Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Says War With South Would Go Nuclear

A reader writes "According to reports from the Uriminzokkiri, the official website of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a war with South Korea would involve nuclear weapons, and '[will] not be limited to the Korean peninsula.' The article goes on, 'The Korean peninsula remains a region fraught with the greatest danger of war in the world. This is entirely attributable to the US pursuance of the policy of aggression against the DPRK (North Korea).'"

608 comments

  1. I'm sure they're by gcnaddict · · Score: 1

    literally insane.

    Last I checked, the US could make all of the North's soil uninhabitable with just a handful of bombs.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:I'm sure they're by devbox · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Who do you think have more to lose if nukes start going around? I'm quite certain it's not North Korea.

    2. Re:I'm sure they're by mark72005 · · Score: 2

      They don't mean any of this seriously.

      They are just posturing so that the new leader can retain support of the old guard as power changes hands, and angling for more international aid money, food, etc. (so they can continue spending on edifices of adjective-Leader and rattletrap military "tech")

    3. Re:I'm sure they're by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:I'm sure they're by cdrguru · · Score: 2

      But the actual uninhabitable part doesn't happen for a couple of hours after those very, very important 8 seconds.

      And that is assuming that (a) everything is launched that is supposed to, (b) it goes where it is supposed to, and (c) it goes BOOM when it is supposed to.

    5. Re:I'm sure they're by cdrguru · · Score: 2

      Yes, but if Kim Jong Il is hidden away in a deep bunker then the only important person in North Korea survives. I'll bet outside of a few high ranking friends who would also be in said bunker it really doesn't matter to Mr. Kim who else might or might not survive.

      That is way MAD doesn't work with North Korea. Or Iran. It just doesn't matter if the civilian population survives or not. It's war, you see and there will be casualties.

    6. Re:I'm sure they're by spun · · Score: 1

      Good point. I don't think a lot of people realize that Kim Jong-il is in the process of handing off power to his son, Kim Jong-un.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:I'm sure they're by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.

      With what? Doctor Who technology? It takes tens of minutes just for ICBM-launched warheads to reach target. Bombers take hours. That's longer than eight seconds right there.

      And we know how powerful nuclear bombs are. Even the 40,000 or so warheads at the height of the Cold War aren't that effective. I suppose we could seed all those bombs with cobalt and fire them off with intent to kill as many people as possible. That might drive to extinction any unshielded lifeforms above a few kilograms or with a longish lifespan. But anyone who is deep underwater or hangs out in a moderately deep underground cave for a few years, is probably going to survive.

    8. Re:I'm sure they're by the+linux+geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think a lot of people realize it, and realize the fact that it still doesn't entirely explain the fact that the DPRK appears to be heading on a course more warlike than they've been on in a long time.

    9. Re:I'm sure they're by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Only because his older brother got caught trying to get into Disneyland Japan.

      What a pathetic group of tinpot dictators.

    10. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it'd take a helluva lot longer than a few hours to make everything uninhabitable. Do you REALLY think they'd have wasted a nuke going after say... Nairu, or settlements in the far, far North, or the research station on Antarctica? No, there'd be life for a helluva long time after that, unless they went and systematically destroyed even the smallest of islands in the middle of nowhere that contained life. It'd take quite a while for the fallout to go tens of thousands of kilometers over the ocean and dust an island enough to kill everything.

    11. Re:I'm sure they're by lgw · · Score: 1

      No - we were never anywhere close to that. "Uninhabitable" is a bit of a reach. Killing enough humans that we were back to the stone age, and might or might not survive as a species? Sure, if all those nukes devoted to destroying other nukes were all used to hit population centers. But that's very human-centric. A full scale nuclear exchange at the height of the cold war would still have barely affected sea life, and the effects of nuclear winter were overstated at the time.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And now for reality : http://i.current.com/images/asset/904/964/04/44ceT2.jpg. Nukes can't destroy the world. All the nukes in the world can destroy ONE city, one small metropolis (say 1/4th of New York). That's it.

      And even then not everyone in that area will be dead, and a few thousand will escape with both their lives and without any radiation exposure.

      Sure, nukes are no joke, but they're nowhere near as dangerous as they're reputed to be.

    13. Re:I'm sure they're by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Survives to what end, though? To spend 'x' months in a dank bunker with no country left to come out to once the radiation's cleared a bit (not to mention an awful lot of pissed off, probably armed, survivors on both sides of the border)?

      Even assuming a psychopathic disregard for the lives and well being of others, that doesn't sound like a sensible choice.

    14. Re:I'm sure they're by RsG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not really.

      8 seconds is too short a time frame. The delivery systems for nuclear weapons take longer than that to reach their targets. An ICBM launch from the continental US to what used to be the USSR or vice versa takes at least twenty to thirty minutes of flight time (though a launch from bases in Europe or a ballistic missile sub near the coast would obviously be faster than that). This doesn't factor in the time it takes to authorize a launch.

      And making the entire world uninhabitable is pushing it. During the cold war, most of the targets for those missiles would have been in the northern hemisphere (North America and Eurasia); there would be survivors elsewhere in the world. This doesn't even get into the fact that fallout is not universally lethal, meaning that just because a given region has been contaminated it does not automatically follow that everyone there is doomed.

      In a worst case scenario a full scale nuclear war could mean total human genocide, thought most of the deaths would occur weeks or months after the bombs fell due to radiation poisoning and starvation. A more likely scenario is a massive die-off and the complete collapse of civilization on a global level, as well as regional human extinction in the participating countries.

      This is still terrifying obviously, but it's nowhere near the fictional Armageddon that many people associate with the words "nuclear war".

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    15. Re:I'm sure they're by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      There is the legend of the C-Bomb. It's one of those stories of dubious veracity, but it is said that towards the end of it's span the USSR constructed a superweapon. Basically a cluster of hydrogen bombs around a cobolt packing, which would render the surface of the earth uninhabitable if detonated. The ultimate deterrent. As the country collapsed from within, the war never came, and the bomb still sits in a disused base somewhere... as none of those involved in it's construction ever wanted to reveal their part.

      The movie Dr Strangelove was directly inspired by this story.

    16. Re:I'm sure they're by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      Even the 40,000 or so warheads at the height of the Cold War aren't that effective. I suppose we could seed all those bombs with cobalt and fire them off with intent to kill as many people as possible. That might drive to extinction any unshielded lifeforms above a few kilograms or with a longish lifespan. But anyone who is deep underwater or hangs out in a moderately deep underground cave for a few years, is probably going to survive.

      In other words, the only survivors will be Aquaman and Batman.

    17. Re:I'm sure they're by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, he briefly engaged in nuclear brinksmanship with the US (stating he had a nuke and a missile that could reach us). As I recall, we shifted a few B2s closer to Korea, and sent Colin Powel (as SecState) to have a chat with Kim. He immediately shut up, and this is the first nuclear threat we've heard since (and it's not really directed at us). I presume we showed him photos of all his favorite bunkers, because as you say he wouldn't exactly care if everyone else died. That was more a case of "unilaterally assured distruction", though.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:I'm sure they're by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That isn't a legend, it's an idea that was seriously proposed. And no, nobody ever built it. To begin with, by the middle of the cold war it wasn't necessary.

      "Second strike" capability, that is the ability to launch a devastating counter attack when all of your airfields and missile silos are replaced with glowing craters, made destruction mutually assured, and therefor made the war unwinnable. A single SSBN with a payload of twenty MIRVed missiles has enough firepower to level several opposing cities, more than enough to be a deterrent, and the oceans offer a huge range of hiding places. You don't need a doomsday device to ensure an enemy will not be able to win with a preemptive strike when you have boomers.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    19. Re:I'm sure they're by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not at all.
      They are completely sane, and completely ruthless, and they don't think like you do so NEVER take North Korean propaganda at face value.

      This is perfectly standard NK gamesmanship repeated down the decades. They are rational, calculating, and smarter than naive Westerners. This game is very old news, as any Cold War vet can attest.

      The Norks are magnificent at classic Cold War penis-waving, they are the finest of trolls, and they are NOT going to commit suicide. Unlike Jihadists, who are horny to die for Allah, Norks leadership are rational and want to stay rich and powerful. Know and understand the difference.

      That is not to say the NK masses won't willingly die in droves if ordered, just like the last time, but that is what masses of simple people are for.
      The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    20. Re:I'm sure they're by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Survives to what end, though? To spend 'x' months in a dank bunker with no country left to come out to once the radiation's cleared a bit (not to mention an awful lot of pissed off, probably armed, survivors on both sides of the border)?

      Even assuming a psychopathic disregard for the lives and well being of others, that doesn't sound like a sensible choice.

      Surviving is one of the most important steps. If you don't, well, the rest of it doesn't really seem to matter as much.

    21. Re:I'm sure they're by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the US's interests in the region were pretty much entirely that they would use their weapons of mass destruction, so yes, threatening to use nukes if America meddles is pretty counterproductive and insane. We don't seem to be doing much with Burma. One of the main differences there is that Burma seems less likely to nuke someone.

      Sure, that wasn't always the case, I don't trust US foreign interests either, and I live here, but screaming and waving a gun at a much better armed individual is in general not a good way to make sure you don't get shot.

    22. Re:I'm sure they're by clambake · · Score: 1

      literally insane.

      Last I checked, the US could make all of the North's soil uninhabitable with just a handful of bombs.

      I think the North Koreans have already beat them to it.

    23. Re:I'm sure they're by sco08y · · Score: 0

      And now for reality : http://i.current.com/images/asset/904/964/04/44ceT2.jpg. Nukes can't destroy the world. All the nukes in the world can destroy ONE city, one small metropolis (say 1/4th of New York). That's it.

      If I were a super-villain, I'd only need enough nukes to contaminate all the arable land.

    24. Re:I'm sure they're by adamchou · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure they completely stand behind what they're saying. Its already well known that China has absolutely no interest in supporting N. Korea in a war against S. Korea and the US. This pretty much means that N. Korea is going to lose. And if N. Korea loses, I can promise you that we're not stopping our push at the DMZ. We're going to oust Kim Jong II for good. With the downfall of your empire and convictions of war crimes against you imminent, what do you think you would do, especially if you were a psychopath like him?

    25. Re:I'm sure they're by EdZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My hope is the ratcheting up of the posturing levels to new ridiculous heights during the handover could be to allow Kim Jong-Un to adopt a more moderate policy without completely collapsing his power base. A event-free handover followed by "Welp, guess we should stop our unsustainable policy of isolationism and get with the international program" would probably result in the generals ousting Un, whereas "Oh shit, Glorious Father went a little too far, better do something to avert invasion, right guys?", even if the outcome is the same, may go down better.

      Or I could be talking complete nonsense and am simple unaware of the magnitude of NK's regular levels of crazy.

    26. Re:I'm sure they're by cp.tar · · Score: 2

      Obligatory TBBT quote: But Aquaman sucks!

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    27. Re:I'm sure they're by kelarius · · Score: 1

      The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.

      I seem to recall their record not having any wins either, they have only been in one war and it was a draw. I also would like to point out that they were getting their asses kicked once we got involved until the Chinese showed up (we had pushed pretty much right to the NK/China border) so alot of that last statement is invalid.

      --
      Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    28. Re:I'm sure they're by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      No matter how it played out, there will always be a point where the world says to DPRK, "your move". They would know that on the other side of that move would be complete defeat, deposition, and the ROK taking over the whole peninsula. They would never call that bet because they know they could never win.

    29. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep glass in seconds... this is the insane part; and so fast that there would be no retaliation (or very little) the scary part is that the Chinese don't even like them much and what they would do to retaliate would be far more catastrophic than anything the us would do.

    30. Re:I'm sure they're by EdIII · · Score: 2

      The leadership of the DPRK is the literal embodiment of Orwell's Animal Farm. Disneyland Japan is just one tiny example of the hypocritical luxuries the leadership takes while their people suffer horribly.

    31. Re:I'm sure they're by adamchou · · Score: 1

      i don't completely agree with you on the "your move" concept but the point isn't how we get to "your move" or even what north korea would do if it was their move. the point is that in the event of an all out war, north korea would not hesitate to detonate nuclear devices.

    32. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did no one ever put a nuke in the basement of their embassy? First strike in a big way and might throw up enough radioactive dirt to really fuck people up. If not the embassy basement, maybe the roof?

      Oh wait... I'm sure we have nukes in every American embassy in the world... For just this purpose.

    33. Re:I'm sure they're by mark72005 · · Score: 2

      That's just the point I was making... I don't think they would ever let it get to all-out war, because they know internally that for them, erm, the only winning move is not to play.

    34. Re:I'm sure they're by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, you're quite certain, but why? As a former Nuke/Chem/Bio defense officer with the US Military, I can assure you that an attack on US soil with nuclear weapons would result in the big metaphorical glass parking lot becoming reality. They can take out a city center or two. We can and probably would literally kill 100% of their popualtion, unless our Comander in Chief excercises almost litterally inhuman restraint. We regularly trained back when I was in to drive M1A1 series tanks through four hour old craters just for the scenarios where the government opts to hunt down any and all survivors of the initial exchange and wants them all dead before any get a chance to surrender. We're talking the deaths of every man, woman and potentially every day old infant in North Korea as a matter of official doctrine. Although I have hopes we would do better than absolute genocide, I sure wouldn't bet on it, because the 300 Million + surviving Americans are mostly going to be wondering why we even try to avoid fallout drifting into South Korea or China, let alone what happens to the North. I trained from some of the response plans in the 1970s and they're finally public. We had plans that dedicated a Megaton for every village of over 500 people. Hell, in the 50's we had plans that involved seeding their croplands with radiocobalt isotopes so nothing would grow for a thousand years, and then crashing the nuclear powered, plutonium fueled, unmanned bombers that delivered it into their cities after they had spent a month each flying back and forth over the whole country. We've gotten more precise since then and started giving a damn about not poisoning the whole planet, but not less lethal. North Korea stands to lose literally 100% - it doesn't get any worse than that.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    35. Re:I'm sure they're by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      So... we should actually welcome someone using nukes, so that all the FUD about them can give way to realistic viewpoints?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    36. Re:I'm sure they're by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >8 seconds is too short a time frame. The delivery systems for nuclear weapons take longer than that to reach their targets.

      The 8 second scenario implies that the weapons are *already at* their targets.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    37. Re:I'm sure they're by couchslug · · Score: 2

      Psychologically, it matters to the Norks. They don't think as we do.

      BTW they nearly pushed the UN forces into the sea before reinforcements arrived. The nasty fate of Task Force Smith is still studied as an example of poor preparedness.

      Google "Blue House Raid" for examples of how they do think.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    38. Re:I'm sure they're by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      They are completely sane

      If they really were completely sane, they would understand that their nation would be a lot more prosperous if they abandoned their nuclear ambitions and attempted to rejoin the world community. Heck, even Moammar Qaddafi gets it, and made some pretty huge concessions to get reaccepted on the world stage.

    39. Re:I'm sure they're by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      All the nukes in the world can destroy ONE city, one small metropolis (say 1/4th of New York). That's it.
      Please check your math. I followed your link, and it looks like from their numbers it would take 4 B-83's to totally destroy London, and probably all of New York could be done with 3 if the spacing was just right.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    40. Re:I'm sure they're by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      What makes either of you think he cares about surviving? He's not a young man; he's going to die, and relatively speaking, it's not likely to be that much longer. If he takes it into his head that it's considerably more important to him to create a legacy, well, starting a nuclear war is going to get your pictures in the history books.

      Still, I think that if the threat of nuclear war becomes real that there is suddenly a highly increased chance of a coup that ends with Kim Jong-Il's head being thrown into South Korea. I understand the average people in the country are on the brainwashed side, but surely some of the top military commanders and people in government aren't. His son, for example, purportedly studied in Switzerland until 1998. There are at least a handful of people there who know how that course of action will ultimately end, and may decide that being alive and well in a country that doesn't glow outweighs their loyalty to a man trying to get himself killed for a legacy.

    41. Re:I'm sure they're by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      That is based on the largest deployed US warhead (variable yield, max 1.2 MT). The Russian deployed equivalent is about 25 MT. Also I don't understand what you mean by all the nukes in the world can only destroy a single city? Do you mean that you would need all 23,375 (estimate, 2007) to destroy one city? Or that you could destroy roughly 23,375 cities (one per nuke) out of 36,722 (estimate, 2007)? Neither makes much sense.

      I'll completely agree that we don't have the capacity to render the planet sterile, but I think we could pretty much end the species if we really tried. It would take a lot longer then 8 seconds, but once anarchy, famine, and general radiation poisoning set in there wouldn't be much left.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    42. Re:I'm sure they're by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing personal really, I guess that is the scenario, but calling not committing genocide on a scale shadowing everything that happened in the whole history of manking "literally inhuman restraint" seriously creeps me out. Are you sure your planners haven't returned their membership card to humanity quite some decades ago? Or do you mean by "literally inhuman" that those in power are indeed the Lizard People?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    43. Re:I'm sure they're by turing_m · · Score: 1, Funny

      North Korea stands to lose literally 100% - it doesn't get any worse than that.

      It actually could get worse than that. If you were to cast resurrection on the village that they happened to destroy, not only would they lose 100% but if your gain is their loss (and vice versa) then they would lose the 100% plus some extra percentage.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    44. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smarter than naive Westerners.

      Nonsense. Have you really never heard of von Neumann? Talking about how nuts the North Koreans are is just the Western version of the "Norks" wagging their tiny d#C&$ around in the air claiming to have an ICBM pointed at Washington to keep the proles in the North Korean fields - and those in South Korea who are sick of the American bases and the hairy, smelly, primitive Westerners and miss their family members who are still north of the DMZ - proud of their rough, tough government, standing up to the big bad Americans like a mouse scaring an elephant.

      Apply a little game theory - if the Western press is always full of stories about how Kim is insane, and discussion boards in the US are always going on about how he's going to get his country burned down into a nice glowing green glass surface, what will the reaction be if suddenly Kim ends up dead on the wrong end of a Predator? Kim and his people should soon realize that the "crazy Kim" story is being prepared for when the West takes him with the bravery of being out of range, and Kim will run off to China, begging for help. And the Chinese government will say, "That is a difficult problem indeed, Mr. Kim." And then, suddenly, Kim will realize that he has no friends, and will shut down the fake crazy long enough to no longer be a liability to China. After a year or two, they'll start backing him again on his less shrill complaints, and he'll keep building himself up. The whole thing is a game.

      As for the NK Army never losing a war: sure they did. They were standing with their feet practically in the Yalu River when the Chinese intervened to save them in 1950. The UN couldn't cut the Chinese supply lines without crossing into Manchuria, and the Russians made it clear by their air patrols over Manchuria that *they* would intervene if the UN crossed the Yalu. And if they ever actually were stupid enough to get caught up in a shooting war, they would have their asses handed to them by South Korea.

    45. Re:I'm sure they're by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      It was never true.

    46. Re:I'm sure they're by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Not when you're surviving until the war crimes trial and the automatic hanging. Takes the fun out of it. You sit in a cell, get to see all the press reports demonizing you to the point where nobody will want to share your last name, The guards remind you daily that somebody will manage to smuggle the video of your hanging out to the internet and perverts will masturbate to it, and then Ziiip-Gaaaak!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    47. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are rational, calculating, and smarter than naive Westerners.

      Calculating? Yes. Smarter than naive Westerners? Hardly.

      The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.

      They never lost a war because China stepped in and the hostilities eventually ended with a cease fire. Prior to the Chinese intervention the NK army was getting their shit pushed in. Don't forget that bit.

    48. Re:I'm sure they're by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      The primary objectives of a megalomaniac are survival, legacy and enough control over their successors that they can retain favorable influence over the rewriting of their legacy. Survival makes the others much easier.

    49. Re:I'm sure they're by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      ...Or I could be talking complete nonsense and am simple unaware of the magnitude of NK's regular levels of crazy.

      I get the sense that they're genuinely crazy. But then, I don't know either.

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    50. Re:I'm sure they're by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The Norks have _demonstrated_ in a manner calculated to make the public think they are nuts, hence no necessity for propaganda from the West to that effect. Periodic raids on South Korea being salient examples...

      "Kim and his people should soon realize that the "crazy Kim" story is being prepared for when the West takes him with the bravery of being out of range, and Kim will run off to China, begging for help."

      You have overmuch faith in UAVs and Special Ops, and that doesn't explain why the folks propagating the image of the unstable Norks are the Norks themselves.

      Scaring their southern brothers into funding their fun is a more logical explanation borne out by many years of actual success!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    51. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's just using "literally" according to the Internet's definition, which is "watch out, here comes some hyperbole!"

    52. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scary.

    53. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We regularly trained back when I was in to drive M1A1 series tanks through four hour old craters just for the scenarios where the government opts to hunt down any and all survivors of the initial exchange and wants them all dead before any get a chance to surrender. We're talking the deaths of every man, woman and potentially every day old infant in North Korea as a matter of official doctrine.

      And the government wonders why people turn to anarchism.

    54. Re:I'm sure they're by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      radiocobalt isotopes so nothing would grow for a thousand years

      Its called a "salted bomb"

      nuclear powered, plutonium fueled, unmanned bombers that delivered it into their cities after they had spent a month each flying back and forth over the whole country

      I respect you sir, but your warfare tactical sense is a little dated.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    55. Re:I'm sure they're by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      But I have +15 wisdom and +10 intelligence and would cast "Sanctuary"

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    56. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That infographic is silly enough to be rejected by the editors of USA Today. You don't have to evenly distribute the nukes, because the population isn't evenly distributed. Hit a few hundred key cities, and you wipe out civilization.

    57. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would be next to impossible for him to do, the military is huge and powerful and they know they would be out of work if the country opened up

    58. Re:I'm sure they're by 14erCleaner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      nuclear powered, plutonium fueled, unmanned bombers

      You know, I thought you were serious until you put this part in. Now I'm just laughing... We barely have "unmanned bombers" now, much less in the 50's.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    59. Re:I'm sure they're by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      But I have +15 wisdom and +10 intelligence and would cast "Sanctuary"

      Not good enough. They'd have to cast "anti-matter-powered defensive force field" or something like that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    60. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they *want* you to think.

    61. Re:I'm sure they're by Kagura · · Score: 5, Informative

      The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.

      This is completely false. The North Korean military was completely and utterly routed to the Chinese side of the border in almost every single China-DPRK border province. North Korea was entirely defeated when 300,000 Chinese troops moved at night under orders of strict silence to repel the joint American and South Korean forces that were standing just on the south side of the Yalu and Tumen rivers.

      Then there are the Crab Wars of the 1990s between South Korea and North Korea. There were a small number of victories on the littoral seas in the beginning for North Korea, but they soon began losing every skirmish they started and had to stop provoking the losses of their own ships. The DPRK lost this entire campaign.

    62. Re:I'm sure they're by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Any idea when the local stores will start carrying Radaway? Id like to stock up.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    63. Re:I'm sure they're by felix+rayman · · Score: 1

      The leaders of every government on earth are the literal embodiment of Orwell's Animal Farm. What is it when the US government praises Press Freedom Day while at the same time leaders of that government are calling for the assassination of a particularly inconvenient member of the press? Every government on earth. Real change starts at home.

    64. Re:I'm sure they're by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What do you expect from someone who has "ill" in his name?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    65. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you think it's kinda cool and cute when somebody replaces 'could' with 'would'? They are apparently going nuke Japanese as well. How adorable of them! Perhaps they hate Pokemons. Anybody who hates Pokemons should not be trusted with nucular, let alone nuclear weapons, even if their colour is pinkish blue.

      I wonder how much contamination will be released into the nearby fishing areas even if the antimissile systems succeed in causing the shrinkage of the NK uranium balls..

    66. Re:I'm sure they're by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      I would think that we have enough satellites taking millions of pictures of North Korea on a daily basis. I would think that we could be flying b-2 bombers along the border in South Korean air space so that there would be several flying at all times. These could turn and get to any part of North Korea within minutes of any suspicious effort on the North Koreans part. If there is anyway the North Korean could nuke an American city than we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening. I really think that this is nothing more than the leadership blowing off some steam. Kim Jong Ill is not a super human so he would need the cooperation of thousands of North Korean. If he ever comes close to ordering a nuclear strike anywhere in the world, I would hope that someone in North Korea has the guts to put a bullet in his head.

    67. Re:I'm sure they're by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Killing enough humans that we were back to the stone age, and might or might not survive as a species? Sure, if all those nukes devoted to destroying other nukes were all used to hit population centers.

      There'd be no danger of falling back to the stone age, or of dying out as a species, even if every City of more than 100,000 population in the world were hit. There are more people living outside cities today than there were alive in all the world 500 years ago...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    68. Re:I'm sure they're by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      It's not genocide, there are other Koreans.

    69. Re:I'm sure they're by turkeydance · · Score: 0

      ok...NK loses all. game over. so? what does SK lose? my point: NK has NOTHING to lose. NK's mid-range artillery will incinerate Seoul. nukes? ok, just for fun. let's see if they work. as WikiLeaks says: "cut the head off the snake." the Great Leader is behind the curtain of OZ.

    70. Re:I'm sure they're by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the radius given for the blast is the complete destruction radius, the radius at which humans burst into flames is about 6-7 times that number.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    71. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What embassy???

    72. Re:I'm sure they're by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      If somebody WILLINGLY NUKES YOUR NATION, YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN, YOUR FAMILY, are you really going to do nothing? And do you think that Americans will ask Obama to do nothing? I can tell you that Obama would no doubt order the obliteration of the NK command. And likewise, if he did not, I would gladdly plug one in him and expect that Biden would finish the job that Obama was expected to do. And if he did not, then somebody else would do the same.

      Keep in mind that I voted for Obama. I will stand with him on a lot of this because he inherited the 3rd worse situation that America has ever known (GD neo-cons; send them all to NK BEFORE we send in the nukes).
      HOWEVER, if the man does not have the spine, balls to protect our nation when it gets attacked by nukes, then I want him gone quickly.

      In addition, I have in-laws in SK. I suspect that when a missile is sent to attack America, that at least 3-5 would be sent into SK. More importantly, at this time,NK is probably sending one up one of their tunnels and priming it to blow. Likewise, the same with a sub. If I find out that my in-laws, and possibly my twin, sister-in-law, and 2 nephews are nuked, then yes, by god, I want NK GONE ONCE AND FOR ALL.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    73. Re:I'm sure they're by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      Having plans like this public and running these drills hopefully means we never have to find out.

      And destroying without a shadow of a doubt North Korea's ability to hit us with another Nuke probably means such overkill with nuclear bombardment of the possible silo locations that almost nobody in North Korea would survive.

      I never want to find out just how far we would go in that scenario, but I imagine it's far.

