Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test
viyh writes "North Korea conducted a nuclear test on Monday, South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a ruling party official as saying.
A magnitude 4.7 earthquake was recorded by the USGS in North Korea.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has called an emergency meeting of cabinet ministers over the test, Yonhap said."
But since they must exist, it's better if everybody have them. Deterrence.
Yet you forgot one factor. Nutjobs.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Brother man, I did not support the invasion of Iraq one iota, but I'd support a multinational invasion force in North Korea, you better believe it.
Yes the insane or otherwise unpredictable... It's easy to label the "enemy" as such, but the fact is that they have to be somewhat competent and predictable to run a country... if not a bit paranoid.
You want to avoid disaster? Don't push their backs to the wall and make sure their enemies all have nukes too so they don't have an unfair advantage. Balance is the key.
what? you got a better alternative? Harsh language and UN sanctions that hurt nobody but the people?
The problem of world peace is one of leadership. It's not only a struggle for resources, but a struggle for supremacy, which guides our national policies. America believes it cannot continue to exist without controlling others. And NK believes that it must dominate its enemies in order to survive.
This can't be fixed so easily, I'm afraid. It's simply human nature. So it's up to each and every one of us to work towards that goal. I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. And no message could have been any clearer: if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.
Dictators pose for the people. They use religion and the whole "we hate israel" crap (or we hate capitalism of whoever...) to get the support of their religious right... sort of like abortion is a carrot on the stick in the states. They'll never actually do anything. They would lose their leverage (and ensure self annihilation). Dictators look out for themselves first. They're after power, not idealism. Because of this, they're predictable. Insane? Irrelevant. So long as they're predictable they're controllable.
This whole North Korea situation sounds like a broken record.
Every U.S. administration since Clinton has been dealing with these sorts of North Korean threats. The Republicans criticized Clinton for his handling of the situation, and they found themselves in the exact same position.
This space left intentionally blank.
But communism DIDN'T work. And in a few years we'll realize that democracy doesn't work either.
I'd support a multinational invasion force in North Korea, you better believe it.
Bloody hell. You people never fucking learn, do you?
But communism DIDN'T work. And in a few years we'll realize that democracy doesn't work either.
Democracy is the worst government system. Except for all the other ones we have tried in the past...
I hate to burst you bubble of ignorance, but, North Korea's first nuke test was on Oct. 9th, 2008. You know, when that other guy was still in office. And it was in development for a long time before that. Barry has been on the job three months. He's barely had time to get into the front door of the White House. You can't pin this on him at all. Kim Jong Il has always been one to do as he pleases.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
While I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the overall issue of nuclear wepons - it's a lot more complex than the soundbites in the news like to make out, after all - I do think it's worth saying that characterising Kim Jong Il as insane is at least somewhat fair.
Were we talking about Iran, for example, I'd agree with you - although their leaders hold a vastly different ideology to many of our own, writing them off with simplistic statements is totally unfair. Their country works in its own way and while legitimate criticism could be levelled at them for failing to represent the wishes of their people, that would not negate the fact that the decisions they do make often work to achieve the desired outcome.
North Korea, on the other hand, is not running as a functional country in any sense of the word. The competence of the leadership is very much in question, and many of their past actions suggest a level of delusion that could potentially lead to very destructive behaviour.
Just remember that, no matter how fast an invasion force moves, the'll get off a couple of missles. North Korea has lots and lots of conventional missles. Japan and South Korea are well within range.
Wait, you mean to say there are people out there who think our flavour of democracy actually works? Nutjobs!
... the ancient greeks. Anyone who thinks democracy works with millions of people, or is in any sense of the term a real democracy if it even hints at working, is an idiot.
Everyone with a bit of knowledge knows that democracy only works in populations up to about 6500 people. After that it stops working and it was the inventors of democracy who figured that out
Seems to be working fairly well so far. Maybe not to your expectations, but I don't see people falling over dead from starvation outside my house.
