · Score: 1

      Yes. And ?

  94. A bigger audience than Superbowl sunday by VindictivePantz · · Score: 1

    Another reason for their launch outside saber-rattling and chest-puffing is simple: cash. They have essentially launched (no pun intended) a global advertisement to potential buyers of the technology they have been touting (though it was not a successful "product demonstration".) Though theoretically propped-up by China and/or Russia, having an income source outside of state sources gives you more political flexibility; that, and the possibility that their technology could be refined/used by "rogue" states/organizations would result in further political chaos, keeping them at or near the center of attention.

  95. Mod Parent Up by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

    I dunno what the GP was thinking... Did he miss the news coverage of the underground nuke tests that NK carried out in 2006?

    How the hell does such a completely erroneous statement get a mod up anyhow?

  96. It's just as important to know what DOESN'T work by Stinky+Litter+Box · · Score: 1

    I am about to compare the NK "space program" to the efforts of SpaceX. http://www.spacex.com/. Before I receive a terminal flaming, let me emphasize the fact that the two enterprises exist in alternate universes when it comes to scientific and technical expertise. And intent, for that matter. Having said that, it is important to consider two things they have in common: 1) Limited resources. NK is poor, isolated, etc. SpaceX is not NASA. Because it is privately funded, it does not have NASA's (comparatively) deep pockets. 2) The early efforts of both programs (and NASA's!) have been "failures". If success in actually achieving orbit is the only metric, SpaceX has a 75% failure rate. They didn't put anything into orbit until the fourth try. Elon Musk and company kept on trying. Now they are readying a fifth launch from their facility on Kwajalein Atoll, and they are preparing to launch an even larger rocket from Cape Canaveral. I have no doubt that the scientists and engineers in NK also learn from their failures. Their most recent launch may not have been a failure at all. I agree that it was most likely an ICBM test and not an attempt to orbit a satellite to give the world Kim Jong Il's version of MTV. This is why I believe it is dangerous and short sighted to dismiss the NK space program as a NASA wannabe run by incompetents for whom the wheel and fire are the latest technology.

  97. first off, be sure by fche · · Score: 1

    First off, we know that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons.

    It must be comforting to believe that the nuclear baby bomb they blew up a few years ago was the only one they had or produced since.

  98. Re:Your Alternate Hypothesis by beer_maker · · Score: 1

    NK starts developing nuclear technology in the early 90s. Out of fear the US promises to provide electricity and normalized trade in exchange NK would disassemble their nuclear plants and join the NNPT. Korea agrees! They take apart their factories. The US changes to the republican party. They do not provide electricity, they do not normalize trade, they spit in NKs face.

    Bzzzt! Nice paragraph history, till the last sentence ... you conflate the USA and the ROK (Republic of Korea, AKA South Korea) and their roles in that fiasco. The USA brokered an agreement to provide food aid (which we did) while the ROK was to provide commercial light-water reactors for electrical power generation (which the ROK failed to do) in return for which the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea, AKA North Korea) would disassemble its breeder reactor and cease all work on developing nuclear weapons (which they pretty much failed to do.)

    I blame the South Koreans for failing to make any attempt to meet their obligations in this deal, and the North Koreans for closing the original plant while simultaneously opening a NEW one and for moving its program further underground (literally) rather than stopping it ... but I am proud to say the USA kept its part of the bargain and provided the food (the more fool us, but at least we tried.)

    It's nice of you to claim that the DPRK government & Kim Jung Il (same thing) are just misunderstood and marginalized souls, but in fact they are far more like the Unabomber than they are like Castro. Crazed conspiracy theorists wanting to go their own way are a dime a dozen, while nutjobs who are willing to blow up their neighbors so they can be 'left alone' are a whole 'nother matter.

    I strongly suggest you go read a book, a few magazines, at the very least the frak'n Wikipedia article and THEN go read the DPRK's slant on things ... I think you might change your mind about who's zoomin who here. FWIW, I speak and read Korean, I have lived in the ROK, I was in Seoul in the early 90's, and I truly believe Dear Comrade KJI is batshit crazy - but don't take my word for it, please. Go check it out for yourself.

    As for your first paragraph, since in 1990 there was evidence that the DPRK already had several pounds of plutonium with which to make at the least a dirty bomb or two, you are wrong there too. They might not be able to make them with swiss-watch craftsmanship like we (used to) do, but don't think they couldn't make SOMETHING unpleasent. Now that they can demonstrably throw one as far as Japan, we might actually want to worry about it just a skosh.

    --
    Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  99. Re:Your Alternate Hypothesis by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    Oh don't get me wrong. He is definately batshit crazy. And hes not a misunderstood saint. BUT we haven't helped. And spitting in their face doesnt help. And while the party might be batshit crazy not all of northkoreans are fans of living in poverty starving to death. I'm sure they are open to seeing alternatives.
    And while nk gov is batshit crazy i dont think they are stupid enough to fire their handful of shitty dirty bombs. It serves no purpose. Thats my point, when you view a country as evil you cant think straight. They might be selfserving and all that. But their is no advantage to NK for firing their nukes at anything.

    Anyways sorry about the messiness and lack of fact checking. It wasn't meant to be an essay I typed it in about 10minutes without using any references. Thanks for making it through the whole thing.

  100. Go pick it up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So go out into the Pacific and pick up the second stage. Then we will see if there is a 'communications satellite' or not.

  101. I seriously doubt it by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Does North Korea even HAVE Amateur Radio operators?

    Not according to this guy. See this page:

    "North Korea has one of the most tightly controlled medias in the world. Unlike most other countries, in North Korea radios and TVs don't have tuners - they only have switches. You can choose one state-run channel, or the other state-run channel. No 'tuning in' to outside broadcasts. Of course no Internet either. On page one I showed you the kind of 'news' found in the newspaper.

    A defector once told me of a visit to the hospital he had made while growing up in the North. Alone in his hospital room he was looking at the radio and noticed that a previous patient had somehow broken it open and rigged up a crude tuner. Risking imprisonment he searched for and found a South Korean station and got his first taste of the outside world. Nearly 25 years later he could still recall that first broadcast and what he had heard - a news story that, to his amazement, contained an interview with the South Korean president. An interview with a president?!?! How could such a thing happen?!?"

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  102. Sabre Rattling by SAABMaven · · Score: 1

    Nicely done, Idiomatick. As for North Koreans, their behaviour is right on schedule, no surprises. The Americans prop up these regimes by isolating them.... no thinking is going on in Washington either even though the Messiah won the election. Expect more of the same from countries that have been kept isolated, now that the US are growing weaker and collapsing internally.

  103. US manned mission fails by mauri · · Score: 1

    US manned moon mission Apollo 13 fails.
    US manned shuttle mission Challenger fails.
    US manned shuttle mission Columbia fails.
    etc.

    Does all this mean "utter failure"?
    NO, its just propaganda.

    Just my 0.02.

    --
    __
    L.
  104. Question by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    Which Ministry of Truth should I believe?