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    74. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone shot a bow at you, and you had a gun...

    75. Re:I'm sure they're by HBI · · Score: 1

      Think about what happens when Seattle and San Francisco cease to exist. Do you think that US public opinion will be mollified by anything short of a parking lot?

      This is why I find the left to be contemptible. Against all the evidence of history, they think things can be different than in the past when such an event occurs. Then, you even have the unmitigated gall to call the likely scenario's implementors inhuman. How lame. Nothing could be more human than to respond in kind, but with greater severity. The examples are too obvious to bother listing.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    76. Re:I'm sure they're by andoman2000 · · Score: 0

      We were working on these well before modern times and 1950 to 1960 sounds about right. http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz_3.html

    77. Re:I'm sure they're by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      I can't believe that you're trying to frame "not committing genocide" including, in the GGP's own words, every "day old infant", as "going to do nothing".

      For fuck's sake.

    78. Re:I'm sure they're by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 2

      People on Slashdot don't get it at all you really believe in some Pollyanna ideal that people in the world love each other. With someone like North Korea it is kill or be killed show no mercy because they will certainly show you no quarter. If you don't understand that there are people out there still brutish and uncivilized then you are very naive. And hopefully someone so naive is not in charge when that time comes.

      One could argue that we are still uncivilized and brutish and that is to some degree true because that is how the world STILL works you must protect you and yours or others WILL take it from you and have their way with it.

      Power talks and UN resolutions do squat.

    79. Re:I'm sure they're by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 1

      big mistake, you think nukes are like erasers that make a blank dot for their radius of destruction? While a one megaton bomb detonated at optimum altitude will make 300 kilometer per hour winds at 6.5 kilometers. And the millions of people killed in a circle that size on a large city will be only 10% of those killed over the next month because of fallout. There are tens of thousands of megatons of yield in the world's stockpiles, deaths would depend on locations, altitudes and weather, could be hundreds of millions or more than six billion.

    80. Re:I'm sure they're by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Think about what happens when Seattle and San Francisco cease to exist. Do you think that US public opinion will be mollified by anything short of a parking lot?

      I think a good portion of the American population is smart enough to know that the impoverished NK citizenry have jack to do with the NK government and military. Attacking all known military and government locations, that would be a fairly understandable response to a nuclear attack. Attacking every backwater and podunk in NK? Not reasonable.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    81. Re:I'm sure they're by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 1

      reading about some of the modeling of nuclear wars, saw discussion of a variable for casualties in large exchange, the extent of firestorms in a war against populated cities, the big cities won't get just one bomb, and firestorms from one might be fanned by another

    82. Re:I'm sure they're by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      I disagree on the hesitation part. I think it's 99% bluff for political purposes. While the NK leadership is weak and arguably stupid, I stop short of thinking they are actually 100% bugfuck insane. Which is what it would take to pull that trigger.

    83. Re:I'm sure they're by Kakari · · Score: 1

      There was an opinion piece in the Washington Post recently talking about this very thing (under point 1). Basically the punchline is that we want to avert them really being crazy, so we do a little something, they do less than we want and things are copacetic again for a time. Rinse, repeat every decade.

      Would this eventually get to an unsustainable point? Perhaps. Personally, I think we'll see at least another few decades of this (i.e. at least one or two with the youngest son) but I hope that by then reunification will be under way.

    84. Re:I'm sure they're by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, imagine if somebody could walk away with 100 million dollars, would they do ? Many would! You KNOW that many would.
      Well, In NK, the top leadership have most of what they want. Hell, they are driving new mercedes. They have Rolls Royce there. They have homes that would be equal to what millionaires have here. And it is free for the taking. So, would walking away with 100 million dollars do for you? Nothing.

      Now, imagine if you could kill somebody and make lots of gains, with little repercussion? Would you do it? Few would. Part of that is because they would wonder if there really was so little of repercussions. They will constantly wonder if they will be held accountable. BUT, if they KNOW that they will be held accountable, then VERY FEW WOULD DO IT.
      Finally, if somebody launches a nuke against the USA, or a NATO nation, and the KNOWN response will be TOTAL ANNIHILATION OF ALL LEADERS AND EVERY MEMBER OF THEIR FAMILIES, and possibly their nation, do you think that OTHER nations will try that? Think that Iran, Burma, and now Venezuela will try it? DO you think that China will do it (who is the only major nation that is in active production of nuke warheads)? Nope.

      Since MAD can not work here, then we need for every small nation to understand that ANY USE OF A NUKE WILL MEAN THEIR TOTAL DESTRUCTION. Then and only then, will you not see any of these nations use one.

      But if NK believes that they can send one into SK and America will do nothing, do you think that NK would send one in? I KNOW that they would.

      If you really wish to avoid war, then make certain that the other side knows that war will mean their total annihilation. BTW, if NK does attack and we do nothing, then Iran will be next to attack. And it will occur quickly.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    85. Re:I'm sure they're by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, you can't have that both ways. An "optimum altitude" air burst will definitely maximize lethality for the initial blast. However, at the same time it minimizes fallout. Fallout occurs primarily from ground bursts, which do less overall damage from the initial explosion.

      To perhaps oversimplify a bit: Air burst = quick kill, maximum blast damage, minimal fallout. Ground burst = fewer killed and less structure damage in the initial explosion, but lingering death from fallout.

    86. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've also got to consider that back in the 1950's, the MiG-15's had close to parity with the F-86's. In flight refueling was still in the research stage, so fighters couldn't loiter long enough to keep air dominance even if they got it. And SAM's and radar directed guns were a new factor at the time. There weren't tactics to effectively deal with them then. Being that the UN had difficulty getting anything resembling a bomber into the theater meant the NK's had the advantage to rush in with the ground war. Since there was no air dominance, the UN forces had nothing that could effectively harass ground movements or affect the supply chain.

      Nowadays, if it's kept conventional NK's only get to make one sucker punch with their artillery. (Heck, even with the nukes it's still pretty much the same strategy. Just potentially messier in outcome.) Because after that, sub based missiles and MLRS further south in SK will mop up the SAM sites rather quick. Once that's done, the opening is made. Then the fighters, bombers, and attack helicopters would pretty much have free reign to pick off anything that moves and looks like a threat. If you're NK, you could send your million man army to rush, but into what? Minefields and carpet bombing? What would be left of them? Is there wisdom in that?

      The fact that we'd rather not see Seoul left as smoking ruins is the only thing that allows NK to continue with their shenanigans. And frankly we're getting tired. Even the SK's themselves are about willing call that bluff and risk it at this point.

    87. Re:I'm sure they're by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I can understand the desire to have revenge on those people who ordered and carried out the attack. But NK is not a hivemind. Most of its people are slaves and know it.

    88. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the part where he said the North LEADERSHIP wants to remain prosperous. They'd be the first to hang should the N.K government change.

    89. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didnt mention the potential for a nuclear winter which could finish off civilization.

    90. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comments read like War Nerd

    91. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, by your zealous defense of the epitome of fail strategy, you believe the "Norks" have any hope whatsoever against any top 10 modern military, minus their own?
      They're all numbers, and even those numbers are a sad sad, malnourished, undertrained, 1960s joke.
      Please atleast make some kind of sense if you're playing devil's advocate.
      They're a hilarious joke.

    92. Re:I'm sure they're by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      As the other poster replying to you stated quite correctly, I never implied doing nothing. Of course, if someone willingly nuked my country, I would wish to see retaliation. I would wish to see them conquered, disarmed, their military forever removed, every single member of their government dragged to a quick tribunal and shot. That is still quite different from killing everyone down to every newborn child.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    93. Re:I'm sure they're by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I understand perfectly fine that there are people out there still being brutish and uncivilized. Considering "not killing everyone down to the last newborn" an act of inhuman restraint is a quite perfect example for it. What the hell is it with the false dichotomies? There are ways between "nuke em till they glow and shoot em in the dark" and "sing kumbaya".

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    94. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you don't think much of the religious right, either. (Assuming that the religious right would apply the teachings of Jesus to the situation.)

    95. Re:I'm sure they're by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1
      Unmitigated gall, eh? Also interesting that opposing genocide on a never seen before scale automatically puts me on the left. Nice worldview you got there, quite differentiated.

      Listen, man. Retaliation is natural, of course. Retaliation is even necessary in this scenario, there is no question. But nuking a country to kill every inhabitant not only makes you a barbarian, it makes you an enemy of humanity.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    96. Re:I'm sure they're by timeOday · · Score: 1

      They don't mean any of this seriously.

      The problem with brinksmanship though is that sometimes both sides get locked into calling the others' bluff. If it gets to a point where neither side can back down without losing face, then you have a good chance of something terrible happening, for no real reason at all.

    97. Re:I'm sure they're by timeOday · · Score: 1

      With someone like North Korea it is kill or be killed show no mercy because they will certainly show you no quarter.

      Gee, where have I heard that before? A) poorly-written movies, and B) just before the ceasefire in the Korean War, about 60 years ago. And yet, according to you, it's impossible, the Reds are straining at the leash and the ceasefire will never last into 1954.

    98. Re:I'm sure they're by Shauni · · Score: 1

      Given that that's pretty much what went down with Glorious Leader Mk II, you're very likely to be correct.

      NK is a rational actor. Were it not, this all would have been over with decades ago.

      All the people in NK, though, are not necessarily so, and they've been fed NK Koolaid for decades. Therein lies the problem...

    99. Re:I'm sure they're by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      NK Leadership would be a lot more powerful and prosperous if their country was more powerful and prosperous.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    100. Re:I'm sure they're by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Actually, most North Koreans wholeheartedly support their government. I've met several IRL and online, and at the World Expo, and they've all had pretty firm opinions on the subject. Saying North Koreans want to be free is like saying Chinese want democracy: it's a fiction of the West and has fuck-all to do with reality on the ground.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    101. Re:I'm sure they're by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I'd be careful quoting Animal Farm if I were you. You know George Orwell wrote the book based on his experiences in real-life dyed-in-the-wool socialism as it was actually practiced in reality? State-controlled media is not a reality in America.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    102. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone systematically cuts off your fingers, and are going for more, what exactly are you thinking? Are you think, "Damn, I might kill this person if I strike back."

      That's what he means. Most people, even intelligent, patient, enlightened ones, would be hard pressed not to take the knife away and shove it into their attacker somewhere fatal.

      Personally, I was a little creeped out by what he said too until i thought about it for 5 seconds. We're talking major mulitple city centers. Imagine LA or Seattle, gone. And you know there's more to come, either immediately, or because NK is crazy, has shown they will do it, because they HAVE done it.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the Prez hit the button smiling.

    103. Re:I'm sure they're by felix+rayman · · Score: 1

      If Judith Miller isn't an example of "state-controlled media" I don't know what is.

    104. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea may have a nuke but they have no capacity to deliver it. There's a fair bit between digging a hole in the ground and detonating a test nuke and actually bombing someone with it. The technology needs to be miniaturized to fit in a missile (or at best, the cargo hold of a plane). Their current missile technology allows them to plonk duds half way in the sea of Japan. And when they suggest nuclear war won't be confined to the Korean peninsula it's a safer bet they're talking about Japan next door and not the US on the other side of the globe. Relax and don't have any Yen in your wallet.

    105. Re:I'm sure they're by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      He sucks fish pee!

      And Scooter's the Aquaman of the Muppet Babies.

    106. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all due respect to your relatives in the ROK, your voice is obviously not one of objectivity.

      And for a portrayal of a US President with real balls, I suggest you watch this.

    107. Re:I'm sure they're by aynoknman · · Score: 1

      ...Or I could be talking complete nonsense and am simple unaware of the magnitude of NK's regular levels of crazy.

      I get the sense that they're genuinely crazy. But then, I don't know either.

      Nobody who knows can say. Re-education is not very pleasant.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    108. Re:I'm sure they're by tpage · · Score: 1

      You seem very stupid to me, beg pardon. You have the Rambo mentality, so common among E1 sailors. So, America can decimate North Korea, right? Well, how did we do in the 1950's? Did we win? Well, Rambo, did we? ......No? Who intervened? Yes, China intervened. And in 2010, they have the Russians on their side, too. Can we decimate all of Russia and China, and not get decimated in return? Well, Rambo, is it that simple?

    109. Re:I'm sure they're by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Even the 40,000 or so warheads at the height of the Cold War aren't that effective."

      SHIT.

      Where's that video of the bomb tests from conception of the nuke to 2009?

      From the CW era alone the entire land surface area on earth could've been wiped out with favorable fallout conditions.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    110. Re:I'm sure they're by cavebison · · Score: 1

      This is still terrifying obviously, but it's nowhere near the fictional Armageddon that many people associate with the words "nuclear war".

      True. In fact, thinking long term, it would likely be beneficial to future generations. As we're going, all major fish stocks will be depleted in 50 years, in which time we also need to roughly double global food production to avoid famine for most of the population. There's increasing waste, pollution, ocean acidification even if you don't believe in climate change per se, and an energy crisis if we can't soon and successfully replace coal & oil for base load, not to mention the million other things we use petroleum for.

      At the same time, now that the chips are down and major social and economic changes are required, our much-lauded Capitalism and Democracy look more and more like engines of short term self-interest that are, ironically, unable to make them. I mean, the astoundingly rapid changes made since the Industrial Revolution were not powered by high ideals of freedom and wealth for all, but motivations more or less the complete opposite. You could say we run on "managed self-interest". But it's not being managed well for a world of limited space and resources, and time is running out to change.

      In brief, our problems are systemic, endemic and epidemic. Solutions are slow to arrive and our very culture works against most solutions being implemented at all. We're approaching a cliff with a great deal of momentum and denial.

      However, there is an unpleasant solution. With most major cities and industry gone from a nuclear exchange, one may look forward to a more sustainable world and, assumedly, a wiser one, after a period of suffering and rebuilding. Post-Apocalypse World won't be full of scary mutants, but just as mass-graves remind us today of things we need to avoid, so too will a few well-placed glowing craters.

      We need a crash course on how to live together on a single planet, because we're simply taking too long to learn how. To learn that countries are redundant concepts, party politics is worse than useless for managing the future, and our way of picking leaders (whether for companies or governments) attracts the wrong personality types.

      A world struggling to recover from mutual destruction will likely be a better one in the end. Human beings tend to change their behaviour only after making mistakes. And we live in an age where we need a few major paradigm shifts if we want to survive long term. From the ways we run societies and manage populations, to the whole idea of commerce, wealth and power. As much as we wish it would, it's not going change by itself. Not in time.

      So, if it's a choice between business as usual leading to millions dead and a globally wrecked ecosystem, or nuclear war leading to millions dead and chance for a wiser rebuild from the ashes, I would reluctantly have to vote for the latter, even if I won't be around to see it.

    111. Re:I'm sure they're by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      If this is the true quality of the top commanders in USA's army is no wonder that they have their ass kicked by a crappy rag tag army in Iraq and Afganistan. USA plays currently by the "madman's doctrine", the north koreans are playing the same because they have a several million hostages in Seoul that enables them to do so.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    112. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Dr Srangelove was released in 1964, over 25 years before the fall of the Soviet Union. It was also base[sic] on a book called Red Alert, which was earlier again.

      --
      FGD 135
    113. Re:I'm sure they're by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Nuclear arsenals were so large because of the "counter force" strategy of winning my blasting your opponents arsenal while retaining some yourself. With sub,arine launched missiles this because impossible to achieve, and the lower accuracy of sub-launched missiles made hitting hardened silos even more unlikely to succeed (both reducing the effectiveness of emplyoing a first strike on an opponent, and reducing the effect of a first strike made against you - decreasing the need to "launch on warning" which was very risky). The strategy of destroying cities in "counter value" strikes was not actually the main objective, although was an option. Killing an opponents population was not the best way to win a nuclear war. The idea was to destroy their forces and then *threaten* the cities. You would win without actually having to do it - but that isn't as dramatic as everyone dying in a nuclear winter so people don't talk about it or even bother to find out. It is actually unlikely that more than a few cities would have been destroyed (as awful as that is), so the whole "wiping ourselves out" was possible but not actually very probably (the largely uninhabited missile silos in the steppes and praries would have been roasted pretty hard - with flow on environmental effects - but that is not actually enough to cause extinction).

    114. Re:I'm sure they're by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Calculating yes. Smarter than Westerners, no. They achieve tactical gains but actually slowly have been losing strategically. The South Koreans are starting to close up to the North (it was different even a few years ago). Once the South hardens its hearts it is inevitable the North will lose. The Norks have fewer resources, allies, population. The military balance is shifting in favor of the South and the will to fight is increasing in the South and decreasing in the North. Remember Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world in 1991 and was battle tested and they were fighting for their country but they were still taken apart by a fraction of America and the West's combat power (which is only got better in the last two decades). The Norks are being retards by playing bully, and ruining their own future. Shame you don't know history. The NK Army was smashed in the Korean War, and only the massive intervention of the Chinese (and supplies from the Soviet Union) stabilised the situation. Neither of them will save the North now. Shame that the Norks still believe their own bullshit (as you appear also to do). The reality is that the South is running out of patience and the North is running out of time (from an internal implosion, not an insurrection but simply an inability of the government to function - just as the much more mighty Soviet Union eventually fell apart).

    115. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US foreign policy? Lucky the European parliament's representative for foreign policy, Catherine Ashton, is pushing very hard to try and get all of Europe to adopt much more US foreign policy then.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/16/us-ally-eu-foreign-policy

      obviously the complete opposite of the wish of the European people (Except possibly the ones in power). Why of why is someone with those views in that job?

    116. Re:I'm sure they're by Emperor+Shaddam+IV · · Score: 1

      "They are rational, calculating, and smarter than naive Westerners."

      Huh??? If they are "rational, calculating, and smarter than naive Westerners", why are they building a huge hotel when:
      1. nobody wants to even visit North Korea.
      2. even if you want to visit they probably won't let you in anyway?

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

      You are correct that they are a troll and great at playing the Cold War game and I'm sure the average North Korean is as intelligent as anyone else. But I would have to say that the leadership in North Korea is neither intelligent or rational or calculating. they tend to behave "childishly" ( hey, look at me, my people are starving, but I got nukes! I got nukes! ) and they are just trying to maintain power using the old cold war games in a different world.

      But its not 1960, 1970 or 1980 anymore. I doubt the Chinese or any of the countries that were part of the former Soviet Union would help them out if it came to war. In addition, I doubt their military would fair well at all against the more modern South Korean forces, especially with help from the US and other allies. Its not a "1950's" world anymore. A large army doesn't always win wars. For example, the Iraqis had a large amount of troops and the republican guard, but moral doesn't hold up very well when your solders are attacked by much more modern equipment.

      The North Korean leadership is just another relic of the cold war. A "pseudo-communist" fascist dictatorship that used to be propped up by the former Soviet Union and China that is becoming less and less relevant. T

    117. Re:I'm sure they're by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is pointlessly insane. Blaming North Koreans for being the slaves of the psychopathic minority that actually control the country is equally insane as that leadership. Of course the North Korea leadership will seek to kill as much of their own population as well as the rest of humanity as they can, precisely because they are insane psychopaths.

      Clearly as with any autocracy the only viable solution is the rapid elimination of the leadership to issues any 'scorched earth' type of instructions. In the interim of course that threat means that their most viable means of delivering weapons of mass destruction should be constrained, all North Korea flagged merchant vessel should be prevented from leaving North Korean waters as that is their only real means of delivering weapons of mass destruction.

      In ancient times you freed the slaves and killed the masters, to declare war upon the slaves just makes you as inhumane as their masters. You do not seek to protect humanity by becoming the enemy of humanity.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    118. Re:I'm sure they're by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that as development has allowed the population to expand, the people alive today are heavily reliant on this technology and infrastructure. Without and enormous supply of energy many regions would be uninhabitable. Without factories and infrastructure we lose our capability of intense farming and many would starve. Common diseases which are perfectly treatable today would kill because of a lack of medical infrastructure. And without sanitation many of the more nasty diseases would return. Child mortality would skyrocket. Those who don't freeze, starve or die of disease would be living from subsistence farming and would have little capability of rebuilding the infrastructure that once was.

      In any case, there are such a huge number of unknown and chaotic effects on the development of humans that it's basically impossible to safely predict any outcome

    119. Re:I'm sure they're by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I never said my retelling of the story was trustworthy. I just passed on the legend as I heard it.

    120. Re:I'm sure they're by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      Wow, you literally say literally all the time.

    121. Re:I'm sure they're by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that's not how it works. Starvation, sickness, poor living conditions, social upheaval are the major killers in the post nuclear strike world. Initial losses would be far less.

      Read; http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html (and following, 102, 103 etc.) or watch "Threads" etc. for a more realistic treatment. "On the beach" for all it's qualities, is not a realistic treatment.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    122. Re:I'm sure they're by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Then you don't know what is. State-controlled media would be like having a Department of Press, right alongside Defense, Agriculture, and so on. Think of the BBC or Xinhua News as examples that exist today.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    123. Re:I'm sure they're by M4n · · Score: 1

      I think this has been all over the news for the last few months now

      --
      In space no-one can hear your vuvuzela.
    124. Re:I'm sure they're by Deefburger · · Score: 1

      The problem that seems to always rear it's ugly head is the "political will" that requires that "something be done". No Politician ever walks away from an opportunity to go down in history for doing something. If the button gets pressed, it's because a politician did something to push it.

      --
      Most people are mostly good most of the time.
    125. Re:I'm sure they're by sphealey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > You know, I thought you were serious until you put this part in.
      > Now I'm just laughing... We barely have "unmanned bombers"
      > now, much less in the 50's.

      It was called Project Pluto, although IIRC there was a different name for the airplane/cruise missile that was to use the Pluto ramjet. After spending some time working on precision targeting systems, the designers realized that the weapon didn't need to hit any specific target; it just needed to fly back and forth over the enemy's terrain at low altitude where the combination of supersonic shock waves, direct radiation, and exhaust fallout would do more than enough damage. The autopilots of the 1950s were more than sufficient for that task.

      The project was canceled in part due to concerns about its existence being overly proactive (as stated in the Wikipedia article), but also because the designers finally realized that even in the non-eco 1950s there would be nowhere on the planet that they could test it.

      sPh

    126. Re:I'm sure they're by Draek · · Score: 1

      If you think the BBC is an example of state-controlled media, it's you who doesn't know what you're talking about.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    127. Re:I'm sure they're by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yep, my fear is that the N. Korean military looks at Dear Jung Leader #3 and decides they are fucked. So rather than allow themselves to be quietly absorbed into S. Korea and out on their non-productive asses, the N. Korean military might feel they might as well go out with a bang.

      I also don't think the U.S. would use nukes on N. Korea even if N. Korea used them. The reason: radioactive fallout. It would have a nasty tendency to drift over soon to be not-so-friendly nations. It would be quite a disaster if fallout from one of our nukes took out half the pop. of Japan, what would the U.S. say: ooopsie, we made a smelly?

    128. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is the true quality of the top commanders in USA's army is no wonder that they have their ass kicked by a crappy rag tag army in Iraq and Afganistan. USA plays currently by the "madman's doctrine", the north koreans are playing the same because they have a several million hostages in Seoul that enables them to do so.

      The problem is that the commanders on the ground are beholden to politicians who have never served. Getting our ass kicked? I think not.. or, you truly have not read the statistics of combatants/insurgents killed (excluding civies) vs allied losses. They really need to take the muzzle off of the military.

      The mistake was occupation. This should have been a standup fight, and any village or town found harboring combatants should have been hit with a thermobaric. You want to live? Don't be harboring our enemies. Full stop.

    129. Re:I'm sure they're by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Exponentially annoying, isn't it?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    130. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. What they just announced was that the entire nuclear world has justification to glass the entire country of North Korea on a hair-trigger alarm.

    131. Re:I'm sure they're by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      And you should be more careful to not give away that you've actually not read anything by George Orwell, except maybe Animal Farm and a few choice quotes used by the right-wing echo chamber.

      Orwell modelled Animal Farm on the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent Stalinism; he was, however, quite open that this was not meant as an exclusive fit.

      He also was more than clear that this was in no way a repudiation in his belief in democratic Socialism, which he fervently believed in until his death.

      You see, I have read all his essays.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    132. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      team america, fuck yeah!

    133. Re:I'm sure they're by CompressedAir · · Score: 2

      He's talking about Project Pluto, which you can read about on Wikipedia. It was canceled for being "too provocative" after several technical milestones were met.

    134. Re:I'm sure they're by SuperDre · · Score: 0

      And with a statement like that you immediatly know why other countries have just as much right to have nuclearweapons as the US does.. There is only one country in the world that ever (unnecessary) used nuclear weapons against another country, and it's THAT same country which threatens other countries about their innitiation into nuclear weapon development.. I'm certainly against nuclear wepaons, but as long as the US still has (and still are producing) nuclear weapons, other countries have just as much right to do so too.. Also I don't like the North korean stance, but South korea and the US are provoking them with their unnecessary military excercises.. To me as an european it all seems too much like the US and the SK are provoking NK with the intent on NK striking first so they can say heee we didn't start the war even though they actually did.. A wise decssion would not to hold military excercises near NK (sea)borders (there is really no need for that unless you actually want to provoke). We may not like the leaders of NK and their reign over their country, but provoking them to make the first strike is even more hypocritically, especially from the US which has helped to overrun enough goverments with even worse goverments.. (remember Irac for instance)...

    135. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea I know it creeps you out and it should. but this guy is telling the truth. I know I was on boomers. Yes the planners and people that have the power have no regrates in turning any place into a glass parking lot. Yes they turned in their humanity cards decades ago. If you think any government is worried about your life or mine you are sadly mistaken. We're just a number in a body count.

    136. Re:I'm sure they're by laughing_badger · · Score: 1

      The V1 'Doodlebug' shows that this technology was achievable, if desired. The OP is talking about theoretical plans that never made it anywhere near implementation -- as you indicate, they are ridiculous. However, the ability to fly a predetermined flight plan with a crash into a city at the end, powered by an radioisotope to electric powerplant is reasonable.

      --
      Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    137. Re:I'm sure they're by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Insanity is not stupidity

    138. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly believe that North Korea won't sell nukes to Iran? Do you honestly believe that Iran won't use them? Do you think Iran can't hit the United States? Iran is deploying medium range missiles in Venezuela as I type. The US is in range.

      We are on the brink of World War III, and I hope that idiots like you don't get a lot of people killed.

    139. Re:I'm sure they're by BorelHendrake · · Score: 1

      Then it may surprise you to learn that during WWII there were unmanned B-17 bombers filled with explosives flown via remote control from other bombers which were intended to fly into their large value targets... As I recall, they tried it a couple of times and from what I remember didn't have a whole lot of success so I would not dismiss the idea out of hand...