Also, keep in mind that we don't use straight-up democracy... It's a mixture of many different disciplines. Taxes, health care, and education are socialist ideals.
How about, when you have a job and get paid the same no matter what you do, you don't try very hard and industry stagnates. I lived in a former communist country for a while. I know how it is. Tire factories producing tires with bolts in them... horrible quality and service everywhere.
That's what I meant to say, we're not really living in a democracy and it's time we stopped pretending we do because I don't think that word means what our collective self thinks it does.
You want to avoid disaster? Don't push their backs to the wall and make sure their enemies all have nukes too so they don't have an unfair advantage. Balance is the key.
What makes the advantage "unfair"? Who should have nuclear weapons in order to maintain "balance"? Should you or I personally have them? My view is that no, we haven't demonstrated either the need, maturity, or the security to have nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, neither has North Korea.
what? you got a better alternative? Harsh language and UN sanctions that hurt nobody but the people?
We need to remember that penalties can go far beyond harsh language. My view is that the civilized world, not just the US, should back up nuclear nonproliferation efforts with the threat of both conventional and nuclear force. Ideally an international military force backed with nuclear weapons could implement this nonproliferation effort.
Things don't simply "work" or not. Human history is a continuum of change. Communism worked for some time in some places, Capitalism is working for some time in some places. There is no definitive solution, because there isn't a definitive problem.
The real nutjobs are the ones that claim to have found the "End of History". And both commies and cappies are guilty of such arrogance.
"They'll never actually do anything." Huh? Hitler and Stalin were just posing? What a curious reading of history.
64 years ago the USA conducted two nuclear tests over Japan on two cities killing thousands of innocent civilians.
Given that precedence, it doesn't sound slike much of a big deal that a communist bankrupt country is conducting some nuclear tests.
And no message could have been any clearer: if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.
In my estimation, more misery has been created by reformers than by any other force in human history. Show me someone who says, "Something must be done!" and I will show you a head full of vicious intentions that have no other outlet. What we must strive for always! is to find the natural flow and go with it. - The Reverend Mother Taraza, Conversational Record, BG File GSXXMAT9
How about, when you have a job and get paid the same no matter what you do, you don't try very hard and industry stagnates.
Like union dominated US car industry?
When China finally wakes up and realizes that having a somewhat unstable next door neighbor armed with nukes is a bad idea, this sort of thing will stop - North Korea survives only because China keeps giving them tons of aid.
Perhaps the North Koreans are interested in China's continued aid supplies over the long term? As in, after they get a credible, deliverable weapon, 'If you stop the gravy train, we take out Hong Kong, even if we're glass 8 minutes later. That whole "we don't like the west" thing was just so you would let us build nukes.'
I really don't get China's motivations. Once the nuclear genie is out, they won't be able to stuff it back in. It's like the U.S.A. helping Haiti to get nukes because they don't like Cuba. Does it not occur to the Chinese govt. that once North Korea has a real nuclear capability, they could aim it anywhere they so wished?
Who cares about traceable? So you know I nuked you. Big deal: I did it because your troops were already surrounding my palace and you were about to raid it anyway, and I know what happened to Saddam. I was dead anyway, so do I care that you can trace me?
Worse, why deliver it? I nuke my palace, myself and your troops. I'm dead anyway, you'll hang me! That way, at least I take some of you bastards with me and hey, who knows, maybe I'm gonna be a hero to some other nutjobs out there who celebrate my death and honor my memory.
Ok, let's get serious. Nukes in the hands of nutjobs like Kimmie are defensive weapons. Not offensive ones. He knows that he won't even come close to surviving (I'm not even talking winning) a conventional war against the US. But when he's sitting on a 10MT nuke, what soldier is nutty enough to want to capture him?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Were we talking about Iran, for example, I'd agree with you - although their leaders hold a vastly different ideology to many of our own, writing them off with simplistic statements is totally unfair. Their country works in its own way and while legitimate criticism could be levelled at them for failing to represent the wishes of their people, that would not negate the fact that the decisions they do make often work to achieve the desired outcome.