    140. Re:I'm sure they're by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      I've been reading it as actually _wanting_ a short war, so they can arrange for the outgoing leader to be seen to die defending his people (or at least while defending his people) rather than just because of post-stroke complications. Nuclear threats are a bit far for that though, so my little theory might have just been scuppered.

    141. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they don't think like you do so NEVER take North Korean propaganda at face value.

      Seriously? As it is now, the words have effectively placed the entire free world into a mode of requiring something to be done.
      This doesn't always involve war, it can involve black ops activities.

    142. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    143. Re:I'm sure they're by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      What a load of fascist fantasy bullshit. Your writing is so wrong on so many levels for a supposed former "Nuke/ChemBio defence officer":

      Here are some of the obvious defects:

      • The US lets junior and non-planning officers see its nuclear war plans. Yeah right.
      • The US had a lot of megaton weapons. Simply not true. Smaller weapons were preferred.
      • The US would nuke every hamlet with a "population over 500". What would that achieve? A counterforce strategy may target cities but usually for petroleum refining and storage facilities, logistics hubs, shipyards and other means of waging war. Destroying cities was collateral and deliberate targeting seems only to be considered as a means of breaking the enemy's will, not as an end in itself.
      • The megaton weapons the US did have was for *counterforce* strikes. The whole point of these was to preserve them. Using them on Korean villages and not keeping them for use against Soviet and Chinese ICBMs is simply rubbish.
      • Most of the warheads the US had were low-yield tact nukes for the Honest John and variable-yield B61 gravity bomb etc. There weren't actually that many ICBM and SLBM compared to tac nukes.
      • "Glassing" (what a rabid warmongering word that is) North Korea extensively is more likely to bring in the ire of Russia, China, and the rest of the World (eg. wavering French commitment to unified NATO command). The US planners would try use as few nukes to achieve their objective, nor many.

      Sure, all armies trained on the nuclear battlefield to maneuver near recent explosions to maximize exploitation of the effects. Doesn't mean the US was going to zap cities willy-nilly with "Metaton" weapons as you write.

    144. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The 8 second scenario implies that the weapons are *already at* their targets.

      Yep. The USA and Russia have a deal - each will detonate their own warheads in the silos because the result will be the same, and it saves on missile maintenance costs.

    145. Re:I'm sure they're by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      Time to call their bluff. Unlike the mess in the middle east I think this problem could be taken care of quite quickly. A shock and awe campaign to neutralise the military infrastructure would see the regular army dismantled pretty quickly, then the South Koreans can go in take over and occupy permanently. This is the fight we should've had post 9/11, not that debacle we're still embroiled in.

    146. Re:I'm sure they're by lennier · · Score: 1

      The project was canceled in part due to concerns about its existence being overly proactive

      Homer: I know I can come off a little proactive, and for that I'm sorry. But if everyone could find a place in their hearts for the little exposed-plutonium-core nuclear death cruise missile that nobody wanted, I know we can make them laugh and cry until we grow old together.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    147. Re:I'm sure they're by sphealey · · Score: 1

      Ok, that was a particularly egregious typo. Proactive should be "provocative".

      sPh

    148. Re:I'm sure they're by sco08y · · Score: 1

      For the record, that wasn't my math, I was responding to it by pointing out (rather obliquely I guess) that the larger radius of contamination can be used to greater effect than by trying to blast every individual person to smithereens.

    149. Re:I'm sure they're by sco08y · · Score: 1

      That infographic is silly enough to be rejected by the editors of USA Today.

      To put that in perspective, to be rejected by USA Today we're talking about Monty Python levels of silly, easily.

    150. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, when you tell people we have enough nukes to "blow up the world several times," they're imagining something like the Death Star destroying Alderaan. It's better to be clear about that "complete destruction" means only the surface of the planet. All the major cities, many minor ones, and all the habitable areas would be devoid of life, but the Earth itself would still be in one piece.

    151. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Underground bunkers are no longer an issue for us. We have come up with a few creative ways to get around this problem. Such as The nuclear bunker buster or the more creative less radioactive version, Rod From God. Now it could be argued that the rod from god method is just science fiction, and there is no evidence that it was ever developed in reality, but given our (the US) military spending levels, I'm more of the opinion that if we the public know about it, it either already exists and is available for use, thus we are allowed to know about it, or it has been proved to be non practical and they don't care if we know about it. There is an international law about weapons of mass destruction in space, but no laws about conventional weapons, or for that matter, just a lump of tungsten falling from the sky. Maybe I just have too much faith in our military, but I think its naive to believe that we have been in space for 50 years and not one nation has put any weapons at all in the ultimate high ground.

    152. Re:I'm sure they're by raphael75 · · Score: 0

      Assange is not a US citizen, and therefore does not have the freedoms granted by the US Constitution.

    153. Re:I'm sure they're by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. It specifically mentions some protection for rights which are presumed to be inherent and can't be granted by any government - everyone in the world has them.

  2. Re:This is tech news? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    lots of tech in that region.

    lots of PS3s, iPods and other toys that would not stand up well to nuclear war.

  3. Do not feed the trolls by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2

    Is this really any different from the rhetoric they've been using for the past however-many years now?

    I wouldn't be eager for the war to actually heat up these days, though. Hyundai's been making some pretty spiffy cars lately; be a shame to have their production interrupted.

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
    1. Re:Do not feed the trolls by peragrin · · Score: 2

      that's the problem with DPRK, they are one giant troll and when they don't think they are getting enough attention they do something so bizarre you have to respond.

      So the DPRK is a troll with guns, who will use them. When the old man dies they will probably sink a few ships and lob artillery shells for fun for a few days, and blame it all on the USA.

      China is the only country they listen too, so China has always defended DPRK, But even China is getting tired of the circular recursion. Like Peace in the middle east, peace in Korea can never be achieved.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Do not feed the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the problem with DPRK, they are one giant troll and when they don't think they are getting enough attention they do something so bizarre you have to respond.

      So the DPRK is a troll with guns, who will use them. When the old man dies they will probably sink a few ships and lob artillery shells for fun for a few days, and blame it all on the USA.

      China is the only country they listen too, so China has always defended DPRK, But even China is getting tired of the circular recursion. Like Peace in the middle east, peace in Korea can never be achieved.

      Sure it can. Korea can be reuinified.

      Of course, that country formed would almost certainly be effectively under the control of South Korea, which is probably why the Chinese seem to be content with the alternative of their North Korean lap dog acting rabid and even totally batshit crazy every now and then.

      And deep down you just know the Japanese are cheering on both sides, hoping that there is a nuclear war between them that annihilates both Koreas.

      The US of A really can't do a damn thing about it, either. The only options the US has to change North Korean behavoir are bombs and bribes. Bombs mean war, and bribes just encourage more bad behavoir.

    3. Re:Do not feed the trolls by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      The people of China, those who follow politics, even believe Kim Jong-Il is crazy. They aren't that out of touch. Chinese leadership probably thinks the same.

    4. Re:Do not feed the trolls by peragrin · · Score: 1

      they think that in private but they refuse to do anything about it. Even so much as simply forcing DPRK to the negotiation table. China won't do anything. DPRK can launch nuclear weapons at south korea and China will stand back and not actually do anything.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  4. I didn't scout it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did they proxy their ghost academy or am I just blind?

  5. i know by chronoss2010 · · Score: 0

    why dont we all DO NOTHING and have a war UGH

    1. Re:i know by eln · · Score: 2

      What would you suggest we do? Preemptively attack? While China isn't exactly in love with North Korea, NK does serve as a valuable buffer zone for them and they aren't going to take any aggression from us in their backyard lightly. We must find a way to neutralize North Korea that China can get behind or we're in for World War III, or at the very least massive trade disruptions that would crater our economy, given how dependent we are on China.

      Even regardless of the China factor, it's hard to come up with a way we could neutralize North Korea, even with the element of surprise, that wouldn't end up being devastating to South Korea. By most estimates, for example, NK could completely level Seoul in about 2 hours with their massive artillery force. It's hard to come up with a way to stop that without irradiating the entire peninsula, which obviously would be bad for SK as well.

      Even assuming we could somehow find ways around those problems, you still have the North Korean people to deal with, who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe their Dear Leader is a god who is the only thing keeping them from being devoured by the rest of the world. These people, of all ages, have literally been training for a war with the US for almost 60 years. We wouldn't exactly be greeted as liberators by the vast majority of them.

      If this was an easy problem to solve, it would have been solved by now.

    2. Re:i know by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Conventional weapons have come a long way. A few MOABs and some well placed SSGN/DDG/CG launched Tomahawks would eliminate the majority of the problem without resorting to a nuclear attack.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    3. Re:i know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People! Read international news sites until the Wikileaks festivities are over! China is no longer interested in N Korea as a buffer.

    4. Re:i know by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's easy to solve once the shooting starts. It's unlikely we don't actually know where their nukes are. But just in case, we shell everything they own.

      As for how we'll be greeted, how were we greeted by Russia after they spent decades being taught to hate us?

      The open-arms thing usually works. Just not when Bush43 was in charge. I think it was him, not us.

    5. Re:i know by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think doing nothing is the correct response to this.

      Seriously, why does anyone take Li'l Kim serious anymore?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Out with a bang by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    I guess they know they can't win a full war so want to go out with a bang. Scary....nothing to lose but probably more than happy to leave an imprint on history.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  7. Re:This is tech news? by geegel · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think you forgot the "stuff that matters" part. I don't know about you, but a story about a real case scenario involving nuclear warfare seems pretty worthy of attention.

    --
    right...
  8. Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love The by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

    Strangelove: "the whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost...if you keep it a secret. Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" Perhaps North Korea understands this evil calculus.

  9. Okie dokie then by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a war with South Korea would involve nuclear weapons, and '[will] not be limited to the Korean peninsula.'

    So what they're saying is if tensions rise the only safe response is to proactively nuke North Korea until they glow.

    Well alllll righty then. B-bye now!

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Okie dokie then by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      North Korea is not that big a place. I am sure we could if we were willing to kill indiscriminately destroy their capability to use their nukes with conventional weapons fast enough. Each of those, daisy-cutters, I think they call them vaporize six football fields. The issue as always is we have lots of ability to rain down destruction on our enemies but are we willing to kill thousands of innocent people and families in the process.

      I suppose if the north was threatening to nuke the south or others in the region the answer might be a reluctant yes; but that would be the one day I would be glad Obama, rather than myself, is the President. Its not a call anyone would want to have to make.

      I wounder if the cable leaks that should China is perhaps not as reliable a partner as the North thought is provoking them to even more extreme rhetoric and possible action. We can't afford in terms of blood or treasure to fight another ground war, and for social reasons doing that in Korea again is really untenable. I hope the north does not escalate things to the point of war, but if they do I guess I hope our President and Military leaders can in fact bite their lip and carpet bomb them into oblivion. What would be better still is if we could get the CIA in there while there is still time and put a bullet in the back of a few heads of state. I am sure the new powers there would be no better people but they might have the sense to not be self destructive.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a war with South Korea would involve nuclear weapons, and '[will] not be limited to the Korean peninsula.'

      So what they're saying is if tensions rise the only safe response is to proactively nuke North Korea until they glow.

      Well alllll righty then. B-bye now!

      Mreh, bad idea. Pretty decent chance that, through sheer trolling willpower, Kim Jong Il would survive and become a superpowered nuclear mutant. He's a persistant little bugger.

    3. Re:Okie dokie then by fabioalcor · · Score: 4, Funny

      the only safe response is to proactively nuke North Korea until they glow.

      No. I have learned from a movie that the only safe response is not to play.

    4. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the answer is act crazier than them

      pull out all your troops and state that you are reducing your human exposure so you can engage in nuclear warfare

      that would make everyone shit bricks

    5. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from my innocent point of view the us has done nothing but provoke north korea.
      for example in that recent news about a more powerful test of a railgun prototype there was a neat little graphic showing the ranges of available weapon types and the new railgun once it's finished over a map of north korea.
      basically the us has been publicly preparing for a war against north korea for decades and no body seems to be too unsettled by their aggression.
      I'm really worried about you guys over there.

    6. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kill thousands of innocent people and families in the process.

      Yes. The question is not thousands though - it's millions.

    7. Re:Okie dokie then by Myrmidon10 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, it was the US that is escalating everything... The Norks shelling a South Korean island and sinking an SK Navy ship with a torpedo are not provocative in any way shape or form, but video of a weapon in testing and years away from actual deployment is. Wow

    8. Re:Okie dokie then by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      You could destroy most of the ruling class and infrastructure with a single nuke to the NK capital. The rest of the country is practically pre-industrial, judging from the nighttime illuminant maps and google Earth flyovers.

      NK has pretty much nothing to lose, therefore war will not be nearly as devastating to them as it would be SK.

      --
      ~X~
    9. Re:Okie dokie then by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >are we willing to kill thousands of innocent people and families in the process.

      Well, to the extent that they have not risen up in the millions to overthrow the tyranny under which they live, ultimately they are collectively responsible for it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps in some bizarre way it would be a good move on the part of the US. Too many governments assume the sleeping giant is a paper tiger they can mess with. Perhaps one definitive, total annihilation will convice some other regimes they better play ball with us.

      It's a horrible thing to contemplate.

      But just as horrible is unanswered nuclear terrorism or aggression against us by others.

    11. Re:Okie dokie then by Tom · · Score: 1

      You need to look at a map. And I don't mean a map of the US. Use Google maps, it can help you find Korea. Hint: It's in Asia. Second hint: It's the only country in the world that Google Maps doesn't have street data for.

      Now you may notice which other country lies darn close. That's right, China.

      Launching Nukes towards North Korea, whether from the US or from subs in the Pacific, will look a lot like they were headed towards mainland China. Even if you told the chinese what you were doing, they would be in a situation where if you were to fuck with them, they wouldn't be able to spot it until it's way too late.

      Still thinking this is a brilliant idea?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Okie dokie then by Tom · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps one definitive, total annihilation will convice some other regimes they better play ball with us.

      Or it would prove to the rest of the world that the muslim fanatics are right and you really are evil incarnate. If you were to nuke someone, no matter who or why, I would immediately join or if necessary start an initiative to pressure our government into severing all diplomatic, economic and military ties with you, and ask every other government to do the same.

      You are already the only country to ever actually use nuclear weapons. If you demonstrate that you are willing to do that again, you would have become a danger to the entire world.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Okie dokie then by Tom · · Score: 1, Insightful

      but if they do I guess I hope our President and Military leaders can in fact bite their lip and carpet bomb them into oblivion.

      How about biting their lips and realizing that the rest of the planet is not their backyard and it's been 60 years since their intervention in some foreign conflict actually solved the problem instead of making it worse?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:Okie dokie then by Tom · · Score: 1, Troll

      Actually, "nobody" should be "nobody in the US". Over here in Europe, Canada is in much better standing than the US. Let's put it this way: We don't care much about Canada, but we consider them generally nice people. As for the US, if it were to sink into the ocean tomorrow, it would certainly make the headlines, but few of us would be really sorry. Our main worry would be what that means for our economy.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:Okie dokie then by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      a war with South Korea would involve nuclear weapons, and '[will] not be limited to the Korean peninsula.'

      So what they're saying is if tensions rise the only safe response is to proactively nuke North Korea until they glow.

      Well alllll righty then. B-bye now!

      Mreh, bad idea. Pretty decent chance that, through sheer trolling willpower, Kim Jong Il would survive and become a superpowered nuclear mutant. He's a persistant little bugger.

      Like a cockroach.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    16. Re:Okie dokie then by Kagura · · Score: 2

      from my innocent point of view the us has done nothing but provoke north korea. for example in that recent news about a more powerful test of a railgun prototype there was a neat little graphic showing the ranges of available weapon types and the new railgun once it's finished over a map of north korea. basically the us has been publicly preparing for a war against north korea for decades and no body seems to be too unsettled by their aggression. I'm really worried about you guys over there.

      I did a little bit of an experiment. See if you can figure out "what I did there":

      o In 1950 the US sent it troops across the 38th parallel in a surprise attack against North Korea.
      o In 1958 pro-US agents hijack a North Korean jetliner and force it to land in Seoul.
      o In 1968 the US sent a small group of 30 exceedingly well-trained commandos to attack Kim Il-sung's residence in Pyongyang.
      o In 1969 two US jets attack a North Korean reconnaissance airplane in North Korean airspace, destroying it at 31 personnel aboard.
      o In 1970 and 1974 the US captures or sinks several North Korean fishing vessels, resulting in the deaths of several dozen North Koreans.
      o In 1976, a North Korean working detachment came to trim a Poplar tree that was blocking visibility between North Korean CPs. After a short argument, the US side attacked the unarmed North Korean working detachment with wooden 2x4s and axe handles, killing two North Korean workers.
      o Between 1979-1984, there were a number of recorded instances of US operatives kill trying to infiltrate into the North.
      o From 1995-2002 were the so-called "Crab Wars", a series of a couple dozen naval skirmishes each caused when US boats crossed the UN-mandated demarcation line into North Korean waters. The US gave up when it was clear they were no match for the North Korean navy and were losing more than they were gaining.
      o In 2003, a US fighter plane crosses seven miles north of the demarcation line, and returns south after being intercepted by six North Korean planes.
      o In March 2010, a US submarine fires a torpedo at a North Korean corvette in a brazen sneak attack, claiming the lives of 46 North Korean sailors.
      o In November 2010, the US fires over a hundred artillery rounds onto a disputed North Korean island, destroying approximately 70 North Korean homes.


      And what is the North Korean side doing in response to the US' heinous provocations?

      o North Korea still routinely provides massive amounts of aid and gasoline/diesel fuel to South Korea, at times withdrawing its aid for various reasons.
      o North Korea conducts massive yearly military exercises involving a large percentage of its armed forces to ensure readiness in the event of hostilities.
      o North Korea refers to South Korea and the US as being part of an "Axis of Evil" that are working against global human interests.
      o North Korea has begun conducting large and complex naval drills in 2010 in response to the sinking of a corvette ship from a surprise US torpedo attack.
      o The North Korean Navy tests an advanced rail gun, capable of striking hundreds of kilometers inland, that is expected to become operational on naval vessels around 2025. An independent North Korean newspaper releases a neat little graphic showing the gun's range over a map of South Korea.

    17. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that seems to be the case. I'm typing this while staring at a pair of Samsung monitors. I've got an LG Blu-Ray player behind me. I don't own a KIA or Hundai, but I like some of the Korean made stuff (its pretty good stuff). If North Korea insists upon nuclear war, and preemptive strikes are all the rage, well, ok then. If it has to be that way, it has to be that way. The US should start aiding South Korea in building silos for short and medium range missiles, carrying MK-41's. The north is run by a nutter, and collectively they believe their own crap (and drink their own bathwater). If they weren't so dangerous and so aggressive, you might feel sorry for their sad and pathetic state, but they would kill everyone in sight and blindly follow stupidity to the ends of the earth. Like a band of bad cockroaches, all you can do is fry them. It sound (really bad) but I don't really see any alternative. Cook em.

    18. Re:Okie dokie then by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You are already the only country to ever actually use nuclear weapons. If you demonstrate that you are willing to do that again, you would have become a danger to the entire world.

      Nuclear weapons signaled the point at which nation state governments became too dangerous to keep around. It seems we'll only recognize this as a species in retrospect, sadly.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American who has lived overseas, I can tell you this: Go ahead and "troll" him into oblivion. He's still right. Of the literally dozens of countries I've lived in or visited (which were at the time all friendly to the U.S.), folks in only 2 or 3 actually liked Americans, the rest merely tolerated us.

    20. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        We've always been at war with Eastasia

    21. Re:Okie dokie then by Tom · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, but I can not agree. Nation states at least have the advantage that they concentrate the nukes into a few hands and you know who has them. Having them distributed around, or worse in the hands of religious, ideological or commercial entities would be worse.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    22. Re:Okie dokie then by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I wanted to reply to this yesterday before I went to bed but Opera 10.x on OS X 10.4 hack fucked up as it does all the freaking time so I couldn't. Anyhow:

      You could destroy most of the ruling class and infrastructure with a single nuke to the NK capital. The rest of the country is practically pre-industrial, judging from the nighttime illuminant maps and google Earth flyovers.

      May be true, but when I read about it I thought about nuking/bombing their nuclear launch sites / whatever military equipment they have.

      But to that I wanted to add:
      They've got subs. 97 according to globalfirepower (2008.)

      I don't know if any of those are nuclear. But it may be an issue .. :D

    23. Re:Okie dokie then by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      But look at the costs involved - there are very few megalo-corps who could even afford the research, much less the development, because they can't force the money/labor out of a populace to fund the project. And they have very little incentive to do so. Besides that, no corporate entity large enough could exist without the corporate protections granted by the Nation State that backs it.

      The status quo is what leads to North Korea and Iran, both ideologically insane, one religiously, with nukes.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:Okie dokie then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is the North Koreans are right when they say 'The Korean peninsula remains a region fraught with the greatest danger of war in the world. This is entirely attributable to the US pursuance of the policy of aggression against the DPRK (North Korea).'

    25. Re:Okie dokie then by Tom · · Score: 1

      The status quo is what leads to North Korea and Iran, both ideologically insane, one religiously, with nukes.

      Let's not forget the US under Bush.

      Yes, I agree. Few other entities would have the resources. Unfortunately, exactly the wrong ones would, the most fanatic ones.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    26. Re:Okie dokie then by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, exactly the wrong ones would, the most fanatic ones.

      So, why don't they now? Because they're afraid of the Nation States retaliating? Given their fanatic ways, wouldn't they not care?

      I think there are not enough wealthy fanatics to make it feasible as a charity situation. Without coercive extraction, the donation model is the only one that could fund such efforts. Also, consider that counter-'charities' would be well-incentivized to see that they were not successful. If the IRA can run a war out of Boston, taking out a nuclear development program wouldn't be any harder.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    27. Re:Okie dokie then by Tom · · Score: 1

      So, why don't they now?

      They have been crowded out by the Nation States.

      If the IRA can run a war out of Boston, taking out a nuclear development program wouldn't be any harder.

      Only an order or two of magnitude more expensive. It's like the space industry: Sure, today private companies can slowly work their way towards actually putting a man into orbit. Could they do it if nation states with their massive resources hadn't paved that way 50 years ago? I very much doubt it. How many companies invest in anything that has a break-even point 10, 15 years in the future?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  10. Nukes and not contained to the immediate area? by supertrinko · · Score: 1

    That sounds like more of a threat.

    --
    If it rhymes it must be true.
    1. Re:Nukes and not contained to the immediate area? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh please, didn't you see where that "information" comes from?

      Gee, folks, just because you're not used to the way old school Pravda worked doesn't mean you should take your propaganda filters off!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Nukes and not contained to the immediate area? by formfeed · · Score: 1

      That sounds like more of a threat.

      It also is a statement saying:

      1. Yes, you were right, we do have nukes.
      2. No, we actually could get them of the ground. Really!
      3. I don't know, where you get that idea from, but it doesn't take us 3 days and 2 construction cranes to get the rockets ready.
      4. Our rockets really, really do work. They don't explode in mid air. Please take us seriously.
  11. NK releases a statement like this regulary by boguslinks · · Score: 2

    NK has been issuing statements like this for years. I take a peek at their news site every so often and there's always something that reads like this.

    Not sure why Yahoo! or AFP or anyone else would suddenly consider this news. But I can take a few guesses.

    1. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Interesting site, but I'm wondering if it's legit? Seems odd that they'd have a Japanese domain.

    2. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      That site is definitely legit, and is one of the few ways to get a peek into what NK says. The "news" articles there a mixture of pathetic, funny and scary. AFAIK, their official sites are in other TLDs, like Japanese, Chinese and .net, but not .kp.

    3. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing odd about it. North Korea has no internet access, and Japan does. Furthermore, Japan has many North Korean aligned zainichis (Koreans living, and born, in Japan.).

      North Korea receives plenty of financial support from Japan via the above mentioned zainichis. Pachinko profits are one of the most well-known funding sources.

      Furthermore, it's widely believed that North Korea's nuclear bomb materials were shipped via Japan thanks to zainichi North Korean supporters. (According to the CIA at any rate.) The port was in Niigata.

      It's not much of a stretch to imagine these people creating a pro-North Korea news site.

      Here is some more info:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongryon

    4. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. The infrastructure in NK is horrendous, and they don't have the pipes to carry the bandwidth reliably. (Not to mention technology, or support.) The KCNA runs there servers out of Japan because it's more reliable and quite frankly, they can't do it from North Korea. Something about sanctions, oppressive censorship systems, and a desire to keep the populace as in the dark as they possibly can.

      And yes, their news really does read like that. They use such blatant propaganda in their "news" that if you read it from the outside viewpoint, you nearly laugh yourself silly.

    5. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They've only had nukes for a few years. And they've begun openly shelling civilian populations.

      So this is not their usual level of crazy.

    6. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Would you put your webserver on a North Korean domain? Apparently neither would they.

      Would there be anyone in North Korea who could run a root server anyway?

      What are the chances they even know they're entitled to run one?

    7. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by rikasa · · Score: 1

      I live next door in JP and have heard this kind of carry on for the last 6 or 7 years or so. I freaked out initially & thought about getting my family out of there, but over time I learnt that their taunts can be basically translated as follows: "we're very close to mounting one of these suckers on a missile, but even then our threats would only amount to mere propaganda because we know full well that any proactive act of aggression on our behalf against the US allies would mean curtains for us. But hey; at least it garners us enough attention and leverage for getting aid into our country drained of life by its own war machine."

    8. Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      There was a large Korean population in Japan during the last years of the Japanese Empire. Many of them stayed in Japan after the conclusion of Pacific war and after the Korean War, the resident Koreans were allowed to register as citizens of Korea, but open affiliation with North Korea was made illegal. Despite this, approximately a quarter of resident Koreans have ties to pro-DPRK organizations, in particular Chongryon. Among other things, Chongryon operates pachinko parlors that generate revenue for the DPRK and it runs the 60 schools that teach DPRK ideology to Korean students in Japan. Chongryon's presence in Japan is effectively an extension of North Korea into a first world country, so its importance to the DPRK would be hard to overstate.

      There are probably more web developers among the approximately 150,000 pro-DPRK Koreans in Japan than there are North Koreans with any access to the internet, so it shouldn't be too surprising that such websites are hosted and maintained in Japan.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  12. It would go nuclear by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    About 30 minutes after the first artillery shells landed in Seoul, a nice mushroom cloud would appear over Pyongyang.

    1. Re:It would go nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at Pyongyang on Google earth? Why would we waste a nuke on that dump? All it need's is a stiff breeze to blow through that joint...
      Does anyone else find it creepy to see all those roads and no cars on them?

    2. Re:It would go nuclear by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Hey, they are finally getting that hotel fixed up.

      For years the tourist guides supposedly pretended it did not exist.

    3. Re:It would go nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      All it need's is a stiff breeze to blow through that joint...

      Well, to be fair, most of the destructive power of a nuclear weapon is caused by a (very) stiff breeze.

    4. Re:It would go nuclear by makubesu · · Score: 1

      United States - We were actually thinking of just taking you down within minutes using only conventional weapons, but if you insist... *pushes red button*

    5. Re:It would go nuclear by RsG · · Score: 2

      Nope. The US has a very strong "no first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons. Granted, they're the only country to ever actually use them in warfare, but in point of fact the destruction caused at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a significant factor in shaping that policy.

      As far as that goes, every other major nuclear power, past and present, has the same policy for the same reasons. By "major nuclear power" I mean the US, Britain, France, Russia and China; Iran and NK don't count (yet) and Israel won't admit to having the bomb.

      If the Korean war restarts in earnest, it will be a conventional war right up until either North Korea nukes something deliberately, or somebody makes a mistake (which is always possible). Neither the US or China will risk escalation on their own. Nobody wants to be the one responsible for a nuclear war.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    6. Re:It would go nuclear by ansak · · Score: 1

      About 30 minutes after the first artillery shells landed in Seoul, a nice mushroom cloud would appear over Pyongyang.

      This only avoids the larger conflagration if the nukes fly in from China after a clear note to the permanent members of the security council, Japan, Korea, followed by a press conference at the UN.

      I'm having an "Obi-Wan senses the destruction of Alderaan" moment just contemplating the possibility.

      cheers...ank

      --
      Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
    7. Re:It would go nuclear by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about how Britain threatened to nuke Iraq should they use chemical weapons during the second gulf war. So the "no first use" policy does not only apply to nuclear weapons but also to other weapons of mass destruction - at least for Britain.

    8. Re:It would go nuclear by guyminuslife · · Score: 2

      There are some nice buildings in central Pyongyang. I like the blue roofs you see on a number of them. On the other hand, maybe that' just because everything else in the city, except the trees, is a kind of washed-out gray.

      Of course, most of the houses look like prison colonies. Makes me think of the houses in "A Wrinkle in Time," with all of the kids in the front yards bouncing their balls in unision....

      By far, the roads are the creepiest part. Like the entire city was hit by a neutron bomb, and was left standing, as a skeleton of the civilization that once lived there.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    9. Re:It would go nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US does not have a no first use policy regarding nuclear weapons. There was a review, and many pleasant words were written that let latte-drinking limousine liberals have a higher level of self-esteem and kick sand at the former President, but, the gist of the Nuclear Posture Review is that the US reserved the right to blow up whoever they want for whatever reason they want whenever they want to with whatever we got for as long as we feel necessary. Besides, the President can choose to ignore that doctrine and nuke anyway, if he feels like it.

    10. Re:It would go nuclear by Facegarden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nope. The US has a very strong "no first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons...

      No we don't. Not for North Korea. In April 2010 we extended our no first use policy for almost everyone, but very specifically excluded Iran and North Korea.

      Our policy still indicates that we are very much interested in exhausting all options, and everyone seems to get that Nukes are terrible (though as little as a few years ago Bush had allowed for us to Nuke anyone that might have WMDs, or a towel on their head).

      But we specifically excluded NK in our no first use policy. I don't think we'd ever want to be the ones to use them first, but we could.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    11. Re:It would go nuclear by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's interesting, the disconnect between how Americans (or a lot of us in the West) view US foreign policy, and how we view that of places like NK and Iran. Just looking at real history, the US can seem far more belligerent, war-like, invasive, tricky and downright nasty than many other countries. It's not hard to understand why the US is seen as "the great evil" by some.

      The US just conducts itself more neurotically than the others, in a way. I guess that's the result of a democracy and a complex set of competing interests.

      That's not to say the US doesn't "seek peace", but of course it's peace on their/our terms. Just as China also "seeks peace", on China's and their friends' terms.

    12. Re:It would go nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're already the only country to have deployed nuclear weapons on a military target (I mean, it also killed a buncha civilians, but that's nukes for you).

      We've already got "being the first" covered.

    13. Re:It would go nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US did use them first... and last.

  13. Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think "Nuclear Launch Detected" is already a familiar phrase to South Koreans.

    1. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      I hear the official South Korean position is that they will respond to any nuclear action by the DPRK with a zerg rush.

    2. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      I hear the official South Korean position is that they will respond to any nuclear action by the DPRK with a zerg rush.

      If you are in the process of "responding" to your opponent's move, then it is already too late for a Zerg rush.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    3. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe current analysis actually shows it'll be the North who'd resort to the zerg rush due to lacking military machinery. Ironic considering how Starcraft is the creation of the decadent American devils.

    4. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by smellotron · · Score: 4, Funny

      A zergling rush won't fare well against all of the zealots up there.

    6. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no problem, they have detection already.

    7. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      They'd turn to their satellites to try to search for cloaked ghosts.

    8. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Siege tanks didn't work, a few weeks ago!

    9. Re:Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, of course... then they’ll know to immediately scout the area with their detectors to find the cloaked ghost.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
  14. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Didn't we (and by we I mean the US and the UK) just finish "liberating" 2 other countries on much flimsier pretexts than this. We've got a crackpot dictator AND genuine WMD's (although the phrase WMD seems to be getting applied to anything larger than small arms nowadays) surely in the spirit of not being hypocritical warmongering oil fetishists we must now "liberate" North Korea.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I say it's a good thing that we got the greater threat out of the way first. Those WMDs alone were enough reason, let alone Iraq's involvement in 9/11. America! Fuck Yeah! Oh wait...

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by mangamuscle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had China as their buddy. Check out why the previous war in Korea ended in a stalemate.

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      North Korea is beyond liberation. For change, the entire nation and it's culture must be obliterated. But that would be a genuine crime against humanity. So, we wait for South Korea to go up in smoke. That's when the endless talking with the Chinese and Russians start. Next, we decide on how best to rebuild that nation on the terms of the North Korean regime based on special provisions and treaties.

      No, the Western World doesn't have the balls to face evil anymore. We are...pussies.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Wait a minute... by eepok · · Score: 0

      Ya... but they actually have WMD. America won't attempt a war it actually thinks it can lose.

    5. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's because they didn't follow MacArthur's advice... They should've gone into China like he said.

    6. Re:Wait a minute... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      just finish "liberating" 2 other countries on much flimsier pretexts than this.

      Surely you meant 1. Unless, of course, you thought 9/11 was a flimsy pretext to invade Afghanistan.

    7. Re:Wait a minute... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Some cables were leaked a few weeks back where China clearly does not support and will not support N. Korea in a war against the South and the US.

    8. Re:Wait a minute... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      genuine WMDs

      And now you know why we attacked Iraq and not North Korea.

      Even before NK had nukes, they had (and still have) enough artillery in the DMZ to turn Seoul into rubble before we could conceivably prevent it.

      As soon as the "Axis of Evil" was described, I knew which country was going to be invaded: The one that was the least credible threat.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Wait a minute... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It was, they admitted they could not hand over Osama, and so far they seem to have been right. Invading Saudi Arabia might have been justifiable, since that is were most of the attackers were from and who paid for the attacks.

    10. Re:Wait a minute... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you America, South Korea, or any other westernized nation does not think it will lose in a war against North Korea simply because they have nukes. The North is already so starved that another war will probably end up much like the first desert storm: the majority of the soldiers give up as soon as the war starts. The issue is much more complex I think deals mostly with the aftermath of the war. What happens to all those displaced people? Who's going to essentially rebuild this country from scratch? What happens to the economy after critical infrastructure in Seoul is razed by a nuclear weapon?

    11. Re:Wait a minute... by ACS+Solver · · Score: 2

      Hard to tell if you're serious, but really, how would a military solution work against NK?

      Yes, the North Korean military is very large, but it's suffering from ammunition and fuel shortages, it's undertrained and it is using obsolete equipment, mostly old Soviet hardware and their own designs that are essentially reworkings of the Soviet ones. The conventional military isn't a match for the South Korean military plus US troops stationed there, let alone additional US forces.

      But NK has a huge amount of artillery. If attacked, the regime would know they're going down and they would pretty much level Seoul. I recall reading, though I can't source it now, that there's too much NK artillery to take out in a quick strike, even for the US military. So they can't be taken down militarily without huge sacrifices in the South.

      Then there's the matter of the NK regime being crazy, despotic and the people brainwashed. If North Korea is attacked, they'll call up their military reserves and maybe start handing rifles out to peasants, telling them to fight for their leader. There would be huge human wave attacks, WW1 style. Ending their resistance would quite possibly require killing several million North Koreans... at which point it would be much closer to genocide than to liberation.

      While North Korea is probably the number one regime in the world that needs to go, it seems extremely unlikely that external powers could take the regime down without killing much of the country. One can only hope the regime collapses due to internal instability, and that it happens in a somewhat bloodless fashion.

    12. Re:Wait a minute... by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      Ha! As if the US (or anyone) would try to invade a country with nuclear weapons.

    13. Re:Wait a minute... by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      ABC news referred to the toner cartridge bomb as a WMD the other day. WMD have to be nukes, bio, or chemical in nature. Blegch.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    14. Re:Wait a minute... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some cables were leaked a few weeks back where China clearly does not support and will not support N. Korea in a war against the South and the US.

      These cables come from the US Embassy in China which doesn't have the authority to speak for the Chinese government. Nor are these statements yet backed by action. Nor do they state that China wouldn't support North Korea in a war. Finally, the Chinese government is not monolithic in decision-making. While it is comforting to read statements from Chinese officials, that indicate intent to abandon policies that have caused great harm in the past, we shouldn't confuse these words with outcome.

    15. Re:Wait a minute... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      You guarantee wrong.

    16. Re:Wait a minute... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      i don't understand your logic. them not handing over osama was exactly why we invaded. he was the mastermind behind the attacks and afghanistan was harboring him. if a country harbors someone who kills thousands of people from any country, that entire country is at fault and susceptible to invasion.

    17. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weapon of Mass Duplication

    18. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, except North Korea actually *has* nuclear weapons... so best not to mess with them.

    19. Re:Wait a minute... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look. I don't wish death on anyone, especially the innocent women and children involved. But I was being serious. Unless God almighty himself comes down to show his presence -twice-, maybe they would disarm. Honestly, I do see this ending well. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm off the mark here.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    20. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because NK has enough artillery pointed at Seoul that any incursion into their territory would be met with the instant annihilation of Seoul. Pretty good deterrent.

    21. Re:Wait a minute... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Slight difference.

      We don't also have a psychotic dictator running our country this time.

    22. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South Korea would likely find a US invasion of NK unacceptable as it would be perilously close to their land. They don't want that.

      Also, the US never attacks anyone who can reasonably defend themselves, unless in times of real crisis (WWII).

      I think Burma is an even better example of this hypocritical warmongering oil fetishism. Especially when you consider Chevron is harvesting natural resources there despite an international embargo on burmese goods.

    23. Re:Wait a minute... by ninja59 · · Score: 1

      This is a very different situation. 1) Iraq did not have WMDs or nukes, which is why attacking was an option and 2) oil is not an issue. Our own behaviour has encouraged this type to rhetoric.

    24. Re:Wait a minute... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They could not do it, we can't get him either. Should we now invade ourselves?

    25. Re:Wait a minute... by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Depends upon the circumstances; could be that they view the north as the most likely instigator, and this is intended to discourage them. If it were us instead, things might be different.

    26. Re:Wait a minute... by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      >Hard to tell if you're serious, but really, how would a military solution work against NK?

      Well, nukes or no nukes, it would pretty much involve an escalating ground war against a million man standing army which has been sustained by nearly the full national product of the country and which has been training for just such an eventuality, as its sole objective, for the past fifty years.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    27. Re:Wait a minute... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Wow, really? How'd you come up with that conclusion?! It wasn't that they couldn't do it. They refused to do it. If you have evidence showing that the Taliban actually tried to find Bin Laden but couldn't, then please show me as thats new to me.

    28. Re:Wait a minute... by tftp · · Score: 2

      I guarantee you America, South Korea, or any other westernized nation does not think it will lose in a war against North Korea simply because they have nukes.

      Western nations have very fragile societies, compared to an impoverished dictatorship of NK. The definition of "lose" is different for the USA and for NK.

      If someone explodes a 10 kT nuke in Pyongyang the city will be largely destroyed, but the regime will be untouched. If anything, it will be proven to any doubters that the USA is an evil aggressor. The event will not affect the world. The goal of the attack will not be achieved.

      If someone explodes a 10 kT nuke in NYC or LA the city will be mostly intact, but the US government is likely to collapse. The anarchy and chaos of the disaster will be instantly known to the whole country (and the whole world) and a lot of weird people will crawl out of the woodwork. Financial markets will be in danger; the US dollar may collapse. All kinds of bad things become possible.

      But of course the greatest danger of the first strike is in very high likelihood that it won't be the last.

    29. Re:Wait a minute... by Tom · · Score: 0

      The three problems with that are

      a) you actually are hypocritical warmongering oil fetishists
      b) North Korea has no oil worth mentioning
      c) if they do have nukes, it could actually hurt, and you've not picked on an enemy your size since WW2, cowards

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    30. Re:Wait a minute... by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      According to a number of defectors from the military in the North, they only get food because they rob the peasants, and they only have equipment because they've stolen it.

      At the DMZ's negotiating 'city', the North Korean troops are the country's best - smartest, strongest, best equipped, and fed the best.

      Now, if a guard were to dive across the border, his entire extended family - for three generations is thrown in a concentration camp, where they can expect to be worked to death - that is, if they don't starve first. Parents, grandparents, kids, in-laws, their relations: the whole lot are sent to a concentration camp.

      Yet in spite of the fact these soldiers have many reasons to remain 'loyal', they are trusted so little that the guards face each other instead of their "enemies" on the other side of border.

      Why? So a guard can't jump across the border.

      The remarkable thing is the defectors have ranks from the lowliest boot to colonels.

      The thing to remember is that visitors to North Korea are only allowed to see the priviliged elite, and even then everything is very, very closely choreographed - from the borderline insane levels of devotion to the great leader, to day to day life - everything is scripted by the North. Because for the privileged, if they don't do just as their keepers demand, it's off to the concentration camps.

      But if what the defectors say have much credibility, the rest of the country doesn't feel the same. Even the privileged are starving, which can be expected when the "great" leader orders farmers to grow opium instead of rice.

      You can't sustain a war for any length of time if you don't have food. The North simply doesn't have the resources to fight a war for long. Having millions of ground troops means little when infantry is about all you have.

      So, much like the Korean war in the 1950's: North Korea doesn't stand a chance without their Chinese buddies. Though Russia helped in the 50's, I doubt they would want to get involved in any current hostilities.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    31. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that NK has some chance, comparatively speaking, of defending itself. The US isn't interested in getting into any fights with anyone that that has any chance of defending themselves. They don't want another Vietnam. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were already nearly destroyed before the US moved on them. They'll use "indirect" means here: assassination, terrorism and proxy war.

    32. Re:Wait a minute... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's needed is gourmet warfare. Set up a bunch of korean restaurants near the dmz, set them to cooking the most tantalizing smelling food and then fire up some kilohorsepower fans to waft the smell over the border and just watch as all of the starving NKs desert for dessert.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    33. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reread what you said: "...AND genuine WMD's". Get it now? They might actually defend themselves in contrast to Afghanistan and Iraq (which had no WMD's and everyone knew it). The only defense agains

    34. Re:Wait a minute... by adamchou · · Score: 2

      ahh... i remember now. they NEVER offered to hand osama bin laden over to us. they only offered to hand him over to another country to be tried in a muslim court. that was absolutely absurd for us to give in to. of course the united states wouldn't accept that. especially since it is muslim law that allows him perform the atrocities that he did. in fact, after what you said, i decided to do my own research. apparently, the us was negotiating with the taliban for at least 3 years prior to 9/11 to try to secure osama bin laden and the taliban would never comply.

      see this: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm

    35. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone explodes a 10 kT nuke in NYC or LA the city will be mostly intact, but the US government is likely to collapse. The anarchy and chaos of the disaster will be instantly known to the whole country (and the whole world) and a lot of weird people will crawl out of the woodwork. Financial markets will be in danger; the US dollar may collapse. All kinds of bad things become possible.

      Either that...Or it'll be like tossing a rock at a huge beehive full of africanized bees. Beehive TV will have all kinds of mean and ugly pictures to show, with mangled honeycomb and bee-bodies a plenty; and the little bees will be fearful, maybe even confused at first. I think, chances are blind rage will be the next emotion: they'll say "fuck it, these chumps ain't no match for us", and they're going to come to full muster and make the rock-tosser have a really, really bad day... The Beegovernment will shift the Beeconomy and a lot of worker bees to work to making an ever larger BeeArmy, so the next punk with a pebble and a slingshot is double-fucked.

      But, yeah...There's little gray area. That scenario will result in either going to full-on suck mode, or full-on blow mode. Let's hope it never happens.

    36. Re:Wait a minute... by Leebert · · Score: 1

      They should've gone into China like he said.

      Only Nixon could go to China.

    37. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c) if they do have nukes, it could actually hurt, and you've not picked on an enemy your size since WW2, cowards

      c) 1) You should be glad we haven't, considering who is our "size". Nuclear winter and the other consequences would suck for all the innocent bystanders, too.
      c) 2) We wouldn't use nukes first against NK. If we were to use them in response, goto c)1). Yes, I do think a nuclear response would escalate to a total global exchange.

      - T

    38. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Professor Terguson: You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China? [rips a desk apart] Then take the fucking wall apart brick by brick and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever? Tell me why! How come? Say it! Say it!

      Thornton Melon: All right. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a *pussy wimp* to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those Commie bastards!

      Professor Terguson: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you.

    39. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would pretty much involve an escalating ground war against a million man standing army

      The US can easily deal with standing armies, as they make for large definable targets. It's guerilla warfare where it struggles.

    40. Re:Wait a minute... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      PLEASE don't do that. It's hard enough trying to figure out where all the parts of speech should go in a "translated" document. Grid protect me from actual German.

      I suspect that it is the simultaneously self-referential and cyclonic nature of the German language that led them to initiate two world wars.

    41. Re:Wait a minute... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "... if they do have nukes, it could actually hurt, and you've not picked on an enemy your size since WW2, cowards."

      Um... maybe because there hasn't BEEN anybody "our size" since then? Except perhaps the Soviet Union... which in land area and natural resources, is actually several times "our size". And we did pick on them. And they on us. We won. Suck eggs.

    42. Re:Wait a minute... by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      I do not appreciate your rude and condescending tone. There's no need for you to use phrases such as, "Okay? Got it?" to make a point.

      What you're saying is technically correct, but as far as language is concerned you're being literal where you needn't be.

      I was originally pointing out that ABC was making a bigger deal out of those bombs than they needed to. WMDs are generally regarded as things that wipe out large population segments. The attempt that would've been made with the toner cartridges would've destroyed aircraft in-air. That would've caused some destruction on the ground were it to happen in a populated area, but nothing to the degree that is widely considered to be on the level of WMD.

      More to the point most people, when referring to chemical weapons, are referring to things like nerve agents. It may not be literally or etymologically accurate use for the word, "chemical," but the phrase, "chemical weapons," in modern military parlance refers to specific weapons that, "make deliberate use of the toxic properties of chemical substances to inflict death."

      http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Chemical/
      http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    43. Re:Wait a minute... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      No. Excuse me, but just no. You won't weasel out of it that easily. You made a stupid comment, now you're berating me for calling you on it. Tough tittie, as the saying goes.

      I aware am of the difference between a small bomb and a WMD. That is the point * I * was making. YOU, on the other hand, wrote that it had to be "chemical".

      You didn't make reference to "chemical weapons". You wrote "chemical" (and made NO mention of the difference between bombs and other types of chemical weapons). Further, even a "chemical weapon" is not necessarily a WMD... most aren't.

      So, I can appreciate that what you wrote was misunderstood, but quitcher bitchin'. It wasn't my fault that it was misunderstood. You simply stated it improperly.

    44. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There honestly isn't any reason to. You're calling the US pussies because we don't want to goto war with a country that is backed by China? WTF man that's like Chapter 1 on WW3. It's better to wait for them to nuke someone or for them to get so insane that China simply can't ignore it anymore. N Korea is a threat to everyone on the planet...not just the USA...yet we're the pussies...go figure.

      What's the harm in waiting this out? China isn't giving them Nuclear weapons to throw at us and they never will. They can only have so many bombs and while it's horrid to think of the millions of lives it will cost when they start the first real nuclear war...it can only end positive for the US regardless of when we decide to do something about it. Who is going to support a country like N Korea after such a war when they realize the only nations they will destroy are their next door neighbors. China is the issue...not N Korea....and surely not the USA.

    45. Re:Wait a minute... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      Now here's the lonely voice of sanity in this thread. If you ever decide to run for secretary of defense, call me for donations.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    46. Re:Wait a minute... by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      You can question my knowledge anytime. That I don't care about. You have absolutely no reason to be be so insulting. I might've given your argument some credit, had you tried to at least find some sort of middle ground. Instead your objective is to simply tear someone down. You will get exactly nowhere in a debate doing that.

      I don't know how you ever came to the conclusion that I don't understand chemistry on such a basic level. I was very obviously referring to chemical weapons of the WMD variety when I said that WMD had to be, "nukes, bio, or chemical in nature." My reference was to the three most widely-known WMD classifications.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    47. Re:Wait a minute... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      You won? News to me. The people of the Warsaw Pact countries won. They liberated themselves from their oppressive regimes. You stood on the sidelines, posturing and pissing away your national product on an armory of madness.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    48. Re:Wait a minute... by Shauni · · Score: 1

      WWI-style strategies don't work so well when the other guy has planes, tanks and moveable artillery. At most, it'd be an annoyance. The capital would fall in days. Communication, then discipline would break down quickly as even the most crazy nutjob soldiers still know how to survive. (step 1: kill the crap-spewing officers)

      The only option for NK would be an Afghanistan-style insurgency, which would also fail miserably, since the second the brainwashing program goes offline, the peasants will realize how much they've been had. The ludicrous lies they feed them can't withstand exposure to any knowledge at all. (which is why when propaganda operations went into effect last year, NK freaked out and threatened all-out war to get them to stop)

      An invasion of NK would result in many, many deaths for Koreans on both sides, and should not be undertaken lightly. That said, it would be a certain lose for NK and the peninsula would probably be fully recovered within the decade.

    49. Re:Wait a minute... by Shauni · · Score: 1

      NK's GNP sucks, and "training" for a long time in lieu of anything else only works in shounen anime.

    50. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we have to wait until the Chinese government collapses, no need for Communism in this world...
      We don't need a Democratie in china, it would be okay, but an other government would automatically,
      destabilize NK, their Communism wouldn't have any support in the world anymore. Now it only exists,
      because there big brother China still has Communism.

    51. Re:Wait a minute... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Um... maybe because there hasn't BEEN anybody "our size" since then?

      Granted, let me amend that to "someone in your order of magnitude in military capabilities". There are plenty of those.

      And we did pick on them. And they on us. We won. Suck eggs.

      Is that what they teach in american schools? No surprise your education system sucks if it's little more than a propaganda machine. A guy named Gorbatschow did more to end the cold war then all US presidents combined.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    52. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: Kim Jong Il replaced by Om Nom Nom.

    53. Re:Wait a minute... by John+Saffran · · Score: 1, Insightful

      North Korea is beyond liberation. For change, the entire nation and it's culture must be obliterated . But that would be a genuine crime against humanity. So, we wait for South Korea to go up in smoke. That's when the endless talking with the Chinese and Russians start. Next, we decide on how best to rebuild that nation on the terms of the North Korean regime based on special provisions and treaties.

      No, the Western World doesn't have the balls to face evil anymore. We are...pussies.

      Someone once thought that way .. His name was Adolf Hitler and he thought that ridding the world of Jews was a good thing. Luckily the US fought against him 70 years back.

      If you want to talk about evil, then perhaps you should look in the mirror first.

    54. Re:Wait a minute... by Froomb · · Score: 1

      A sad parody that resonates all with well of the general ignorance about North Korea endlessly amplified in media outside Korea. Is that you Nick Eberstadt?!

      The next time you see a talking head on the tube speaking about NK or read another hyped-up "nuke the bastards" blog piece, just do a quick reality check and ask yourself if the author can speak a word of the language or even name three cities in NK and two major events in Korean history before 1900.

      Here in Seoul, where I've lived off and on for over 30 years and hang out a major university the mood towards NK continues to be blase. And (for all you fans of the free market place) land places up in Paju, say in Munsan, near the DMZ continue to be high and certainly don't appear to be discounting the future value of a nuclear war.

      I'm certainly no fan of the north, but before evoking the need to obliterate the place, those of us who are Americans might well pause a moment to ponder why nowhere in the U.S. (corrections are welcome) is there any public recognition of the massive NK civilian deaths (1 million plus) brought about by U.S. bombing in the Korean War, dwarfing HIroshima, Nakasaki, and the Tokyo and Dresden firebombing combined. "They had it coming"??? Because NK initiated a massive attack in a civil war attempting to reunify through force the country in 1950, not a war against the U.S.? Because were somehow so alien, so very *Asian*, that their deaths don't even merit a moment of self-reflection? Because they were "filthy nationalist Communists" and thereby deserved to be indiscriminately slaughtered? From a NK perspective the U.S. air force pilots were mass murderers (including, sadly, John Glenn) and the parent poster ably presents the rhetorical spirit that so effortlessly provokes their paranoia.

      Then there's the not so small matter of the nuclear weapons that the U.S. is universally believed to have based at Gunsan and Osan airbases (without the SK population ever being allowed a say in the matter) from the 1950s to the early 1990s, mere miles from NK, essentially threatening them with nuclear obliteration.

      North Korea has its deep problems, but it is filled with interesting, talented people who deserve better leadership than the brutal Kim regime that has derived so much of its legitimacy from standing up to the U,S.

    55. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and people like you are what is wrong with the modern world and why conflicts like this develop into wars. You're just too gullible. You are force fed contempt of life and culture mixed with messages of self righteousness. How can a human being ever utter these words: "the entire nation must be obliterated". I mean WTF... Do you have any idea of the pain that a single gunshot wound causes, not just to the person that is wounded, but the sorrow to its family members, friends, etc? How about the pain of being burnt to the bone, or living life having lost your limbs? How about the pain of having never been born? Now can you image on an order of magnitude (x 10), then another, then another, until you reach a national scale. What the f**** are you made of you spineless scum? North Koreans are people too. And guess what, they don't need your "liberation" (i.e. cleansing, crimes against humanity, embargo to supplies including medicine intended for children). They just need to stop being bullied and take their place in their world without your meddling imperialist government.