I'd say the ideology is a bit different. Here is a video of them chanting "Death to America" at a political rally before a speech by their president promising to continue developing nuclear technologies. You might consider rethinking giving these people nuclear weapons.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
1. North Korea has the second largest standing army in the world, behind only China.
2. They would instantly invade S. Korea.
3. They'd launch anything they could at Japan.
Both S. Korea and Japan are allies, and make nice shiny stuff. We're not interested in provoking a massive retaliation on either country.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
It is not that Communism didn't or doesn't work, but rather it has never existed as Marx envisioned. The reform has never succeeded. Communism, like Democracy, exists only as a fantasy.
As an ideal, it is not half bad. Sadly, the worst kind of humans always manage to find a way to ruin things for everyone, regardless of the government.
The irony in that statement is so astounding, I can't tell if you are being facetious or not. Well played, sir.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Benevolent dictatorship > * in forms of leadership as has been proven every time it's occurred in history.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin
This quote falls exactly in line with obama being elected from the things I've read/seen online, as well as talking to people during the campaign who said that obama is gonna take the money from everyone who makes more than them and give it to them cause they don't make as much.
Capitalism is the idea that a small group of individuals ought to be able to make unilateral decisions with wide reaching consequences according to their own arbitrary whims. Communism is the idea that we are all in this together.
Totalitarianism is the idea that a small group of individuals ought to be able to make unilateral decisions with wide reaching consequences according to their own arbitrary whims. Democracy is the idea that we are all in this together.
Western capitalism is totalitarianism. Western democracy is broken. There is no more heartless, brutal and exploitative social system on earth. That is why it has been so successful.
In a world where western civilization has roots, any intelligent society will prepare to be attacked, in the same way that intelligent societies living below the water table will build protective dikes.
Western civilization is like a tsunami, spreading across the world and leaving slavery, poison and death in it's wake. You don't elect Mr Nice Guy to run things until the tsunami is passed, which is why all the communist nations have brutal, iron-fisted leaders. They live under constant threat from us, and while that's true, it's wise and good to submit to a strong leader so they can survive.
We are the evil ones. The world should fight tooth and nail against us until we change or die, because it's the right thing to do.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Perhaps statements like this are part of the reason why some South Koreans 'hate' the US?
I agree with your post about the U.S. needing to get out of the world-running business. But - your casual statement regarding the extermination of 70+ million people only in terms of positive impact to U.S. car companies is not helpful to your argument, since people may assume you are a ghoul, which means they won't take your otherwise good idea as seriously as they should.
A few things:
1) The S. Korean army can defend itself from the North. The reason we (I'm American) were there originally was that it was assumed (probably rightly) that any confrontation would actually be with China, through North Korea, which would be a pretty big, horrible war.
2) The reason we're still there is basically the same: As a deterrent against China. If China misbehaves, we're right there. Also, we have a joint security treaty with Japan, and basically share militaries with them (they don't have one, officially, but... they have one). There are many Asian history scholars who basically see the current Korean situation (North/South) as a buffer to keep China away from Japan (remember that the US and Japan are old buddies, having only had that little spat in the 40s). Full disclosure: I live in Japan and my wife is Japanese; I'd like us to continue this deal (there's no reason to stop it--Japan is and always has been the only country in Asia whose values mesh well with the West--chivalry and Calvinism, basically, although they go by different names).
3) Who would benefit from a war in South Korea? Nobody in the short term, China in the long term. In the short term, Korea (both of them) would suffer, Japan might take some hits (they would be really not cool with that), and then China would take the area over, getting all that American infrastructure and brain investment, in addition to some of the shittiest land in East Asia. It wouldn't really be a desirable thing.