    56. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't we (and by we I mean the US and the UK) just finish "liberating" 2 other countries on much flimsier pretexts than this. We've got a crackpot dictator AND genuine WMD's (although the phrase WMD seems to be getting applied to anything larger than small arms nowadays) surely in the spirit of not being hypocritical warmongering oil fetishists we must now "liberate" North Korea.

      Technically we are still in the process of liberating North Korea, as no formal Peace Treaty has ever been signed.

      Since they are indeed one of our Allies, then yes we should be offering them military assistance, especially because it's stated in our Treaty with them that we will do so.

    57. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what your saying is a Exterminatus?

    58. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of weapons of mass destruction is that you don't attack countries that have them. That's why everyone wants them and why nobody who has them wants anyone else to get them.

      The fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs was obvious by the mere fact that we attacked them.

    59. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've got a crackpot dictator AND genuine WMD's

      There's your answer, right there ;)

    60. Re:Wait a minute... by Draek · · Score: 1

      If the Western World had the balls to face evil, the first country to go up in flames would be the US.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    61. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US knew that Iraq didn't have viable WMDs. That's why we attacked. We wouldn't have put thousands of troops on the line in the face of possible WMD attacks.

      This is why we are weak against North Korea. They have gone nuclear, and I don't doubt they would use it (and I assume the US government feels the same way).

    62. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is the US and UK are hypocritical warmongering oil fetishists and NK has no oil. So why invade they have no resources to make money from. So we will wait until NK nukes SK and then we will make them glow with our subs parked off the coast. the war will be over in a few minutes and all of Korea will be a dead zone. Since there is no oil there all will be ok. Dictator gone, population decreased. Area under control.

    63. Re:Wait a minute... by Kreplock · · Score: 1

      ...surely in the spirit of not being hypocritical warmongering oil fetishists we must now "liberate" North Korea.

      Because fighting one evil does not obligate you to fight all other evils without regard to circumstances, viability, and consequences. If you happen to stop a purse snatching are you then obligated to confront gunmen trying to rob a convenience store if you happen to be on the scene. If that wasn't worth the risk perhaps you shouldn't have been such a high and mighty hypocrite with the purse snatcher?

      Also, this is not hypocrisy because the US is clearly against N Korea having WMDs, not condemning other dictators for trying to develop them but excusing N Korea.

    64. Re:Wait a minute... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "No, the Western World doesn't have the balls to face evil anymore. We are...pussies."

      No, we are PRACTICAL, and losing lives and treasure over a small country which isn't valuable is stupid. Good and Evil are merely expressions of preference, not reasons to seek suicide for people who are not important.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    65. Re:Wait a minute... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      But NK has a huge amount of artillery. If attacked, the regime would know they're going down and they would pretty much level Seoul. I recall reading, though I can't source it now, that there's too much NK artillery to take out in a quick strike, even for the US military. So they can't be taken down militarily without huge sacrifices in the South.

      These days, the theory is that isn't really true.

      I quote:
      Barring the use of nuclear weapons or large-scale bombing runs, destroying a city requires an extended campaign of shelling and demolition, the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WWII. When the Chechen capital of Grozny was all-but-destroyed by Russian forces in 1999, it was the result of months of artillery and missile bombardments, as well as air strikes. There's no doubt that North Korea's massive deployment of artillery, and potential deployment of roughly 300 ballistic missiles, could wreak havoc on Seoul and its population. What's clear, however, is that a sudden barrage of shells and missiles would only mark the beginning of a battle for the city, not an apocalyptic fait accomplit.

      The Battle for Seoul would be ugly. Lots of people would die. There would be immense losses of human life, and immense financial losses. But Seoul would emerge on the other side; 98% of the North's artillery would be obliterated within 96 hours, and the joint US/South Korean force would smash through the DMZ and conqueror Pyongyang in a matter of days. There would most likely be quite a few high profile losses in Seoul, but the city would survive.

      North Korea maintains numerical parity with South Korea, but much of its' equipment is antiquated. The modern US/South Korean forces would achieve air dominance in a matter of hours, and the rest of the North would fold like a house of cards.

      Now, obviously, peaceful unification (and regime collapse) would be preferable. No one, particularly the South, wants a war; but these days, it is pretty obvious who would win the war, and Seoul would not be lost.

      I do think, however, that the North shelling Seoul would result in the end of the Northern regime. The South Korean street is known for being very temperamental, and a direct attack on Seoul would result in cries for "rivers of blood".

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    66. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure we tried that, one time. It went badly.

    67. Re:Wait a minute... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You weren't "obviously" referring to anything. You made a short, sweet, and stupidly wrong comment. Here's a hint for you: people on /. don't read minds, to know what you "meant" when you wrote it. All they can do is read what you actually wrote.

      And I don't particularly care if you don't like the way I called you on it.

    68. Re:Wait a minute... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. Like they (or anybody else) would have lasted a year without the U.S. and Mutually Assured Destruction. And while that policy might indeed be called "MAD", and for good reason, the fact is that it worked. And yes, we won.

    69. Re:Wait a minute... by DittoBox · · Score: 1

      You don't care about being listened to?

      You don't care about influencing people?

      I'm not talking about my feelings here, I'm pretty thick-skinned. In fact most folks are pretty thick-skinned. Most folks won't get, "hurt," by your words. What they will do is actively disregard your arguments, whether they're accurate or not, simply because you aren't willing to approach them with any amount of equality or respect. Trot in on your high horse and people will instantly resent you.

      Arguing like you do just demonstrates a profound lack of self-respect. If you really cared about your opinion, and about changing minds you would argue with a little more integrity and respect. Instead you get your warm-fuzzies by belittling people you view as less intelligent.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    70. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not have dealt with Jane before. This exchange is completely typical of Jane's overbearing style.

      Just Google "Jane Q. Public site:slashdot.org" and get familiar with Jane's history, it is fascinating...

    71. Re:Wait a minute... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Your actions belie your words. You say you are thick-skinned, yet you have expended a great deal of energy attempting to defend an indefensible position. Rather than simply admitting that you made a mistake, you have gone to a great deal of trouble trying to make it seem my fault. Why should I respect that kind of behavior? I don't have a single rational reason to do so. There is nothing high-horse about it: this is about somebody who can't bring himself to admit to a simple mistake.

      "Arguing like I do" has nothing to do with it. You are resentful about being caught in an error. As I wrote before: tough titty. At least when someone shows me that I made a mistake I am "man" enough to own it and admit it. That kind of behavior gets my respect. This does not.

    72. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem in your theory is that N.K really has nukes....

    73. Re:Wait a minute... by eepok · · Score: 1

      This is so perfectly said. My original comment spurning this diversion thread was actually marked -1 and this needs a +5 all the way. Four planes hijacked in one day tanked the market and shook the nation enough to go into its current state of docile paranoia. If an ICBM hit the continental US, all hell would break lose.

  15. Civ 5 is wrong by FlapHappy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somehow N. Korea got nuclear weapons before they invented the Internet (let alone the wheel)...HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

    1. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hate to rain on your parade, but the US had nukes before internet too.

    2. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Somehow N. Korea got nuclear weapons before they invented the Internet (let alone the wheel)...HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

      It's called Priorities. Painfully misguided priorities, but priorities nonetheless.

    3. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by GryMor · · Score: 2

      The same way I had a unit of mechanized infantry running around smashing north america while still in the Medieval era.
      Ancient Ruins

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    4. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Espionage. Duh.

      If Civ teaches you anything, it's that investing in research only pays if you're the first, else it's cheaper to just steal the info.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea has both wheels and internet connections for the party class.

      Most of the population is essentially considered to be either cannon fodder or laborers. Why would they need wheels or internet? They can live in barracks close to the front or close to the factory and they can watch the party TV channel. Their purpose in society is to fight or work, not to think.

    6. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. got nuclear weapons before we invented the Internet, as did Russia, China, the U.K. and France.

    7. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA, russia, france, and the uk also got nukes before they invented the internet...

    8. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure the US got nuclear weapons before they invented the Internet, too...

    9. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they don't have to invent the stuff, it's already invented...

    10. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Somehow N. Korea got nuclear weapons before they invented the Internet (let alone the wheel)...HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

      The USA developed working nuclear weapons long before anybody invented the internet either...

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    11. Re:Civ 5 is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please read up the thread before replying. Four other people made that point already.

  16. Genocide? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't like how the concept of total annihilation of a country is so easily bandied about. Not just this post, but all over the place. There are 24,051,218 people in North Korea (says Wikipedia), and only a large handful of them are actually causing this problem. How is it even conceivable to murder 24 million innocents (brainwashed, maybe; evil, no) because we don't like the guys in charge. Maybe the North Koreans can talk like that because the people talking are totally insane, but anyone else in the world shouldn't even have this cross their minds. Godwin called, he'd like to remind you that 24 million is four holocausts.

    1. Re:Genocide? Really? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      Nobody's talking about nuking North Korea pre-emptively because "we don't like the guys in charge" (nobody sane, anyway) but if it comes down to the situation where they fire a nuclear weapon at Seoul, or Tokyo, or wherever (thereby killing millions) then there are many who would state that retaliation in kind is the safest option.

    2. Re:Genocide? Really? by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Hence the "insane" mention by gcn, being the "mad" in mutually assured destruction.

      Stating we have more than enough capacity isn't a threat, suggestion or wish. It's simply fact.

      Nobody said anything about genocide until you came in. That you mention Godwin while being exactly the stereotypical idiot he criticized is just what's really sad in this discussion.

    3. Re:Genocide? Really? by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't do nuclear retaliation out of revenge or spite.

      What you do instead is make it clear that, if fired upon with nuclear weapons, you will retaliate in kind. And in order for this to be an effective deterrent, the opposing force has to actually care about their own civilians. I'm not at all sure that ol' Kimmy is at all motivated by the welfare of his subjects.

      What would be far more effective is letting North Korea know that if they nuke Seoul or Tokyo, we will nuke every bunker their leadership might hide in. Maybe release satellite photos of said bunkers showing that we know where they'll be hiding if the bombs start flying, and intimating that those safe havens will not be safe for very long in a nuclear war. Make it a personal threat instead, such that self-preservation becomes a major factor.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:Genocide? Really? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I'm not at all sure that ol' Kimmy is at all motivated by the welfare of his subjects.

      I am sure that ol' Kimmy is motivated by his desire for power, and that his subjects are the source of his power. If North Korea gets bombed, then Kim has no more power, even if he survives. He (nor his son) will sacrifice the country they rule for nothing in a preemptive strike.

      However, were we to invade North Korea with conventional forces, which would surely mean that Kim would lose control of his country and thus source of power, then you should be worried about him using his nukes. At that point he would have nothing to lose, and everything to gain if it somehow convinces us to stop. Or, much more likely, that the simple threat that this is what would happen will prevent the invasion in the first place.

      MAD works with North Korea. However, as always it works both ways. Even if it the Assured Destruction applies to our allies in Seoul, not the U.S.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Genocide? Really? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Kim Jong-il is dying. Do you really think he gives a crap about what happens to the world after his death?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    6. Re:Genocide? Really? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure. Ever hear of suicide by cop? They may be so desperate for change, that starting war is a path away from the status quo of depravity. However, being that they have too much pride in admitting fault, they would rather go down in blaze of glory to save face in the front of defeat.

      With all their posturing and propaganda, they're beyond telling their own people how much of a "big lie" their regime is all these years. It's that bad.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Genocide? Really? by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      What would be far more effective is letting North Korea know that if they nuke Seoul or Tokyo, we will nuke every bunker their leadership might hide in. Maybe release satellite photos of said bunkers showing that we know where they'll be hiding if the bombs start flying, and intimating that those safe havens will not be safe for very long in a nuclear war. Make it a personal threat instead, such that self-preservation becomes a major factor.

      Trouble is, Kim might have looked at the US's hunting down of Osama bin Laden and concluded that the US are about as good at hunting down their prey as Wile E. Coyote.

    8. Re:Genocide? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our threat of nuking NK may or may not deter the Kims. (There's two schools of thought: Kim Jong-il is batshit insane, literally crazy enough to consider nuclear war despite the US's threat; or he's a hell of a poker player and is pretending to be batshit insane so we will do anything to placate him, rather than relying on our deterrent.)

      However, if NK does nuke Seoul, and we don't party like it's August 1945, our deterrent loses its effectiveness on all the other (rational) nations out there, for decades to come.

    9. Re:Genocide? Really? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, "suicide by cop" is where you provoke a cop into shooting you. Usually by making it seem like you're about to shoot them, and not giving them time to realize that you aren't.

      Whereas NK's actions have been carefully calculated to push the boundaries, yet not actually provoke a military response.

      It would be trivial for NK to provoke a shooting war, and with their state-run media still blame it on our aggression and "save face". They avoid doing so. Instead, they do just enough to remain a credible threat and bring the other parties to the negotiating table and win concessions.

      Their behavior matches that of someone who is interested in maintaining power, and acquiring as much more as they can. It does not in any way match the behavior of someone trying to commit suicide.

      The only change they are interested in is the transition from Kim's rule to his son's. Part of that transition is going to be Kim the younger establishing himself with the military. Taking an aggressive stance -- but not so aggressive that we actually attack and destroy his power base -- helps with that, and is completely consistent with what is happening.

      As if admitting the big lie, or their inability to do so, has anything to do with it. They want to keep the big lie running for another generation at least.

      So yeah, I'm quite sure they aren't suicidal.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Genocide? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a honest question: why should it not cross anyone's mind?

    11. Re:Genocide? Really? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I think he cares about what happens to his son, and I think he and his son care about maintaining power for the Kim family, and that their sole source of power is call the People's Republic of North Korea. I also think his son is more responsible for these actions than his father, as a way to win favor with the military which will be necessary for him to be an effective ruler.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Genocide? Really? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Not quite just "destroy every bunker their leadership might hide in." Target specifically the infrastructure that that leadership uses to maintain control over their slave state. Let the psychotic leaders sit safe in their bunkers until a million-man-mob of starving ex-slaves armed with torches and pitchforks drags them out.

    13. Re:Genocide? Really? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >There are 24,051,218 people in North Korea (says Wikipedia), and only a large handful of them are actually causing this problem.

      How many of them are actively working to end the tyrannical regime under which they live?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    14. Re:Genocide? Really? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The way you win serious, existential wars is to kill everyone until there is no resistance. That's how WWII was won. There was no question that the Allies would kill Nazis and Japs until they STOPPED FIGHTING. Now we have laws against winning. Good luck beating people into submission with "moral righteousness" unless it's applied Albigensian Crusade-style.

      "Godwin called, he'd like to remind you that 24 million is four holocausts."

      Mao reunited China and killed easily that many directly and indirectly, Stalin led Russia in the destruction of the Wehrmacht after forging it into a modern military power by brute force, possibly killing more Soviets than Hitler.

      They "won", clearly and unequivocally, the wars they fought. Fuck Godwin and the meme he rode in on.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:Genocide? Really? by notbob · · Score: 0

      Stalin did kill more of his own countrymen then Hitler did.

      Stalin killed more of his own people then Hitler did of the Jews.

    16. Re:Genocide? Really? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      there are many who would state that retaliation in kind is the safest option.

      No it isn't. What would that accomplish?

      North Korea nukes South Korea and you go and nuke North Korea - and drop more radiation on the South AND everyone else in the region? How is that safe?
      And what exactly would that prevent? North Korea dropping radiation across the region while killing innocent civilians?
      And a retaliatory nuclear strike against North would be different how exactly? Because people who would die immediately would be north of the border?

      "But they started it first" is NOT an excuse for genocide. Regardless who does it.

      What IS safe is an all out conventional bombing raid. Turn every single military building into rubble. And then bomb them some more.
      I'm sure that there would be plenty of South Koreans that would be more than willing to help out with that.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    17. Re:Genocide? Really? by samkass · · Score: 1

      if it comes down to the situation where they fire a nuclear weapon at Seoul, or Tokyo, or wherever (thereby killing millions) then there are many who would state that retaliation in kind is the safest option.

      The current plan, as far as I'm aware, is that if we got indication that they were about to launch an attack, we'd hit them first, and hard. We're a lot more agile than North Korea, and can put ordinance on target a lot quicker and more accurately. Seoul is essentially indefensible, but we have made it very clear that North Korea would lose such a war. They know it.

      Thus, this is essentially a negotiating tactic. We tend to reward this behavior with additional talks and humanitarian aid, and they've had a bad year.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    18. Re:Genocide? Really? by felix+rayman · · Score: 2

      The government of North Korea has been threatening nuclear attacks against other countries.

      The citizens of North Korea are responsible for the actions of their government, just as you are responsible for the actions of yours.

    19. Re:Genocide? Really? by melikamp · · Score: 1

      I think your reading is correct: this is yet another play in the cold war theater, and we've seen this before. But let's not forget that this is exactly the kind of posturing that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I won't claim that it was USSR that saved the day: there were plenty of fuckups on all sides. But it is very sobering that a nuclear war would probably happen if a Soviet submarine captain did not disobey his orders. If we keep doing this shit, it is only a matter of time before we get unlucky.

    20. Re:Genocide? Really? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      He probably fully believes in an afterlife, after all his dad has been dead for quite a while yet he is still the offical head of state. As Christopher Hitchens puts it, "NK is the world's only necroptacy".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:Genocide? Really? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nobody's talking about nuking North Korea pre-emptively because "we don't like the guys in charge"

      You are right that we are not talking about that. But if I were North Korea, I would not even think of doing a test run of ICBM at this time.
      It would be a case of 'he chose .. poorly'.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:Genocide? Really? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      Essentially this is true. No government can exist for any length of time without the consent of the governed. Whether that consent is covert or overt, or just from lack of the will to resist, ultimately it is the people who are responsible.

    23. Re:Genocide? Really? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Not many, because the people are kept in absolute poverty, are kept from any contact with the outside world, and their internal media feeds them stories of the near deity of their dear leader. Though the leaders feign insanity on a regular basis (the better to receive international recognition and aid), they have deftly managed to create a system that's probably the single most impervious to internal dissent of any nation.

      It's easy to say that the people should rise up, but you and me are sitting here, well fed, relatively secure, and capable of debating the pros and cons of various views of life, government, faith, and discuss all kinds of "subversive" ideas we can read about from most any source. With little education and historical context, little outside contact, propaganda saying the leadership is extremely strong, and a life consisting of struggling form subsistance, there is little room for revolutionary thought.

      Internal dissent may pose a great hope to deal with governmental oppression in places like Iran, china, south Asia, Africa, etc. (perhaps i should say the US as well to please the libertarian in us all). Unfortunately North Korea is incredibly well secured against this and change will depend on external factors to bring them a slight bit of prosperity despite their leadership, if not something more drastic. They certainly don't deserve a radiation poisoned death for the actions of their leadership.

    24. Re:Genocide? Really? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2

      When the government has created the most closed off nation on the planet, keeps thhe people in absolute poverty, and spreads insidious propaganda, this is a cruel position to take. With a small country, only one un-mined border with a country that only looks free in comparison, and a leadership thats come to understand the poverty of their people is key to keeping them in line, this kind of control is possible.

      When a vast majority of the population struggles to feed their family, and has been actively brainwashed to believe they'd have no hope of overthrowing the government, I have trouble blaming the people for the actions of their leaders. You cant mount a rebellion when you're exhausted from day to day living.

      Plus North Korea has no desire to actually cause this kind of thing, they just act out to try and get the international community to get them to stop by giving them legitimacy and aid. The Kims have no desire to die, they've got a great system set up for themselves.

    25. Re:Genocide? Really? by felix+rayman · · Score: 1

      this is a cruel position to take

      It's a cruel position to take.

      It it also the least cruel position to take.

    26. Re:Genocide? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The citizens of North Korea are responsible for the actions of their government, just as you are responsible for the actions of yours.

      That's a bit of a stretch, considering that the DPRK is quite possibly the world's strictest police state. It's a place where the government tells you how to have your hair cut, and where you can be sent to a labour camp or even shot for making a long-distance phone call.

      The citizens of North Korea did not choose this régime: it was imposed on them by Stalin and propped up by Mao. (Interesting side note -- the People's Volunteers employed as cannon fodder by the latter to keep the North from losing the war it started were largely made up of former Nationalist troops who'd surrendered to the Communists rather than hightailing it to Taiwan in the closing stages of the Chinese civil war.)

      Some might say the Americans were (possibly unwitting) accomplices.

      This followed a couple of generations of colonial rule by Japan, which fully intended (and tried) to eradicate the Koreans' language and culture in favour of their own.

      So blaming your average DPRK citizen for the actions of his government is a bit like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust on the grounds that they failed to keep the Nazis from coming to power.

    27. Re:Genocide? Really? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "You cant mount a rebellion when you're exhausted from day to day living."

      I simply disagree. That is the best time to mount a rebellion. After all, you have nothing to lose.

    28. Re:Genocide? Really? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Have you ever mounted a rebellion while struggling to keep your family in food and shelter? Particularly after living in a closed off regime that has taught you its impossible? If so, I apologize, and will take your opinion to heart. Not having ever been in that situation, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

      Personally, I'd rather support a national policy of encouraging China to constructively engage the Kim regime instead of silently letting it get away with it's bullshit. Chinas support (or at least lack of condemnation) is a critical pillar of the NK system. Seems much more humane than advocating mass destruction on people who's main crime is livIng under am oppressive regime and being too meek to do anything about it.

    29. Re:Genocide? Really? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Have you ever mounted a rebellion while struggling to keep your family in food and shelter?"

      I think you should look into the concept of asymmetrical warfare.

      One sudden rush from the citizenry would flatten the NK dictatorship within a day or two, and we could give the survivors all they could eat.

      Of course, the second the citizens revolt, you know we're all jumping in to remove KJI/KJU

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    30. Re:Genocide? Really? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      I understand that they would be capable of it en masse, although they would probably require some significant leadership (is there a significant expatriate community?). However, I don't think most North Korean peasants realize that. Their Kims have managed to cut them off from historical understanding and outside philosphies, the things that might plant the seeds of that possibility, and brainwashed them on top of it.

      More than anything I take issue with the idea that "they should just revolt". Having never felt that I was in a situation where that was necessary, I can't judge the level of courage it truly requires, and have a hard time condemning someone for not doing something I don't know that I could do myself.

    31. Re:Genocide? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wehrmacht: I don't think it means what you think it means.

    32. Re:Genocide? Really? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I can't judge the level of courage it truly requires, and have a hard time condemning someone for not doing something I don't know that I could do myself.

      Realistically I'd estimate that in NK the amount of time between an individual saying "we should revolt" where someone else can hear him and the jail cell slamming shut while the grinning torturer starts unpacking his tools to be expressed in hours. When that large a percentage of the population has been brainwashed into compliance there's always an agent of the state around.

      At this point is there any indication of significant civil unrest that could be sparked into full-scale rebellion by a serious incident? Because if not, then any attempt at revolting would be pointless.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    33. Re:Genocide? Really? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Wile E. Coyote didn't have to chase Bin Laden into Pakistan where the U.S. cannot really go after him except via drone and planes. Easy to hide in caves...or more likely, Karachi. And protected by the ISI, there isn't a chance the U.S. will get him. Kimmy on the other hand would have to disappear into China. From there, he'd probably be kept under house arrest lest his insanity be catching.

    34. Re:Genocide? Really? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I don’t know whether he believes it. After all: to a leader, religion is useful.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    35. Re:Genocide? Really? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Sure there are cynical leaders who manipulate people via religion (Stalin comes to mind). However with many meglomaniacs the belief that either they themselves are a god, or that they are the conduit between the gods and mere mortals, aligns quite well with their phycopathic ego.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    36. Re:Genocide? Really? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about the event I think you are, the version I recall was that the sub wasn't in contact and thus didn't have orders when they were being depth-charged. The Russian protocol required the top 3 officers (including the political officer) to unanimously agree to launch, and it was the First Mate (or whatever the Russian navy called them) who disagreed and convinced them to surface and communicate with Moscow, preventing the war. Oh hey I found him: Vasili Arkhipov.

      Anyway, you're right, and in this kind of posturing game fuck-ups can and will happen, and can have disastrous consequences.

      I think it's important to remember the difference though between someone not always taking the optimally rational action, and them being completely bonkers with completely unpredictable behavior and no rational motive. All the "Kim is just crazy, he might do anything, MAD be damned!" people are forgetting this.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    37. Re:Genocide? Really? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      There are 24,051,218 people in North Korea (says Wikipedia), and only a large handful of them are actually causing this problem.

      Well then my suggestion to those 24,051,218 people (and I'm sure they're hanging on my every word) is that if they don't agree with their government's decision to basically force the rest of the world to annihilate them, they should rise up and overthrow. Sure, there will be casualties, but certainly far less than if we are forced to nuke the entire country.

    38. Re:Genocide? Really? by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah... Thanks for helping me to get the missile story straight. Curiously enough, the chain of command on the ship was a weird triumvirate. According to this article (Russian), both Vasili Arkhipov and Valentin Savitsky were captains of second rank. But Savitsky was the captain of the vessel and the only one with the key to the torpedo; he had the final authority in case of imminent danger to the ship or the crew. Whereas Arkhipov was in charge of the whole brigade of submarines, which made him the most superior officer on board. The third player was a political officer, whose only job was to report back to the Party. The article says, neither of them could authorize the launch, but Savitsky had the technical ability to engage. Like you said, no one disobeyed any orders and cool heads prevailed.

  17. Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...sending a harshly worded letter would do it.

  18. Dear Stuxnet by metrometro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear whoever made Stuxnet: I don't care who you are. I don't want to know. But please mess these guys up. Overspin some centerfuges. Junk up some technical schematics. Generally make them miserable and ineffective.

    1. Re:Dear Stuxnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be more effective if NK had any computers anywhere important, let alone with a network that worked between them. Whatever nukes they haven't plain bought from someone, are probably hammered together with rocks and sticks from an unending army of prisoner slaves.

      Heh, barbecue is the captcha.

    2. Re:Dear Stuxnet by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Internet-based attacks only really work on countries that have some form of internet.

    3. Re:Dear Stuxnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insiders help, too.

  19. I'm so scared... by turgid · · Score: 0

    Their nuclear bomb fizzled and their ICBM fell in the sea well short of its target.

    If they try anything at all, the Western powers will wipe Kim Jong-Il and his sons from the face of the earth with a couple of cruse missiles launched from off the cost. The starving population will rejoyce and Korea will be reunited.

    This sounds like the deranged provocations of a suicidal maniac.

    1. Re:I'm so scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they try anything at all, the Western powers will wipe Kim Jong-Il and his sons from the face of the earth with a couple of cruse missiles launched from off the cost. The starving population will rejoyce and Korea will be reunited.

      Well, the survivors will.

      Well, the survivors NOT hideously burned or injured by the explosions will.

      Well, the survivors NOT hideously burned or injured by the explosions AND who didn't have family in the area will.

      Well, the survivors NOT hideously burned or injured by the explosions, who didn't have family in the area, AND who have the education required to fully understand the political ramifications of what just happened will.

      Well, the... you know what? I don't think there'd be many people in North Korea directly celebrating that day.

    2. Re:I'm so scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it would stop with one maniac. The second one maniac decides to make good on his threats and actually go out with a bang, the whole calculus of Mutually Assured Destruction changes. Cold War-style MAD has been ineffective for years now, but we still engage in the same types of diplomacy we used back then.

      As soon as someone actually uses a nuclear weapon, you'll end up with a Flight 93 scenario. If North Korea were to actually set one off, the US/UN/World would immediately be forced to head off the possibility that other unstable regimes would use the same tactics. Disarmament by force of countries like Iran and Pakistan would go from vague threats to real possibilities.

    3. Re:I'm so scared... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 2

      It's easy to be nonchalant about it when you don't like in Seoul. If war breaks out, Seoul will get hit by North Korean artillery nonstop. The other major concern is that China would get involved, and nobody wants to see the US and China going at it, either directly or via proxy. If it weren't for those two reasons, Kim Jong-il and co. would have been wiped out a long time ago. The only thing that could make those risks bearable would be if the alternative is an aggressive, uncontrollable nuclear state, and that's exactly what North Korea is becoming.

    4. Re:I'm so scared... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      Well, 2 good things happen in the long run if China and the US goes at it.

      1) The US nullifies all bonds held by China and refuses to pay, or pay anyone that purchases said bonds from China, so a BIG chunk of our dept just vanishes

      2) China stops exports of all goods to US. Short term US consumers hurt, long term, all the manufacturing jobs re-appear again in the US.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    5. Re:I'm so scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh please.... Take your emotional rhetoric elsewhere.

    6. Re:I'm so scared... by TheEyes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's easy to be nonchalant about it when you don't like in Seoul. If war breaks out, Seoul will get hit by North Korean artillery nonstop. The other major concern is that China would get involved, and nobody wants to see the US and China going at it, either directly or via proxy. If it weren't for those two reasons, Kim Jong-il and co. would have been wiped out a long time ago. The only thing that could make those risks bearable would be if the alternative is an aggressive, uncontrollable nuclear state, and that's exactly what North Korea is becoming.

      Nobody's on North Korea's side if they go to war, not even China. China's only interests in NK are, in order:

      1) Prevent millions of North Korean refugees from flowing over the border to China (it's not like they're going to go to their other neighbor through all the robotic sentry guns.

      2) Serve as a buffer between the pro-US South Korea and China's eastern border.

      China will support Kim so long as he remains a posturing blowhard, but the moment he actually tries to invade--and triggers all those millions of refugees that China dreads flowing into their country--they'll turn their backs on him instantly.

    7. Re:I'm so scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Short term US consumers hurt, long term, all the manufacturing jobs re-appear again in the US.

      Those jobs will go to Vietnam long before they reappear in the US.

    8. Re:I'm so scared... by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Why are manufacturing jobs a good thing? I never understood this. There is value in overpaying human beings do work that can be automated?

    9. Re:I'm so scared... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Why are manufacturing jobs a good thing? I never understood this. There is value in overpaying human beings do work that can be automated?

      Manufacturing jobs includes building the factory, running it, maintaining the robots, etc.

      Note that its not the "automatation of work" that makes china desirable to business. Its the fact that human assembly lines are cheaper than robots if you can pay them slave wages, no benefits, and maintain no regard for safety or pollution... espeically if its near a port so you can inexpensively float the finished product to market.

    10. Re:I'm so scared... by Myrmidon10 · · Score: 1

      yes, but the next one may not fizzle and they don't need an working ICBM... just a "cargo" ship and a skeleton crew

    11. Re:I'm so scared... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Its a well known fact that North Korea is within artillery range of Seoul - they can hit one of their biggest population centers and centers of government with standard run of the mill conventional arms and turn that entire area into a sea of fire within minutes.

      No your right its not nuclear weapons you need to worry about - its conventional arms - at least for that initial volley.

    12. Re:I'm so scared... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and we'll be greeted as liberators, right? It'll only take six months, tops.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:I'm so scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once on an actual war footing, the whole notion of importing luxury goods from Asia goes out the window.
      Ponder your list of what you consider absolute basic necessities. Now cross of 90% of that list. This is before we have the discussion about food and commodity rationing. And all that private industry, "defense contractors?" Anything beyond base operating costs (decided by the government, not by the company!) is paid in the form of war bonds that are not redeemable for the duration of the war.

      Don't frame the reality in terms of getting shirts from Vietnam or anything made by Foxconn. Think more along the lines of one person in your neighborhood having a car battery that works and sharing it. (True WWII story).

      We haven't had a war for a while that demanded 100% of the country to be dedicated to the effort, where *all* industrial production was dedicated to the war, where we had not only conscription but most civilian labor was also dedicated to the war effort, all natural resources, etc.

    14. Re:I'm so scared... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Actually most people believe that NK will not use an ICBM to deliver a nuke. NK just doesn't have too many of either, and the risk of failure is high. Delivery by a ship or a truck, or just hidden in a sack of heroin, is much easier. Or if you like books of Clive Cussler, check the A/C unit on those imported cars that are delivered by hundreds of thousands every year. I'm pretty sure nobody X-rays them.

      Those nukes may be already on US territory, in hands of sleeper agents. Unlikely, sure, but it's possible, and there is no defense against that (not with those borders, at least.) So a war in a faraway land may end up on the US territory.

    15. Re:I'm so scared... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Why are manufacturing jobs a good thing? I never understood this. There is value in overpaying human beings do work that can be automated?

      Only if you have an economic system that does not spread the wealth gains from automation to a large enough fraction of the population. If everything was automated with today's systems, we would have +50% unemployment and a pretty restless group of hungry and angry people - the the best recipe for utopia unfortunately.

      Too bad there was not some form of regulation or taxation in place since the turn of the century so that half of every increase in efficiency and productivity translated into decreased workload and increased pay for the workers with the other half going towards increased profits for the owners. Perhaps we would only have "advanced" to the technological level of the 1960s by now, but we could have something like a ten hour work-week. Unfortunately I can't think of any such system that wouldn't be very easy to cheat or game and without worldwide buy-in it wouldn't work well either.

    16. Re:I'm so scared... by Weegee_101 · · Score: 1

      Not if it goes nuclear. If it goes nuclear, NATO will retaliate nuclear as well. There is a strong chance that a second major conflict in Korea would result in a total nuclear war.

    17. Re:I'm so scared... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nope. More like the deranged provocations of a maniac who knows that the US fear ONE nuke in his hands more than he fears a million nukes in the hands of the US.

      Let's face it. What happens to him if you blanket NKor with nukes? Not much, probably he'll be out of town before the first bomb hits the ground. You'll wipe out everyone else in NKor, but who cares? You? Doubt it. He? Even less so.

      What happens if one single nuke lands in Los Angeles? I kinda do not want to imagine, I have seen what two planes hitting just two skyscrapers started. That was a few houses blown up and 3,000 people dead. Do I want to imagine what a whole city gone and about 3,000,000 dead would cause? I doubt it.

      So what do you think will have more of an impact? Li'l Kims single nuke or your, say, 2,000?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:I'm so scared... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Their nuclear bomb fizzled and their ICBM fell in the sea well short of its target.

      You want to know what I think about their ICBM? I think the US shot it down. North Korea relies on a good deal of foreign aid from sales of its ICBM tech to countries like Iran. I think the US would have shot it down purposefully to trick the world into thinking that North Korean missiles are unreliable.

      How could you do this when several nations plus North Korea are reading telemetry and tracking this using radar/OOH methods? Stealth missiles or lasers.

    19. Re:I'm so scared... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      The Chinese will side with NK if we dare enter the North Korea territory. In the Vietnam War no American would dare cross the parallel as China would get involved if they did. In 1953 they only cared if we were at their borders. Today they have made the new line at the border with NK.

      Besides if China got involved we can't fight for SK. Walmart and many companies would go out of business. All of our goods are made in China and China owns all of our debt. They have us by the balls and Obama knows this. Imagine if they cancelled all exports to the US and then called us to repay the debt? We would be broke and our military would starve and we would ceist to exist anymore as a nation. Ahhh the joys of outsourcing to communist countries.

      I think China is smart here and was planning to do this all along

    20. Re:I'm so scared... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Say what?

      Hussein made exactly that kind of mistake. Think for a minute (which you have obviously not done yet): Kim's only reason for being is his power over his country. If you take that country away from him, he is nothing. Literally nothing. A peasant with bad hair.

      Do you honestly think he is so stupid that he doesn't realize this? Regardless of how he feels about this or that, or his political posturing, do you HONESTLY think he is THAT stupid?

      Just curious.

    21. Re:I'm so scared... by r00t · · Score: 1

      1. Some people's only other ability is crime.

      2. Engineering jobs follow, to be closer to the factory. After that goes management jobs. Oops, there goes the whole economy.

    22. Re:I'm so scared... by cavebison · · Score: 2

      China's only interests in NK are, in order:

      You missed one. NK is like China's Pit Bull, the scary looking dog you own so nobody messes with you. Or the slightly unbalanced "bad cop" which the good cop has to apologise for while it's all part of the play. However these days China doesn't need NK as much, and I'm sure NK knows that. That isn't a good situation for anyone, and I'm sure China has wanted to remain reassuring. Post Wikileaks, that's now an even more interesting situation.

      NK has made China confident enough to be a player, letting in US commercial interests knowing it has bargaining power while NK lays on the crazy. China uses them at times to negotiate, though it's certainly a two-edged sword for them. With that in mind, you can be sure that China is at least partly responsible for NK's behaviour. The Chinese are very good chess players, and I think we'll see just how good they are in the next few years.

    23. Re:I'm so scared... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hussein didn't have the nuke. That's exactly the reason why he was kicked out. Do you think the US would have dared to if he had one?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:I'm so scared... by turgid · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for those two reasons, Kim Jong-il and co. would have been wiped out a long time ago.

      Kim Jong-Il wasn't wiped out a long time ago because there isn't any oil in North Korea so it's not worth risking US lives.

      China will not side with North Korea.

      If North Korea attacks Seoul, I'm sure the USAF and South Korea will have plenty of ordnance dropped on North Korea's military targets before you can say, "I so ronrey."

      What is very depressing is that innocent lives will be lost for the dictators of North Korea to shake a feeble and withering fist at the rest of the world.

      If North Korea does fire a nuke, you can rest assured that the West will not retaliate with a nuke. We're not that bloody-minded, and we wouldn't want to be seen to be stooping to their level.

    25. Re:I'm so scared... by turgid · · Score: 1

      If it goes nuclear, NATO will retaliate nuclear as well.

      NATO is not that stupid.

    26. Re:I'm so scared... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Riiiiggghhhhttttt,... just like last time eh?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    27. Re:I'm so scared... by Moldiver · · Score: 1

      Yes NATO not - with the US I'm not so sure. They are very hateful people with to big guns...

  20. After you have cried wolf so many times by Leuf · · Score: 5, Funny

    After you have cried wolf so many times that people ignore you then you need to move on to wolves with fricken laser beams, and then eventually wolves with ICBMs. After that maybe it's time to try something different. Maybe something with sharks.

    1. Re:After you have cried wolf so many times by Delarth799 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps sharks with lazer beams?!?!!!

    2. Re:After you have cried wolf so many times by Thorsten+Timberlake · · Score: 1

      Yes, wolves with sharks.

    3. Re:After you have cried wolf so many times by Stregano · · Score: 1

      Those are hard to come by, how about Sea Bass? They are really angry Sea Bass though

      --
      The world is how you make it
    4. Re:After you have cried wolf so many times by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yes I'm voting for the Really Angry Sea Bass. And their Pissed Off Tuna cohorts.

  21. The only way to be sure.... by jpedlow · · Score: 1, Funny

    Nuke 'em from orbit....It's the only way to be sure!

  22. This is certainly tech news if there is war by slugmass · · Score: 0

    Have you, or anyone you know, ever bought a device with components made by Samsung? I assume you will answer yes. there, you just answered the question of why it would be important if all of Samsung were to become radioactive slag.

    1. Re:This is certainly tech news if there is war by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Have you, or anyone you know, ever bought a device with components made by Samsung?

      I think a better question might be, "did you live before there was such a thing as Samsung, and how did you get by?"

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  23. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you forgot the "stuff that matters" part. I don't know about you, but a story about a real case scenario involving nuclear warfare seems pretty worthy of attention.

    Yeah, I've been waiting for the expansion pack to this for years :)

  24. Cry wolf by Petbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is probably the best way I can view North Korea now, simply crying wolf. We all know of their lack of abilities when it comes to nuclear armament. We also know that they lack the ballistics to reach the US or anywhere of real interest. I think the ballistic they test fired (which had the potential to reach Japan) failed miserably. I they have the potential to make something go boom, but in the end, no real means on delivering on it. In regard to the whole war games we (US) participated in, and the threat that followed. I predicted (correctly) what would happen. And I wonder if it will happen again. It is quite simple, NK hates to tarnish its own name. So when it makes a threat and does not follow through, it must distract the people with some news so they forget about the threats. For example, they threatened to initiate war and kill all of us (as usual). Well, obviously they did not follow through with the plan (especially suicidal since we had the Washington carrier there) so they needed a distraction. So what did they do, they announce they had nuclear weapons. It is like trying to hold something shiny in front of NK's people to distract them. I really hate NK though... I hate them because I have mix feelings and the blame is on them. I hate the idea of war and thousands if not millions of people dying. But at the same time, I really wish garbage like them would be wiped from the planet. We have like what, 60,000 troops over there now. They live there, that is there home. Imagine if we did not have to have them over there. Imagine if some of the troops in the middle east no longer have to go for another tour because of us bringing the troops back from the DMZ. In the end, I think a nuclear war would be bad against NK. They will have all the important people hiding like rats underground while the poor and rest of the people would suffer above ground. Bunker busters are the way to go! P.S. I curse Starcraft because when I read this, the first thing that went through my mind was: "Nuclear Launch Detected".

    1. Re:Cry wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'reach the US or anywhere of real interest.', This neatly sums up why most of the world depises US'ians. 'm sure its of real interest o the folks they can reach.

    2. Re:Cry wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember we have ships with big friken lasers beams than can shoot down Missiles, ICBMS and well anything of that sort. North korea would be in for a surprise after one of these ships fires its laser beam towards a nuke that N. korea just launched, detonating it right above their own soil, it would be an "epic fail" as they would technically destroy themselves.

    3. Re:Cry wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The North's missiles are more than capable of hitting Japan (which they fired over them in 1998 and again in 2009 ), and it could devastate Seoul with artillery, never mind missiles. Oh and it has demonstrated conclusively that it has nuclear bombs and is almost certainly constructing more. So NK's inability "to hit anywhere of interest" is quite wrong, unless you are only interested in mainland America.

      Also "you" have about 35,000 troops there, not 60,000.

      In summary, please stop yammering about things you don't know about.

  25. Angry irrelevent midget... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    says what now?

    Does anybody pay attention to those dipshits anymore?

    I mean, we get it - you want to rattle your little cage and scare up some free shit. It's just that nobody takes you seriously anymore, North Korea.

    You're the little twirp who gets all up in some guys face and then tells your buddies "hold me back, hold me back" because you know he'll beat you to death if you actually attack him.

  26. old guy just lining up new guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    old guy is dying so he needs to get the population to accept his son as the new guy, making believe everyone outside wants to destroy the country is a
    great strategy; you're with him or with them ...

  27. MAD by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

    Isn't the US, and several other nations including Russia, under the MAD (mutually assured destruction) treaty, supposed to convert them to glass if they use nukes? And, would we actually do it under Obama's rule?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:MAD by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      It's not a treaty, it's a doctrine. Politician for "idea". It's just nations telling each other "If you hit me, I'mma hit you so hard your grandma feels it!" When heavily armed nuclear powers to that, you get MAD. No winners, so playing the game at all becomes a bad idea. Hey, someone should make a movie about that...

      No, I rather doubt we'd turn the country into a parking lot. After all, a lot of civilians live there. I rather doubt there'd be much left of their military, however. They'd be neutered. Would we do so lightly? Of course not. Now, if NK were to directly attack the US with nukes, I suspect they'd cease to be a world power before they landed here.

    2. Re:MAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAD isn't a treaty. It is a military doctrine.

  28. NK needs to be stopped by Korveck · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...and as soon as possible. If force is needed, so be it.

    For years the US let North Korea get whatever way they want. NK leaders learned from Mao that military might is what keeps people, both inside and outside the country, fear them. The military power is their only bargaining chips. The more nukes they have, the more likely they can get things their way. This is why talks will never work. The NK leaders know that giving up nukes will seriously undermine their negotiating power. Not even China can possibly convince them.

    Right now they threaten to nuke if "provoked". In few years time, they will threaten to nuke if S.Korea refuse to ship them food.

    1. Re:NK needs to be stopped by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      You're pretty much spot on. Just remember that their military power isn't all that great. Sure they've got lots of soldiers(read cannon fodder), but they don't have the training to make up for it. A lot of countries are still on the whole 18th century method of soldiers. 3 weeks of training, hand them a gun and send them out. China does it, N.Korea does it, Russia does it. Manpower based armies are dead, especially when you can take out the commanding leadership with one missile, and leave all the gunts on the field brainless.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:NK needs to be stopped by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      While their military power isn't that great, the entire country has been brainwashed to the level of cult members. Leaving the grunts brainless in the field does not mean they would simply give up.

    3. Re:NK needs to be stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea's military power has never been it's bargaining chip. China's military power has been North Korea's bargaining chip since the very beginning. This is also why North Korea should be very happy that none of the missiles they have been lobbing have actually hit--as long as they're just throwing their weight around, China can pretend to be the calm, neutral party. If North Korea were ever to execute an attack on a civilian populace (something on the order of 9/11), then China (and the rest of the world) would actually have to make a decision.

      Here's hoping that doesn't happen, or if it does, that China breaks with North Korea.

    4. Re:NK needs to be stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a mistake to underestimate the training of other nation soldiers. I'll refrain from using stronger words to suggest what it is to grossly underestimate Russian or Chinese military training.

    5. Re:NK needs to be stopped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the concept may not be viable for a "United Korea" under N. Korea's control, if he ever does kick anything off. It won't stop Seoul from getting shelled into oblivion, and could end up with America and China in a sticky situation with us rushing to S. Korea's aid and China looking to block our military influence in the area.

      Further, while half trained armies out in the open may not be a viable solution for holding off a larger force, it's not the invasion that's the problem, if we're allowed to go all out. It's holding the territory together long enough to establish a working government and people that doesn't feel ambivalent about you at best, and hate your guts when you withdraw that's the trick. We don't have such a stellar record in that record starting with...well, Korea really.

    6. Re:NK needs to be stopped by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No but they're more likely to. The die hard followers will always hang on, Japan post-WWII, same with Italy, Nazi Germany, and so on. The majority who are tired of it, or actually see the outside world beyond their borders will be what kills the cult-centric leadership and following dead.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:NK needs to be stopped by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Since "taking out the commanding leadership" worked so well in Afghanistan...

      You may claim that this is not conventional warfare, but then, Saddam hasn't been taken out this way either.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:NK needs to be stopped by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I'm not up on modern military tactics, but having a huge army out in the field without any plan of attack or leadership running the logistics of troop movement and stuff like that can make for a very unpleasant situation in the immediate vicinity, but probably not much trouble for anyone a few hundred miles away.

  29. Dear Hans Brix: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A little to the left

    Sincerely,
    Kim Jong iL

  30. Queue all the Anti-US, pro NK rhetoric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 5, 4, 3....

  31. Nuclear fallout? by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

    How can you launch a nuclear attack on your neighbour? What happens if the wind is blowing North that day?

    "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

    1. Re:Nuclear fallout? by keith_nt4 · · Score: 1

      Fallout hasn't really been an issue for 40 or 50 years now. Nukes have a changed a lot since the mid-40s.

      --
      "UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
    2. Re:Nuclear fallout? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      You forget that Dear Leader's image will protect you from radiation sickness while we march to glorious victory!

  32. Mod Up Please by billstewart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When George Bush declared North Korea to be part of the "Axis of Evil", it was doing Kim Jong-Il a favor, making both Kim and Dubya sound like bad-asses that their populations should respect. Kim may be following in his family traditions of bat-shit insanity and sociopathic disrespect for the people he's ruler of, but he's still playing mostly for a local audience, and secondarily for other world leaders playing for their own local audiences.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Mod Up Please by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. a lot of this has to do with the power handover. From what you hear, Kim Jong Un is relatively incompetent (though not like we'd be able to get first hand sources from anyone) This sabre rattling (the boat attack, the shelling) has a lot to do with that.

      As far as the nuclear parking lot consequences, he's already let millions of his countrymen die over decades because of bad policy and outright killings. if you remove empathy for countrymen and you substitute needing to retain power, it makes NK's talk a lot less crazy. It's a calculated risk that he can bring the US to the table to extort more food and that they won't initiate a nuclear campaign (again).

    2. Re:Mod Up Please by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, he damned sure won't retain power if he sets off a nuke. His regime's lifetime will be measured in minutes at that point.

      The only context in which it makes sense for the DPRK to threaten nuclear war is if they actually want to be taken over by a coalition of Chinese and South Korean forces. What else could it mean, when they adopt tactics and rhetoric that leave their neighbors no other responsible option?

    3. Re:Mod Up Please by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Relatively incompetent"?? Relative to what (or whom)? Jong-Il? One would be hard-pressed to come up with a better example of incompetence than the current leadership.

      Because of simple political posturing, his people starve. When down South, the people who are working in capitalist businesses are doing quite well.

      Jong-Il blames it on the U.S., but the fact is that the U.S. would love to have yet another country with which it could do legitimate trade. The young people in SK working in the so-called "sweat shops" (and those have improved) are still much better off than the average citizen of NK.

      So who's fooling whom? The only people being fooled are (presumably) the North Koreans themselves... and that is probably the whole goal.

    4. Re:Mod Up Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legitmate trader? Or an excuse to impose even more laws to screw with democracy and to give more money to his mates arms companies. Perhaps Dick Cheny's one? The chap that just paid Nigeria 200 million to drop a corruption and bribery case against him.

    5. Re:Mod Up Please by jmumaw · · Score: 1

      I feel they mean all they say. These people are brought up believing whatever their government tells them. Because of sanctions, they have been living life like poor, starving, homeless people under a bridge. They are totally ignorant to the fact, that if such an action on their part, would mean serious consiquences. I don't think they care. They are literally NUTS. Lights on, nobody is home! I say nuke them first. Let god sort them out! You let the bully in school push you around, IT WILL NEVER STOP!!!!Once in a while, it's okay to punch back!!!

    6. Re:Mod Up Please by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      "Relatively incompetent"?? Relative to what (or whom)? Jong-Il? One would be hard-pressed to come up with a better example of incompetence than the current leadership.

      It's all what you think about.
      Kim Jong Il has control over his nation, is fed well, has lots of cash, and is revered as a god among men. He's still around even though Saddam has fallen. His tight cronies also are fed well and have autocratic control. He's lost Russian support, but yet, by appearing to be a nutjob he's able to extort money from the US.

      He's not incompetent, he's doing what he sets out to do: extort money, keep control. Since we're still dealing with him, he's done his job.

      His son seems uninterested in keeping the country going that way. The one major decision he's had was the currency fiasco, which caused some people to be executed (irrelevant), but also caused so much economic chaos that it started the first rumblings of people questioning the wisdom of government (very scary).

  33. Re:Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love T by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    The movie did explain that - the Doomsday Machine was to have been unveiled on the anniversary of some special state occasion, only a few days in the future. Not much help with the planes are already in the air.

  34. Re:This is tech news? by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

    I believe he's referring to the topic tags, under the story.

    Right now they state: military politics wmd technology defense story

  35. Is there any truth to that bit? by BobMcD · · Score: 2

    This is entirely attributable to the US pursuance of the policy of aggression against the DPRK (North Korea).

    Is that even true? I'm not overly inclined to trust the US government, but shouldn't we have heard by now about a 'policy of aggression' if we were conducting one? From as unbiased a view as possible, is there any truth to this allegation whatsoever? Are we, or even - can we be construed to be pursuing a policy of aggression against North Korea?

    I'm genuinely asking...

    1. Re:Is there any truth to that bit? by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether you consider economic and diplomatic sanctions "aggression."

    2. Re:Is there any truth to that bit? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You're not speaking "batshit-fucking-loco politician."

      "Criticism and Mockery" are "aggression," in much the same way that "embarrassing the fucktards in charge" is "terrorism."

    3. Re:Is there any truth to that bit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?!

      YHBT; YHL. HAND.

    4. Re:Is there any truth to that bit? by poliscipirate · · Score: 1

      Our only long-term policy toward North Korea is "let's hope it collapses soon and everyone flees to China so we don't have to deal with it." As far as short-term policies go, we use inducements/sanctions. Kind of like how you'd treat a child.

    5. Re:Is there any truth to that bit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I remember reading something about a war on the Korean peninsula that happened some time in the early 1950s I think it was. One of the belligerents is said to have been the US, ahem, I mean the UN, no I actually meant the US after all. Strangely enough the evil commies in the People's Republic of China called the skirmish the "War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea". But sure that was ages ago. Let's leave sleeping dogs lie. The peninsula is still divided artificially in two apparently. Tens of thousands of US troops are stationed on Korean land. Had you never heard about this? I'm very surprised. Last month the US and South Korea held war games off the coast of North Korea - the North Koreans responded by making jokes, smiling, waving happily and dancing around the place in joy. Probably.

      From the 28th of November. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40390864/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

      The joint military drills began 6 a.m. local time (4 p.m. ET) in the Yellow Sea, west of the Korean peninsula town of Taean, south of the site of Tuesday's attack, according to Korean military officials quoted by Yonhap, Reuters and other news agencies.
      However, officials told NBC News that the maneuvers would not start until midafternoon as the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington had just arrived in the area to join the exercise. They added that no live-fire exercises are planned during the three-day war games.
      The George Washington, which carries 75 warplanes and has a crew of more than 6,000, will be accompanied by at least four other warships.