4) Koreans are crazily patriotic. They denounce everybody. They insist on serving kimchi with French food (I love kimchi, but, um... Do we serve ketchup with pulgogi in the US???), just to assert their Korean-ness. It's insane. They bitch and moan about Japan and burn the Japanese flag every time a politician has the audacity to honor Japan's war dead, despite the fact that a large percentage of their business comes from Japan and they have just basically copied the Japanese economic model--even where it makes no sense to their situation. Korea is nuts. Both Koreas. Crazy. A history of playing second-fiddle to whomever else was in power has bred a keen inferiority complex, which they overcompensate for. So saying they hate America is not really the whole picture. They hate everybody.
Finally, I don't really care if North Korea gets the bomb either, and I live in their closest target. 10 years ago when I was a student in Osaka, they fired a rocket over our heads and it landed in Osaka harbor. I think I was supposed to be scared, but my response was, "Oh fuck you." That's all I feel today, too. I'm not afraid of these morons. They're not going to do shit, and if they did, they'd be wiped off the map by mid-afternoon.
BTW, sod gender-neutral language. the masculine forms are meant as unspecified gender, as is common practice throughout Europe and elsewhere. If you can't understand me, go and lobotomise yourself.
Now, here's an scenario for you:
Citizen A introduces a bill. Citizen B votes yes. Citizen C votes no. Citizen D and E vote for C.
Now it gets ugly. Citizen F, G, H, I and J are employed by A. Citizen A is very rich and the owner of a big corporation.
Citizen A tells F, G, H, I and J: "If you don't vote for me, you'll lose your jobs and you won't be able to work anywhere in this town".
Citizens F, G, H, I and J vote for A and A can do anything he wants.
Lesson: The secrecy of the vote is not there because it's fun.
GPG 0x1B479C78
hmmm... problem is when you ask us americans to look in the mirror and make a change, we go and get a tummy tuck, or a boob job, or a face lift.
Anyone who brings 'human nature' into a political argument is a drooling retard. Just because YOU are an ultra-competitive asshole, don't project your weakness onto everyone else.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Here's another scenario:
Citizens 1 to 10,000,000 introduce new bills on Tuesday, 1,000,000 of which are bills that would affect the country nation-wide. The vote for those bills all falls in the next 3 months.
How can someone learn, understand, and have an opinion on 1,000,000 different bills? Lets lower the number and say almost no one was actually submitting bills (doubtful, corporations would have entire departments submitted hundreds/day), so we'd be getting maybe 10,000/day. Could you read, interpret, and understand 10,000 bills of varying complexity and importance in a day? After all, you're expected to vote on them. If you don't, the country falls apart.
Could anyone build the infrastructure to handle that? Democracy is impractical on a wide scale because it REQUIRES a very well informed populace. Republics just require a very well informed select few. We don't all have the spare time to be politicians.
This is a very low standard to judge by. Maybe it comes as a surprise to you but in most undemocratic non-free market countries people don't drop dead from starvation either.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Kim Jong Il is definitely not a nutjob ... [he] thinks nothing of starving millions
What were you saying?
successfully used seemingly insane threats as negotiating leverage to obtain international aid many times
Name one that has succeeded.
The aid has been given despite the insane threats as we know the situation of the people there.
Sure the insanity continues as the other possibility is death. Or can you imagine a peaceful change in the country (like in USSR)?
You're full of shit, capitalism is the idea that a LARGE group of individuals ought to be able to make unilateral and INDIVIDUAL decisions with wide reaching consequences according to their own arbitrary whims.
That is indeed true at least to some extent. One may think that open (that is usually synonymous to democratic but it is not the same) societies have always advantage over authoritarian ones but that is not the case - Chile under Pinochet is one such example - they were able to raise from misery into some sort of stability (if there is such a thing) under heavy handed government. Economical progress was much worse in biggest democracy of them all - India. The same could be seen in eastern Europe after the IIWW - there too regimes succeeded originally only to stagnate and fail at the end.