  36. But he is already a god.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    I mean don't you read the news?

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  37. If I would be the Chinese government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd feel threatened. Seriously, a maniac like that right in front of your doorstep is worse than the U.S. right in front of your doorstep. The American do some pretty nasty and idiotic stuff - but at least they are somewhat predictable and not totally erratic like that lunatic in North Korea.

    The choice would be obvious: take down the leadership of North Korea and get some good deals with the U.S. as a reward. I'm pretty sure the Chinese have the means necessary to do the deed at hand.

  38. Rudolf the dead-nuked reindeer by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Rudolf the dead-nuked reindeer (reindeer)

    had a very shiny nose (shiny nose)

    and if you ever saw it (saw it)

    you might even say it glows (like a nuclear reactor)

    --
    I do hope Santa doesn't choose the wrong moment to deliver sacks of fuel, er, coal, to the North Korean government.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  39. Small dog syndrome ... by giorgist · · Score: 1

    I am sure if Korea so much as sneezes in the direction Chine will blast them before anybody gets a chance.
    Instability in the region will risk huge investments.

    They are just making noise to get attention.

    The world should simply follow a simple legal route, what is happening in N Korea will come to pass. Help them when they are reasonable.
    Ignosre them when they winge, follow international and spirint when they comit illegalities.
    It may take time, and people will suffer in that country,
    but illegal acts to hasten it will simply backfire and feed it.

    G

    1. Re:Small dog syndrome ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game plan here is for China's appropriation of North Korea. The only thing I'm waiting to see, is if their plan is to have NK take SK, then take over, or if they are going to let the South keep their autonomy for a few more generations.
      Here's how I see things playing out recently:
      EU set up the Euro to replace the greenback as the global currency, positioned itself for the transition for when the US economy couldn't sustain itself any more.
      The military interaction with the Middle East (9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan) was meant to be the vehicle that broke the American economic back. All was going according to plan until...
      China stepped in and propped up the American economy (they have no inherent stake in a global economy, Marxist economics can self-perpetuate - floating America's debt is simply a means to an end) thereby causing the Europeans to have to accommodate for a game that is taking much longer to unfold than they had anticipated. This is why why we see countries like Greece and Ireland coming apart, and being carried, by the EU. But the EU cannot maintain this economic circumstance indefinitely, so...
      ATM, China is able to simply sit on its hands, and wait to see who comes apart first. So long as the US doesn't interfere, militarily, and China does nothing obvious which would necessitate an American military response, China can, for instance, wait for North Korea to go bonkers, then step in as the "good guy" AND expand its territory.
      The long game is being played here, and China is controlling the field, with the US playing ball. Where does your country stand in all of this?

  40. English Translation by ntsucks · · Score: 1

    "Please give us more money and aid!"

    --
    Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
  41. 24 bunker busters by BoRegardless · · Score: 2

    The whole thing with N. Korea is stupid beyond belief that all the other countries of the world AND the U.N. has let this continue (Zimbabwe, too).

    Well, there is no cease fire from the early 50s, so lets go in and finish off all the big govt buildings in PY and demand surrender or else.

    Nothing like stirring up war during Christmas in honor of the Crusades.

    Lets see now. Who would come to the defense of North Korea...No one. Now isn't that dandy.

    But Kim Jong Mentally Ill has been doing this for a long time, so we can wait until the time is good...or they just have a revolution. Either way it will be horrible, but KJM Ill has set it up this way and I don't see a way out without a lot of people dying of either starvation or war. That is his choice, because he won't abdicate & surrender.

    1. Re:24 bunker busters by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Well, there is no cease fire from the early 50s, so lets go in and finish off all the big govt buildings in PY and demand surrender or else."

      It won't impress the Norks. They were bombed flat by thousands of raids during the Korean War. They have spent their lives getting ready for the "Apocalypse".

      Shock and Awe don't work on Serious People.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:24 bunker busters by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Who would come to the defense of North Korea...No one.

      China. They did it in the fifties to preserve a buffer state between them and the U.S., and they'd do it again.

      Secondarily, NK has 80,000 pieces of artillery and rockets pointed at Seoul, a city of more than 10,000,000 that's within range of the NK border. In any hot war between the north and south, those massed forces have at least a couple hours to rain destruction down. It's basically like that crazy fucker Kim Jong Il has a gun pointed right at the head of South Korea; that's the context in which diplomacy takes place.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:24 bunker busters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cant someone just do a quick assasination of KJ and all his most vocal supporters? that way if he is unloved throught NK then he wont be missed, and if he isnt, then well maybe the next idiot wont be as crazy and will maybe be more diplomatic or at least stick to conventional weapons when they are the aggressor?

    4. Re:24 bunker busters by Monolith1 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if China might be more likely to just sit on their hands and let the USA and NK duke it out in a conventional battle. This would cause the US to drag itself into economic despair even faster, allowing China to become the superpower sooner.

    5. Re:24 bunker busters by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      China will *NOT* come to NK's aid. They did it in the 50s when they had nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Now they have a lot to lose (trillions of dollars in debt, crushed economy) and nothing to gain (they aren't hardcore commies anymore, cold war is over).

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    6. Re:24 bunker busters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole thing with N. Korea is stupid beyond belief that all the other countries of the world AND the U.N. has let this continue (Zimbabwe, too).

      Well, there is no cease fire from the early 50s, so lets go in and finish off all the big govt buildings in PY and demand surrender or else.

      Nothing like stirring up war during Christmas in honor of the Crusades.

      Lets see now. Who would come to the defense of North Korea...No one. Now isn't that dandy.

      But Kim Jong Mentally Ill has been doing this for a long time, so we can wait until the time is good...or they just have a revolution. Either way it will be horrible, but KJM Ill has set it up this way and I don't see a way out without a lot of people dying of either starvation or war. That is his choice, because he won't abdicate & surrender.

      Who would come to the defense of NK? hum let's see.... mutual defense pact with China!
      And actually they have artillery positioned near enough to obliterate seoul. Bad idea...

    7. Re:24 bunker busters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see now. Who would come to the defense of North Korea...No one. Now isn't that dandy

      It depends on who does it. If China invaded then I doubt anyone would intervene beyond some public criticism. If the US invaded then expect a military reponse from China. It would be like if China decided to invade Venezuela - the US government might not care about the invading soverign countries part (when have they ever) but I'd expect them to be a bit unsettled by the Chinese military action in the Americas part.

  42. 8 minutes not seconds by perpenso · · Score: 2

    I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.

    It was probably 8 minutes and based upon Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM). ICBMs going over the north pole would take 20-30 minutes but SLBMs off the coast could hit their targets in as little as 3 minutes.

    1. Re:8 minutes not seconds by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone assuming launch vehicle and not warhead capability?

      It'd take about 8 minutes for everything to settle from a nuke detonation, then the fallout begins.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:8 minutes not seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can get ripped abs faster than that.

  43. Collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a price I am willing to pay. Just nuke those sorry fucks already, I grow tired of their rhetorics.

  44. Re:This is tech news? by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Another thing that might be worthy of attention- one of the revelations to emerge from Wikileaks was the revelation that China was open to the possibility of a united Korea, under the control of Seoul. To suddenly discover that your ally (or the closest thing you have to one) is secretly wishing for your downfall is probably a real shock. Is it a coincidence that all this talk about nuking other countries is coming a couple of weeks after the release of that cable by Wikileaks?

    I think that some of those cables should have been released, but Wikileaks was extraordinarily irresponsible in deciding to release all of them. Some of this stuff is secret for a good reason, and a cable stating that China would like to see North Korea taken over by the South is exactly the kind of thing that could potentially destabilize an already unstable situation.

  45. Dead Hand by citylivin · · Score: 0

    Actually, they did build it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)

    Also you could get the 8 second time if all the bombs were exploded inside their launchers / storage facilities. People in this thread are assuming the missiles need to be launched to cause world wide destruction.

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    1. Re:Dead Hand by RsG · · Score: 2

      "Dead hand" is not what's being discussed. The GP was talking about a doomsday device situated on home soil set to contaminate the atmosphere with radioactive cobalt if a war broke out. Dead Hand was a fail deadly launch system for normal ICBMs. These are two different things, though I'll grant that Dead Hand is similar in concept and purpose.

      If you want to know about the doomsday deterrent idea try this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_device
      Scroll down to the bit with the "doomsday machine" proposed in the 1950s in the US, which in turn was the basis for the same idea that appeared in "Doctor Strangelove".

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Dead Hand by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Actually, they did build it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)

      Also you could get the 8 second time if all the bombs were exploded inside their launchers / storage facilities. People in this thread are assuming the missiles need to be launched to cause world wide destruction.

      That doesn't mention anything about the Cobalt Bomb, or any other specific weapon... It's about an automated general launch system of their standard weapons.

    3. Re:Dead Hand by khallow · · Score: 1

      Actually, they did build it:

      First, the article doesn't say that. Second, it uses the word "purportedly" a lot.

    4. Re:Dead Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fission-fusion-fission bombs are far dirtier then cobalt bombs anyway.

    5. Re:Dead Hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I purportedly have a friend who purportedly likes to the word "purportedly" a lot.

    6. Re:Dead Hand by khallow · · Score: 1

      I purportedly have a friend who purportedly likes to the word "purportedly" a lot.

      Well, it's on the internet, must be true!

    7. Re:Dead Hand by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      And cheaper. And have higher yield. Cobalt was a very early speculative idea that never left the drawing board. By the time there were thermonuclear devices it was long forgotten.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    8. Re:Dead Hand by khallow · · Score: 1

      Now wrap your 100+ megaton bomb with a few tons of cobalt. Is it now "cleaner" than it was before? I somehow doubt it.

  46. North Korea's supreme innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In spite of U.S. meddling, North Korea's innovative forces have yielded the economic success of the South. When we see how deprived North Koreans live, we can fully understand their sacrifice for the South.

  47. MAD by toby · · Score: 1

    You're familiar with the charming phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction," I take it.

    --
    you had me at #!
  48. Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation:
    "Waah! Waah! Listen to us! We need foreign aid real bad!!"

  49. Re:This is tech news? by bem · · Score: 4, Informative

    And the category of the story... ie, this is at tech.slashdot.org. And right before the title it says "Technology:"

  50. Kim Jong Il goes ballistic by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    Kim Jong Il goes ballistic.

  51. Predicatble Response by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    They are announcing this as the US and S Korean navies are resuming the naval exercises that prompted the North to commence shelling. The South Korean government ended up getting a lot of flack internally for not responding to the North in any meaningful fashion, and has announced that it will send Jets north if attacked again. The north knows it cannot win in a shooting war, and will be utterly crushed if this occurs. So they are playing the nuclear card in hopes of bluffing the south into not doing anything further.

    The south's political leadership needs a strong show of force right now, to not get voted out of office by enraged voters. This is a smart bluff (IMHO) on the North's part, to discourage the South from lobbing a few shells over the border while a US carrier group is at their back and on full alert. Using the nuclear threat here is good because nobody really knows if they are crazy enough to do it, and they probably know this. (I am sure they know we think they are unpredictable and erratic, and are willing to play on those fears).

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  52. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is once again assuming that North Korea didn't already know that little bit of info that directly pertained to them and was visible to three million people.

  53. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Less of a wikileaks reaction, and more of a reaction to the various joint US-S. Korea drills that have been going on after the North attacked that island.

    Oh that and Lil Kim is bat-shit crazy.

  54. Re:This is tech news? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    This is tech news?

    Well it does give you a chance to make a "would you like to play a game?" reference.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  55. Re:This is tech news? by PraiseBob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You do realize that only ~1k out of ~250k have been released right? That is less than one percent.

    I for one would prefer for DPRK to know it won't have allies if push comes to shove. Generally speaking, when little guys realize their big brother won't help them in a fight, they act less aggressively. But of course posturing plays an important role in negotiating a better deal.

    There is the risk that information might destabilize their control and lead to violence. There is also the risk that the US and China plotting in secret to overthrow a nuclear power would lead to violence as well. Which situation is more dangerous, who can say?

  56. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    destabilize an already unstable situation

    That doesn't make any sense.

  57. Re:This is tech news? by justin12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless the initial press-only Wikileaks docs were leaked to N. Korea, this most recent flare up, which started when N. Korea shelled S. Korea and S. Korea shelled them back, started before Wikileaks took its dump. It seems more likely that Kim's failing health and the transfer of power to his youngest son are responsible.

    Also, starting a nuclear war in response to finding out you only (massive, nuclear armed) ally wants you to sit down and shut up seems counter productive. Not to say that anything N. Korea does is sane: but I doubt it was a secret to N. Korea that China wanted N. Korea to make like it wasn't there (though the kid might not have been happy to hear it). The Chinese have the most to lose by a destabilized East Asia, whereas the N. Koreans have virtually nothing to lose. I'm sure China has spoken to them directly about the matter. They probably said something like: swing your dick around a few times to save face about the shelling, then go back to barely being there.

    --
    Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  58. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they deploy nukes the ENTIRE WORLD will be at war with them. And the rest of us won't need nukes to bomb that crap hole into the stone age.

    Adios NK, it's been real.

    1. Re:Yeah right by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "And the rest of us won't need nukes to bomb that crap hole into the stone age."

      Due to the preference for precision guided weapons which are effective against modern forces fighting conventional wars, air forces are now much smaller than in the days of the Korean War. Bombing on that scale with conventional weapons is not possible.

      We don't have enough airframes to haul that much ordnance. Most of our conventional bomber fleet went to Davis-Monthan to get chopped up for scrap, along with vast fighter-bomber fleets which were not replaced airframe-for-airframe.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  59. WRONG: RE: No-first-use by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    You're wrong on multiple counts here.

    GWB ordered the US to prepare first-use scenarios for implementation in Taiwan and other potential conflicts, and first-use of so-called 'tactical' nuclear weapons remains a part of the US nuclear posture and of operational plans.

    No-first-use only became a entrenched part of public US nuclear policy in the wake of the Cuban MIssle crisis, and even then, it's not as clear that behind the scenes policies (actual policies) every matched public statements; there is now evidence to the contrary.

    The US _will_ initiate the use of nuclear weapons under defined circumstances, and I wouldguess that, on the Korean peninsula, the Pentagon planners have such scenarios.

    I doubt they involve anything less than significant Chinese military intervention, however, which seems likely at this point.

    And 'nobody wants to be responsible for a nuclear war?' You should read some of the Chinese generals.

    1. Re:WRONG: RE: No-first-use by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Er, *seems unlikely* . When do we get post-submit editing rights?

  60. Re:This is tech news? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

    If you've studied the situation you'd know that North Korea and China have had a love/hate relationship for a long time - China is one of these last best friends in the region but for the last couple years there have been reports of angry meetings and requests from China for North Korea to behave.

    Publically speaking - yes China supports North Korea to keep the hard liners happy, but it should be no surprise they secretly wish the Kim family would just go far far away.

  61. Re:This is tech news? by khallow · · Score: 1

    I think that some of those cables should have been released, but Wikileaks was extraordinarily irresponsible in deciding to release all of them. Some of this stuff is secret for a good reason, and a cable stating that China would like to see North Korea taken over by the South is exactly the kind of thing that could potentially destabilize an already unstable situation.

    What's your reason for this opinion? Keep in mind that any beneficial change in the North Korean government is also going to be for a time more unstable than the current situation. Is it somehow better to have North Korea stay permanently a backwards totalitarian government to avoid destabilization? I don't think so especially given that destabilization appears inevitable anyway. And it's also worth noting that I and millions of other people have a better understanding of current international politics as a result.

  62. Re:This is tech news? by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it a coincidence that all this talk about nuking other countries is coming a couple of weeks after the release of that cable by Wikileaks?

    This kind of rhetoric has been going on for years as have a number of dangerous military confrontations. You really can't pin this on Wikileaks.

    I think that some of those cables should have been released, but Wikileaks was extraordinarily irresponsible in deciding to release all of them.

    There have been many redactions in the documents to protect individuals. In recent years it has been the lies of governments that have cost so many lives. Now it's time for some truth.

  63. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't ironic that this may very well prove the government's point about secrets. It's easy to say all information should be public but I'm wondering how many draft age posters would change their opinion if freedom of information meant that they were about to be drafted into a potential nuclear war? I think the government keeps far too many secrets but with the number of unstable hotheads running countries some things do need to be kept secret.

  64. Fanatic civilians? by Wain13001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All of this always makes me think of an article that ran a few years back (not on slashdot) that was interviewing several people who had managed to defect/escape from NK into China and other places. These were average citizens...

    One of them told how her job was to collect the pamphlets that were dropped by US planes, and how she feels so incredibly foolish now, because she and all of her coworkers had to use sharpened sticks to pick them up. They did this because they had been told that the US pamphlets which espoused democracy and freedom were covered in some kind of an acidic solution that would eat away their skin if they touched them.

    She acknowledged how (in the light of having escaped and seen the world around her for the first time in a more impartial manner) very silly it was to believe such a thing, but reiterated that everyone who worked with her truly believed this to be true.

    This sort of thing makes me very nervous about the idea of invading North Korea. The people are so incredibly ignorant of the world around them and we know so little about them besides the fact that they're not well educated and starving, that it seems dangerously possible that going to war with them would mean going to war with an entire country of zealots...this does not seem like a good option.

    1. Re:Fanatic civilians? by rastilin · · Score: 2

      That sounds really interesting, can you link to the article?

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    2. Re:Fanatic civilians? by Valcrus · · Score: 0

      Just in case someone is interested VBS.tv did a video about North Korea. Its a pretty good watch. http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3
      What you said was pretty accurate. The people there are happy but its because they don't know anything else and they believe that their government would never lie to them. Personally I keep looking at this and can't figure out how all the countries in the world keep putting up with NK. It seems now is the time for everyone to tell them to sit down and shut up. I mean how would the world respond to any other country telling another country "Don't do those drills or we will start shooting at you". Think about it say Canada did drills off the cost near Maine in the northern US. How would the world act if the US went "If you do those drills we are going to bomb Vancouver!"? The rest of the world would have a fit. But with NK you have people like Russia that "asked South Korea to cancel the drills after North Korea vowed to strike back if they proceed."

    3. Re:Fanatic civilians? by mevets · · Score: 1

      Ignorance and superstition are an important part of civil defence in other countries as well. Watch FOX news sometime.

    4. Re:Fanatic civilians? by nine932038 · · Score: 1

      This is actually becoming less true as time goes on. I've been reading the English edition of the Chosun Ilbo, and it seems like in recent years, the information barrier is becoming increasingly porous. Apparently, North Koreans regularly watch South Korean TV shows, listen to SK music, etc., etc. - it's supposedly pretty easy to get a smuggled Chinese DVD player that'll play anything.

      Not to say that they won't fight, though... they will, because the alternative is to get shot by firing squad and have their whole family sent to the gulag.

    5. Re:Fanatic civilians? by 93,000 · · Score: 1

      I watched that VBS piece a few months ago. It was amazing. I highly recommend it.

    6. Re:Fanatic civilians? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      USA forces distributed toys rigged with explosives to Iraqi children and before that used the same tactic during the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Why shouldn't I believe they are capable of poisoning pamphlets?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  65. Re:This is tech news? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

    http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk02200&num=5696

    Is a good example of what I said above ;).

  66. Re:This is tech news? by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Kim made a trip to Beijing a couple of months ago. Not something that normally makes the news, if it even happens.

    Could be one of three things:

    1. Nothing, just business as commie-usual.

    2. The fix is in, NK knows China wants it to stop being a shithole and find a way to reunite with SK, and heating things up a little and starting real negotiations won't look like just bringing the same book to the table and capitulating on things you've been holding your ground on for nearly 60 years. Maybe heating things up enough to start a minor war and losing. Losers get pretty good handouts in this modern world. But so do open capitulators, if we're smart (cf. Libya).

    3. NK and China, or NK without China's OK, is really trying to start some shit so it can use its nuke and hopefully overrun the south in the aftermath of taking out SK's biggest city and military command center. Good luck with the second move in that chess game, short-round.

  67. Are you sure it wasn't Corbomite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure it wasn't Corbomite?

  68. Re:This is tech news? by Motard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I for one would prefer for DPRK to know it won't have allies if push comes to shove.

    Yes, let's corner a nuclear armed animal and make him very afraid.

    Kim Jong * will not survive any governmental change. They know it.

  69. Re:This is tech news? by couchslug · · Score: 0

    Not especially newsworthy. The Norks have been penis-waving for decades.

    When we were serious we had nukes on aircraft sitting Zulu Alert in South Korea ready to erase the invading Nork hordes. They stayed in their box instead, but they still sent infiltrators and played the same game they do now.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  70. War Games by nanospook · · Score: 1

    Someone send N Korea a copy of War Games (Please purchase it legally so that the RIAA doesn't start a Nuclear War)..

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  71. background information by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Start here:

    "K section of ccTLDs in the IANA human readable database.

    Human readable delegation record.

    IANA report on the assignment of the North Korean TLD.

    Click some links to clear up any misunderstandings you may have about whether the assignment (rather late) of the TLD automatically means that they have fiber lit and active into the DPRK. Especially, click on the link on the delegation record to the URL for registration services.

    BTW, what the AC who talks about North Koreans residing in Japan (Zai-nichi kita chousen-jin) says is fairly accurate, if incomplete. Most of the Korean residents living in Japan are quite aware that supporting the current North Korean government is not in their own best interests.

    Unfortunately, there are still many who are afraid to formally register as residents of Japan, and many who are afraid of what the DPRK government could do to their families.

    In addition, much of the legitimate effort to send money and aid back to family in North Korea gets siphoned off to the DPRK government.

    And, no, cynical as it all seems to say it, the DPRK government is not in any hurry to even have very much of their military connected to the outside world by the internet.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  72. Re:This is tech news? by couchslug · · Score: 0

    "a cable stating that China would like to see North Korea taken over by the South is exactly the kind of thing that could potentially destabilize an already unstable situation."

    Which is one reason I think the Wikileaks "leak" may be a ploy by the US to expose what cannot be formally "outed". It can open room for different thinking.

    The Norks will froth, but that's what they always do and it can be taken for granted. Anyone who doesn't think its normal wasn't watching in the first place.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  73. North Korea Says War With South Would Go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Disco. Because that's about when they're at. Threatening their cousins while they eat twig-bread and "mystery pork". (Did *you* eat the kids this weekend, Dear?)

    Look, South Korea has the best broadband in the world, right? Or close to it. We gotta do something, quick! No broadband, no IPv4, no delicio.us, what's the world coming to?

    -- fartful chrysler

  74. Living for today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its by no misnomer that NK is perched just to the east of China and Iran is perched just to the left.. Everybody get your sunglasses out.

  75. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a shock at all, you've taken the news too literally. I think it would behoove you to remember that politics is not a literal world.

    When they say "we would like to see a united korea under control of Seuol" that doesn't necessarily mean what you think. If i remember correctly, that very statement came from a conversation between chinese and south korean diplomat, being re-told to a US diplomat. So already it's one degree removed from the source; furthermore, what exactly do you expect china to say to SK, "We would not like to see a united korea, and if we do we'd like for it to be under the control of the Kim family"? It is in china's long term interests to see a united korea, even more-so now that their power is beginning to be recognized by the powers around it.

    A couple of nations who are literally in cease-fire (not even peace) right on your border, one with nuclear capabilities and a fiery rhetoric to back it up, the other with the backing of a world superpower who truly has no interest in south korea outside of its potential for power projection.

    To say that they want to see a united korea under control of seoul only means they don't want two powers on the edge of fighting, would rather have them all under one leadership, and that (if given the choice) they think the foreign embassy in seoul is much nicer than the one in pyongyang so would rather have the eventual government there than in the north.

  76. Re:This is tech news? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Everything that gets published on the site has already appeared in a newspaper, so technically Wikileaks has not "released" anything.

  77. Except you don't need more than 50 per country... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...to cause decades long nuclear winter.

    How long can you go without food?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  78. Re:This is tech news? by fishexe · · Score: 1

    I was about to post everything you just said, but now that I've read your post, I have to say this is all spot-on. At this point any alliance between China and North Korea is purely symbolic. It's like that part in Redvsblue when Tucker says, "It's Blue, we're Blue..." I'm pretty sure the CCP is basically going, "We gotta stick up for North Korea! It's Red, we're Red..." and that relationship is more about the show of bolstering China's communist credentials at a time when it seems more and more capitalist than any actual strategic gain China thinks it's getting out of the deal.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  79. Re:This is tech news? by Tom · · Score: 1

    Stable or unstable is not by itself an argument. Most abusive relationships are pretty stable, for example. Sometimes, shaking up a fucked up situation is exactly what needs to be done.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  80. Re:This is tech news? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    North Korea is all bark and no bite. It makes them a joke to the rest of the world. Maybe if they threatened to send their starving people out as immigrants it would make other nations scared. Funny thing is, I am fairly liberal.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  81. Re:This is tech news? by maugle · · Score: 1

    Is it somehow better to have North Korea stay permanently a backwards totalitarian government to avoid destabilization?

    Yes. So we Americans have something to point at and say "at least we don't have it as bad as over there", as we line up for our mandatory pre-commute cavity search.

  82. You mean like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the way they went into Vietnam a bit later? That one went well too, didn't it?

    1. Re:You mean like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, if they put some muscle into it, they would have won... Besides, it did go very well for those who had some money to make from the whole affair. You must be confused as to the objectives..

    2. Re:You mean like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Again, if they put some muscle into it, they would have won...

      This is a myth perpetuated by the hawks. The truth is, we had no strategy for fighting an enemy on those terms. The scenarios that played out in WWII and Korea were useless in Vietnam, and "more force" was not helping.

    3. Re:You mean like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You remain ignorant of the facts. The DC bureaucrats cost us the war, not the VC. The troops were adapting to your "scenarios" there, but they had to get permission to fight. Fuck that! Congress had more allegiance with Russia and North Vietnam than it did with our boys. You know nothing.

  83. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    How awesome it is that we ignored North Korea to invade Iraq.

    1. Re:Subject by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Who is 'we'? You?

      The U.S. military/gov't/news did no such thing.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      You should pay more attention to the world around you.

      "NORTH KOREA'S PURSUIT of a nuclear arsenal directly threatens the security of the American people, as well as our ability to shape the international order so as to strengthen the stability of Asia, defeat the global threat of terrorism, and enhance the security of the United States and our allies. Those who counsel a return to the status quo fail to grasp the danger of rewarding threats with retreat and concession. America's challenge in Asia is to compel North Korea's nuclear disarmament, protect ourselves and our allies from the insecurity caused by the nuclear ambitions and nature of North Korea's regime, and demonstrate to other rogue leaders that America will not be blackmailed into violating first principles of sound statecraft." (Jan. 20, 2003)

      But yeah, we went to Iraq instead. Oh well.