I think the difference here is that only a few nutjobs are dumb enough to claim Bush orchestrated 9/11.
Just like only a few nutjobs are stupid enough to claim Obama is somehow responsible for North Korea nuclear testing.
Or that Obama is responsible for the current economic situation, or responsible for "government spending" (including bailouts) that started before he ever entered office.
The more sane conspiracies re: Bush+9/11 are regarding how his administration used it to take political control over the country and stir up a nationalistic fervor and point it at whatever HE wanted to do (ie: attack Iraq). And of course, use it to paint anyone who disagreed with their policies as terrorists or "soft on terrorism". Which you'll notice, Cheney is continuing to do even after leaving the white house.
them chanting "Death to America" at a political rally
In Iran the phrase "Death to...." is a commonly used slang term. It is used much in the same manner as you would hear Americans say "Fuck that" or "Dammit" or "Damn it to Hell".
So when you hear people chanting Death to America, its meaning is more along the lines of "Fuck those assholes" than "We want to kill all Americans". You can also commonly hear people say Death to traffic, Death to children, Death to politics, and Death to whatever happens to be pissing someone off at the time.
Think about what you yourself say if it's taken literally. Have you ever said "I'm going to kill somebody"? Did you really mean you were going to murder them? Didn't think so. Ever said "Damn it" or "Damn them"? That phrase literally means to send someone/something into the Hellish afterlife, but is that what you were actually advocating?
Getting worked up over slang words that you saw on TV is a stupid method of making an opinion about an entire culture.
Where and when did communism work? Apart from the obvious issue of human rights which are undermined by the very nature of communism, not any particular implementation of it, the fundamental difference is the economic freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom) which historically is VERY strongly correlated with living standards. There is almost no exception to the rule that, assuming the basic rule of law exists in a country, the more free its economy is (i.e. more capitalist) the more prosperous it is.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
That's why the social democratic system is so popular in Europe... You get most of the benefits of capitalism, with the safety net of communism.
The golden path lies in the middle.
- These characters were randomly selected.
You're making a HUGE assumption when you say that F, G, H, I, and J are all going to break with A on this issue. They have a prisoner's dilemma type choice where individually, it's a safer choice to stick with A, because if the bill loses then they don't get punished, and if the bill wins then no harm was done. Therefore, perfectly rational self-interest will lead to continued oppression, even though a collective decision to break with A leads to the optimal outcome.
And if you were to argue that F won't vote A because when G, H, I, and J win the vote then they'll also kick F to the curb (thus breaking the dilemma by providing the same negative consequences either way but divergent positive consequences), then you've really traded one tyranny for another.
Thinking back on history and all of the human interactions I've observed, it seems that true violence stems from a perceived imbalance of power. When one individual or group seems to hold an advantage and the motivation to employ violence...violence ensues. If my theory is correct world peace is not likely to come to fruition until every nation has effective nuclear strike capability.
The USA place itself on first the conventional defense and now nuclear defense obligations so that our so-called allies can dump their products on the USA.
You'd have a point if there were any decent cars manufactured by U.S. companies; but for many car categories, this just isn't true. I shopped around for a car not very recently - a low-end but roomy subcompact - and not a single car from American manufacturers was appealing, or scored well on reviews. Not one. But plenty of options from Japanese car makers, and some nice stuff from Koreans as well.
I'm looking at another car purchase in a year - something along the lines of Mazda5 - and, again, I don't see any decent analogs offered by U.S. manufacturers. Meanwhile, Kia has that very nice Rondo...
In short, the problem is not with "dumping" - the problem is with American cars. Fix that, and you'll be able to compete on your merits, as it should be. That said, it seems that Obama is trying to do something there, and I hope it works out, and we'll see good and fuel-efficient cars from, say, GM, in a few years (I don't have any warm feelings for them, but more competition is always good for the consumer).