    3. Re:Subject by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I pay attention to the world around me, it seems you have no idea about international politics or how the world works.

      The U.S. wasn't ignoring North Korea. If we weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, we still wouldn't have gone to war or invaded NK because:

      1. China sits on the UN permanent security council, which means the U.S. would have a hard time drumming up international support for any first-strike actions against NK.

      2. Any aggression from the U.S. puts Chinese/U.S. trade relations in danger.

      3. It's apparent to *EVERYONE* on the world stage that NK is bluffing to receive foreign aid.

      The U.S. has been handling the NK situation through a series of disarmament talks with Japan, South Korea, NK, and China.

      Just because we haven't taken physical action (doing so would have been foolish) DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE BEEN IGNORING THEM.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    4. Re:Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      That's odd, I don't recall saying anywhere that we should have invaded NK. Try 1-800-PHONICS.

      The fact is, we were in talks with other Asian powers in late 2002. Then we dropped the ball for about a year while we invaded Iraq, a non-threat. I don't consider that addressing the issue.

    5. Re:Subject by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      I don't recall saying anywhere that you said that we should have invaded NK. Try some reading comprehension. It generally helps with this sort of thing.

      As to addressing the issue, I do consider that addressing the issue as they were not posing an immediate threat. The Iraq war was irrelevant to our handling of the NK situation.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  84. Re:This is tech news? by c · · Score: 1

    To suddenly discover that your ally (or the closest thing you have to one) is secretly wishing for your downfall is probably a real shock.

    People who run entire countries, even a third-world disaster like North Korea, don't get to that point by believing crazy shit like "China has my back". They'll feign shock if it's convenient, but anyone in NK dumb enough to actually believe it would have long been weeded out by the old "yeah, you should vote against Dear Leader, he thinks unanimous votes look too fake" prank.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  85. Re:This is tech news? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

    China didn't actually say that it wanted a unified Korea under Seoul's control. What it said was that it didn't mind the idea, but also was OK with North Korea being there as a buffer state.

    China's leadership seems OK with the status quo, largely because it defers having to deal with a few million people rushing across its border terrified that the South Korea military is about to skewer and eat them alive. South Korea is OK with the status quo for right now because it doesn't want to foot the trillion-dollar cost of unification.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  86. Careful with interpreting those cables. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Another thing that might be worthy of attention- one of the revelations to emerge from Wikileaks was the revelation that China was open to the possibility of a united Korea, under the control of Seoul.

    Eh, the cable says that some dude in South Korea talked to some dude at the Chinese Embassy, and the dude from the Chinese Embassy said that he and a couple other people in the Chinese government would prefer a unified Korea under Seoul's government, but with certain economic and military concessions toward China. The Chinese dude also, IIRC, expressed regret that some guy who was dealing with the situation on China's behalf was a gung-ho old guard communist who disagreed with it.

    There are factions in China that support reunification under southern rule. There are factions that don't. The question is which are going to win this one.

  87. Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither of those countries had nukes.
    One of them doesn't even have running water, electricity or roads.

  88. Umm... No. by denzacar · · Score: 2

    3 weeks of training, hand them a gun and send them out. China does it, N.Korea does it, Russia does it.

    What exactly were you smoking when you wrote that?
    Cause, you seem to be mistaking world's largest armies for some African warlord's "army" of "child soldiers".

    Russia - 12 month draft, mandatory for all male citizens age 18-27. 18 months until couple of years ago. And those are just your civilians - there are over a million in active service and almost as much in reserve.

    China - 24-month service obligation. But they don't enforce it as they have way too many soldiers already.
    About 7.5 million in total.

    North Korea - 42 months and longer. And their army is the 4th largest in the world.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Umm... No. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Service obligations are different from actual training. A group of swiss soldiers, or Israeli soldiers both who are drafted get more in basic outside of the whole million man army. So what you smoking? You seem to believe that large numbers of people with limited training, are better off then small groups of people with specialized training, or longer proficient training.

      By all means, go actually check and see how much training is given. The average US or Canuck soldier gets more in basic then the average 'conscript' gets in 12 months.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  89. Moron by Das+Auge · · Score: 1

    Yes, because one of the largest up and coming countries in the world are far too stupid to figure out what's going. Even more so since we'll have told them.

    So your idea that they'd just start a global world-ending war for no good reason makes you a moron.

    1. Re:Moron by Tom · · Score: 1

      Yeah "we'll have told them". As if they - or anyone else, for that matter - would believe you lying, backstabbing fuck-ups.

      The point is that they would not know. And "large" or "coming" doesn't matter if you have a bunch of radar dots representing nukes rapidly approaching, and your reaction time should they not detonate over North Korea as announced but continue onwards is on the order of seconds.

      So your idea that they'd just start a global world-ending war for no good reason makes you a moron.

      One word: Kuba

      You bet the lives of everyone on the globe on us being more lucky this time? That is way more moronic than some maybe excessive caution.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Moron by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I think they indeed would _KNOW_, actually.

      Also I guess one of the reasons they themselves may not consider themselves very much of an ally with north Korea may be that 1) they doesn't benefit China much 2) China probably want all trades with China to be as easy and active as possible at all times.

    3. Re:Moron by Tom · · Score: 1

      Oh, I totally agree on that, NK is a big liability for China these days.

      That doesn't mean they wouldn't flip out at the thought of a bunch of nukes detonating in what is basically their backyard.

      Would you think kindly of the chinese nuking, say, Mexico? Or would it seem a little close for comfort?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  90. Leaks by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    and a cable stating that China would like to see North Korea taken over by the South is exactly the kind of thing that could potentially destabilize an already unstable situation.

    Or it could make NK behave and abandon its brinkmanship antics, because it realizes that china will not back it in a shooting war. It is entirely possible that NK's intelligence services were not aware how irritated china was was. Just because secret information was leaked, does not mean that a negative outcome will result when it is revealed.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  91. Re:This is tech news? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When was it demonstrated that North Korea actually had nukes? I only remember a failed test and a lot of posturing. Googling turns up nothing, although I may not be looking correctly. What am I missing?

  92. difference between Obama threatening nuke war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than one comment was by POTUS, and the other by PONK, what is the difference?

    Obama said the US policy would be to reserve the right to use nukes in conflicts, including first strike.

    NK's policy is that it will use nukes if attacked by the US and SK.

    If nuke possession by any country is reasonable (remember the way they have been selling them with the slogan of mutually assured destruction), then NK's response is just as reasonable.

  93. Same with the US by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The way it works in the US, and indeed many countries, is that WMD is WMD. They do not differentiate nuclear, chemical, biological. If you attack them with a WMD, they'll respond in kind. However most of those nations only have nuclear weapons, or at least only have nuclear weapons in any sort of state to deploy. That means the response WILL be nuclear.

    That policy came up because most nations don't maintain big stockpiles of the other kinds of WMDs. The US dismantled it's bioweapons program in the 70s and destroyed what it had, not it only has small research quantities and scaling that up for any sort of offensive system would take years, never mind developing the delivery system. The US still does have some chemical weapons, but they are int he process of being destroyed and are in no state to be delivered, even supposing the destruction stops.

    Well, they don't very well want to get caught in a situation where someone launches a massive bio and/or chemical attack on them and then says "You can't use nukes, your policy says only the same kind of WMDs are allowed!" While that might sound a little silly, remember that altering policy in time of war after a massive attack could be a problem. So the policy is "A WMD is a WMD, we don't care what kind. You unleash a bioweapon, we nuke you since that's all we have."

  94. The North Korean Army was defeated in 1950. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 5, Informative

    The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.

    No, the UN forces flat-out defeated the North Korean Army in 1950. The war only lasted beyond that because the Chinese took over. Just look at the strengths of the top 5 combatants (Wikipedia numbers, yeah):

    • China: 926,000
    • South Korea: 590,911
    • USA: 480,000
    • North Korea: 260,000
    • UK: 63,000

    Yes, Communist China fielded 3.5x as many troops as the North Koreans. On top of that, right before the war they gave the North Koreans 70,000+ ethnic Korean soldiers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, including two already-organized, experienced ethnic Korean divisions that had fought in the Chinese civil war. Kim Il Sung invaded the south only after Mao promised to send forces if the USA intervened. The Chinese Communists really, really threw their support behind North Korea.

    1. Re:The North Korean Army was defeated in 1950. by John+Saffran · · Score: 1

      .. On top of that, right before the war they gave the North Koreans 70,000+ ethnic Korean soldiers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, including two already-organized, experienced ethnic Korean divisions that had fought in the Chinese civil war. Kim Il Sung invaded the south only after Mao promised to send forces if the USA intervened ..

      Agree that there was a large influx of korean troops returning to NK after the end of the chinese civil war, but these weren't members of the chinese PLA (which didn't exist at the time). Those troops formed the KVA (Korean Volunteer Army) that fought side by side with the CCP forces .. the chinese forces in the korean war called themselves the People's Volunteer Army in tribute to the KVA since they were reciprocating the help they got from the KVA.

      Neither Stalin or Mao or Kim Il Sung actually anticipated the US to intervene going by the statements that the US had made and the lack of assistance to SK (military or economical). And while Mao did intervene quite strongly, he wasn't consulted in the lead up to the start of the war .. rather he was kept in the dark because Stalin didn't trust Mao. Later on Stalin egged Mao on to intervene, but that was after the war turned bad for NK.

    2. Re:The North Korean Army was defeated in 1950. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      They nearly pushed UN forces into the sea before US reinforcements arrived, which can quite reasonably be compared to China joining the fight.

      Psychologically, which is what matters TO THE NORKS, they didn't lose NK.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:The North Korean Army was defeated in 1950. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      Agree that there was a large influx of korean troops returning to NK after the end of the chinese civil war, but these weren't members of the chinese PLA (which didn't exist at the time). Those troops formed the KVA (Korean Volunteer Army) that fought side by side with the CCP forces.

      Thanks for the correction. I'm currently reading Allan R. Millett's The War for Korea, but I may have misread some pieces.

      Neither Stalin or Mao or Kim Il Sung actually anticipated the US to intervene going by the statements that the US had made and the lack of assistance to SK (military or economical). And while Mao did intervene quite strongly, he wasn't consulted in the lead up to the start of the war .. rather he was kept in the dark because Stalin didn't trust Mao. Later on Stalin egged Mao on to intervene, but that was after the war turned bad for NK.

      ...And now I must say, however, that Millett's work contradicts you here. According to Millett, Stalin told Kim Il Sung was that he would only support invasion of the South if Kim obtained Mao's approval and support. Kim then went to Mao, who actually checked with Stalin before giving Kim the go-ahead.

      I've only made it as far as early July 1950 so far, but the last few pages I read say that Stalin at this point, given that the capture of Seoul had failed to fell the southern government, was asking Mao to move troops to Manchuria.

      This is my first book on the Korean War, so I don't know how it differs from other works, but does seem to be the most recent major English-language retrospective of the war.

    4. Re:The North Korean Army was defeated in 1950. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      .. On top of that, right before the war they gave the North Koreans 70,000+ ethnic Korean soldiers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, including two already-organized, experienced ethnic Korean divisions that had fought in the Chinese civil war. Kim Il Sung invaded the south only after Mao promised to send forces if the USA intervened ..

      Agree that there was a large influx of korean troops returning to NK after the end of the chinese civil war, but these weren't members of the chinese PLA (which didn't exist at the time). Those troops formed the KVA (Korean Volunteer Army) that fought side by side with the CCP forces .. the chinese forces in the korean war called themselves the People's Volunteer Army in tribute to the KVA since they were reciprocating the help they got from the KVA.

      Ok, I've reviewed Millett on this, and here's what I find:

      "The Chungking coalition trained young Korean men for the Korean Restoration Army and sent some of them north to join partisan groups; if these men did not die in battle, they usually ended up in the ranks of the People's Liberation Army, which formed its own Korean auxiliary, the Korean Volunteer Army, a force that numbered only five hundred to one thousand men in 1945. Most Koreans who joined the People's Liberation Army simply went into the army's regular divisions and by 1945, it had at least two Korean divisions and probably forty thousand Korean soldiers in its ranks." (p. 41)

      "The Chinese provided the edge the KPA [Korean People's Army, the North Korean Army] required to move into position just north of the Thirty-eight Parallel. In July 1949 the Korean 166th Division, People's Liberation Army, joined the North Korean Army as its Sixth Division. The next month, the 167th Division transformed itself into the Fifth Division, KPA. Only the senior officers changed positions. By the end of the year, the KPA had formed another division from Sino-Korean veterans in Manchuria." (p. 194)

      The full reference: Allan R. Millett, 2005. The War for Korea, 1945-1950: A House Burning. University of Kansas Press.

  95. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you missing?
    Just the last test in which is was universally acknowledge that NK had a real nuke.

  96. As Sarah Palin might say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We must stand with our North Korean allies. (Or South Korean, whichever are the good ones)"

  97. Let's just make a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the leaked cables are right, and China wouldn't mind a unified Korea, then let's make the following deal:

    1. For the royal family of NK (that's really what they are) protection in China, since anybody in Korea would probably want to asassinate themn when they find out about the fantastic compound. Set them up with a $100 million and a swanky compound in China someplace. That's pocket money for China, it won't hurt compared to a war. This way, the royal family won't have to be forcibly removed.

    2. The US agrees to vacate the peninsula, allaying any Chinese concerns about the US military presence there. The US saves money. We still have bases in Japan so we don't totally lose Asian presence. China doesn't have to worry about US troops. The new Korea can defend itself just fine.

    China, the NK regime, the US, South Korea... all of them should be happier without a war...

  98. Re:This is tech news? by iamhassi · · Score: 2

    "Is it a coincidence that all this talk about nuking other countries is coming a couple of weeks after the release of that cable by Wikileaks?"

    Maybe I'm just rational, but if I just found out my ally doesn't really have my back against my enemy, I would have to re-think the whole enemy thing and reassess why my enemy was still my enemy and see if I could use this to my advantage rather than threatening nuclear war.

    I see no advantage of threatening nuclear war, if I was North Korea I would ask China and South Korea for a few trillion in aid and open the borders.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  99. DPRK waxes hyperbolic. In other news.... by Hasai · · Score: 1

    ....Rain is wet. Film at eleven. Piffle. Must be a slow news day, for everyone to want to listen to the psychotic rantings of a pathetic little dwarf.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  100. China... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

    This is where China could really save the day. If the North Korean people saw Chinese soldiers crossing into the country, well, I think they'd be so confused about the propaganda they've been fed for 5 decades that they would offer minimal resistance. I don't think the North Koreans are brainwashed enough to believe in a Chinese led invasion force, it would create serious cognitive dissonance for every one of them.

  101. Re:This is tech news? by alanshot · · Score: 1

    "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    I think that pretty much sums it up.

  102. Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is now the mouthpiece of the DPRK? Why the fuck are you quoting douchebags like this? Fuck this goddamn fucking website. You're either a bug of cocksucking socialist bastards, or you don't have anything better to report on. Get a grip.

  103. snifff... by mevets · · Score: 1

    Reading your scenario fills me with a swell of patriotic pride. I think I'll sleep better tonight, knowing we are so well prepared.

  104. skip the middle man by mevets · · Score: 1

    lets take out china. They are a PITA with all their pro-china economic stance and shit. Once NK is surrounded, they'll capitulate pretty quickly.

    1. Re:skip the middle man by Soldats · · Score: 1

      Yes let's just "take out" China.......

      Ignore the whole population disparity
      Ignore U.S. economic dependence on Asian manufacturing
      Ignore all of China's allies
      Ignore the sizable Chinese armed forces

      Good luck with That! TM

  105. Re:This is tech news? by Max_W · · Score: 1

    When one has a tool, which costs a trillion per year, one wants to use it to get a return on the investment. A lot of words could be woven to justify it, but a trillion is still an elephant in the room.

  106. Genocide by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    So does that mean Hitler wasn't genocidal, because there were other Jews?

    Please don't respond that the Kim would have brought it upon himself.

    We're discussing whether it would be genocide, not if it would be justified.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  107. Re:This is tech news? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    That DPRK would use nukes in an all out conflict with ROK was always a "duh" thing. NK still exists as a country for two reasons only: first, they can deal a lot of damage to SK in a war before going down, and second, they don't start a war. If they did, it is certain that they would get steamrolled very quickly by combined militaries of pretty much everyone else in the region except China, backed by NATO. So once the war starts, they might as well use everything they have. More importantly, before it starts, they'd better make sure everyone understands that.

    So, really, I do not see any news to speak of here. Much less relevance to WL.

  108. horror aside... by r00t · · Score: 0

    Any true nerd will admit that nuclear war is really cool! Think of the technology involved. Think of the scientific study that will be possible, particularly regarding the survivability of modern construction methods.

  109. REally? by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

    We should wipe the earth clean of these assholes. Nuke em from Orbit don't leave anything to chance! They are soo poor they don't care if they get nuked because the land would improve! I know I would sleep better if they got carpet bombed into eternity! Civilians should run to the south while they can!

    1. Re:REally? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Ah, American neo-barbarism. Could you guys perhaps stop at just being civilized between your wild swings between barbarism and decadence, just for a while?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:REally? by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

      It's called culling. Much like an organism that attacks the diseased part. Nothing to do with your pathetic attempt at English by using the word barbarism incorrectly.
      1. a brutal, coarse, or ignorant act
      2. the condition of being backward, coarse, or ignorant
      3. (Linguistics) a substandard or erroneously constructed or derived word or expression; solecism
      4. any act or object that offends against accepted taste
        I demand North Korea doesn't Nuke anyone. If they do, they should be cleaned off the map. Whats uncivil about that hummmm? I personally wouldn't use nukes but something super local smashing to kill the nukes off. Save the staving farmers.

  110. Re:This is tech news? by uolamer · · Score: 1

    North Korea in its current form must cease to exist. North Korea is a country that needs to be invaded. Not to suit our (the USA) greedy interest, but to protect our allies and stabilize the region for starters. From what is in the "media" over the last month or two, it seems to be clear this is a very real option and is likely to happen.

    I am not pro war by any means. I would love to see another realistic option.. Wait them out for another 10 or 20 years and hope nothing too big happens. Stop screwing with them, let them build all the bombs they want, give them the land they claim is theirs, that isnt, and wait for them to get stronger and hope they do not bomb an ally? I don't know much about anything, maybe I am missing an option.

    Look at the satellite images of North Korea at night if you have not seem them, that is one of the most messed up things I have ever seen. South Korea all lit up, China lit up quite well, and darkness in between besides their capital..

    --
    s/©//g
  111. How Quickly We Forget History... by Shauni · · Score: 1

    Nazi Germany. Fascist Japan. East Germany.

    How many of these "culturally incorrigible" countries did we have to obliterate again?

    Oh, that's right, none.

    At least I am reassured that the Westerners that made these kinds of stupid arguments back then lost the argument... as hopefully they will today.

  112. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Nothing, just business as commie-usual.

    North Korea has abandoned Marxism-Leninism as an official state ideology long ago. It's Juche & (more recently) Songun ideology has no direct relation to Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism or anything else that could be called communist. Under Kim Il Sung there stil existed some lip-service to communism even under Juche (can't afford to confuse your brainwashed people by switching from one ideology to another and then under Kim Jong-Il to a third without maintaining any continuity) but since most references to communism have been purged from politics, education & propaganda. I guess you could see Juche as being located somewhere in the periphery of the various socialist movements but calling NK communist is pretty dumb.

  113. Re:Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love T by Kompressor · · Score: 1

    The premier's birthday, IIRC.

    He loves surprises...

    --
    kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
  114. Re:This is tech news? by drsquare · · Score: 1

    What I'm wondering about these cables is if they were that sensitive, and had to be kept secret at all costs, why did they leak them so readily? Not only did they give the data to the military, they left it on a computer where some rank and file private could walk it and lift it all.

  115. Re:This is tech news? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2

    Oh, yes, nukes have tech in them. Let's just post the whole Reuters newswire because that is delivered with technology!

    It's not an unreasonable point, because this is going to be all over non-tech news sites anyway, so can be discussed there - why add more noise to Slashdot and push down the actual tech news?

    However, your comment reminds me of the famous remark from Bobby Fischer, the brilliant and mad chess player, who arrived at this chess club one morning to find everyone discussing Russia placing nuclear missiles in Cuba and the prospect of nuclear war. Apparently he stood this for about five minutes before erupting in anger: "Gentlemen, what has this got to do with chess?" :D

    I'm not objecting to your voicing annoyance - far from it, I can relate. I feel the same every time a Star Wars or Star Trek story appears as I don't understand why, as a C programmer, I am required to share a social overlap with a bunch of comic geeks. However, Slashdot is a community of sorts and discussion is one of the main attractions of this site (we all know it's not the editing). When something is big enough, it's interesting to know what a community you belong to feels about it.

    True, it doesn't have much to do with chess, but I'm not Bobby Fischer. ;)

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  116. Re:This is tech news? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

    Somehow failed but still with a probable nuclear reaction. And they have equipped with nuclear enrichment facilities that would make Iran jealous.

    But I also am of the opinion that NK is not ready to make nuclear war. They could kill millions in Seoul and Osaka with a few nukes but they would lose and be destroyed very quickly in retaliation. Their nukes stocks is not enough to have a credible M.A.D doctrine.

    By the way, these are only saber rattling because of the power changing hands. It will probably calm down.
    However, the recent south Korea exercice to protect civilians from artillery shelling in Seoul indicate that the South may be considering taking serious steps.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  117. Fine by me. by singingjim1 · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with this at all. Let's first strike their dumbasses out of existence. They probably wouldn't be able to launch any real type of response and anything they did launch would probably have a very low success rate of functioning properly. I'm sure there are some nuke loaded Tomahawks on a carrier or Tridents on a sub nearby. Target every possible government building and end this nonsense in one day.

  118. Nuclear, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the US had a president that could be believed, he could simply tell them that North Korea would be expunged, exterminated, not a soul left living, and they'd back off like the spoiled playground bullies that they are.

  119. Re:This is tech news? by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure the CCP is basically going, "We gotta stick up for North Korea! It's Red, we're Red..." and that relationship is more about the show of bolstering China's communist credentials at a time when it seems more and more capitalist than any actual strategic gain China thinks it's getting out of the deal.

    I think it's more a question of realpolitik. The Chinese doesn't want the entire North Korean population as refugees if the border was to come down. That's pretty much what they'd end up with. Even now it's the major route out of NK and the Chinese are already not that happy about it.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson
  120. sounds good to me by Nyder · · Score: 1

    So North Korea & South Korea blow themselves off the map? Sounds good to me.

    Or we could just go ahead and blow North Korea off the map. It's like, what? The most useless country ever?

    Seems to me this would be doing us a favor, a way of getting rid of a problem.

    Or look at it this way. There is too many people on the earth, so this would help with that problem?

    I'm sorry I have no empathy for the Korean people. I'm sure the south is a bunch of great people. They like video games, which is cool.

    So ya, lets just bomb north korea into a landfill, give it to south korea, call it korea, and then we have a united korea, got rid of the imbreeds, i mean, the north, and everyone is happy.

    I know we'll lose some of the great comedy routines of Jae Kim Too. Or whatever his name is. Dude made an invisible cellphone, so he is dangerous.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  121. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice twist. Do you think there's a SIPR site with "Top 20 Most Awesome World Secrets" site or something?

  122. Re:This is tech news? by TeraCo · · Score: 1

    After 9/11 all of the US government agencies pointed at each other and said 'we could have stopped it if we had that piece of info over there' while pointing at all the other agencies.

    So the solution was to put everything on a giant intranet so everyone could see everything.

    Not such a good idea, really.

    --
    Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  123. Re:This is tech news? by rvw · · Score: 2

    When was it demonstrated that North Korea actually had nukes? I only remember a failed test and a lot of posturing. Googling turns up nothing, although I may not be looking correctly. What am I missing?

    In 2006 they announced a test, and there was considerable proof that it was a real nuclear bomb. See wikipedia or google for it.

  124. Re:This is tech news? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I think you forgot the "stuff that matters" part.

    I always assumed an intersection symbol, not union.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  125. WTF??? by Peter+Harris · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but what the fuck is wrong with you (and the lunatics that moderated a post advocating genocide as "insightful")?

    You surely don't know enough about the situation in North Korea to support your conclusion. I bet it's a lot more complicated than you know, and probably more complicated than you could understand even if it was explained to you SLOWLY.

    But yes, as in most totalitarian regimes, there is enormous cultural inertia because the only way to oppress that many people all the time is to grind them down until they are all collaborating in oppressing each other out of fear of being singled out. That takes time and creativity to reverse, and trying to do it right doesn't make anyone a pussy.

    While bombing the fuck out of them would no doubt make it all seem simpler to you, that's not actually a relevant outcome.

    Having said that, the *government* of North Korea is clearly dangerously insane. It's just that neither standing up to them militarily nor negotiating is likely to have predictable results. Let's hope Kim Jong Un is less of a lunatic than his father, and Kim Jong Il doesn't decide that a crazy all-out assault on everyone else will be a good legacy to leave before he steps down.

    --

    -- What do you need?
    -- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
  126. Re:This is tech news? by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    In my defintion, tough control on all workers, attempted extinction of individuality and free enterprise - or even personal property no matter how small - could very well be called "Communism". The one-party rule, the forced labor camps, the singular appointed chairman ruling the rabble with an iron fist are very much like the other "Communism" we've seen before, including the ubiquitous display of hammer, sickle and the chairman. Troop parades and countless faceless mooks goose-stepping before The Party adds a final touch, although we've seen these from a number of other rather unpleasant regimes.

    If you want to define it further, call it National Communism. Just like National Socialism, but with even less individuality, less private property and more hive-mindedness.

  127. metrix007 the troll played himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    metrix007 is pissed about this http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34462614 where he blundered on hosts files against a person he was trolling there. metrix007 got played. He played himself, and right on his first attempted trolling reply and he ran like a scared beyotch after that. Hilarious. Then, metrix007, who was still stinging from his bad fuck ups due to his skimming and trolling, attempted to troll that same person again and failed once more http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34528502 because the +5 moderation still stands strong versus metrix007's trolling and blatant technical screw ups.

  128. so what do they have to blow sh*t up with? by alizard · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia says that their only successful nuclear test had a yield estimated 2.4 - 20 kT, with consensus pointing at the low end of the range. Their missile delivery systems are of questionable accuracy. How efficient is the industrial production they'd need to build significant numbers of their bombs and missiles?

    Looks like they've got just enough power to kill a bunch of people in a city or two or to slow down an armored division IF the missiles land anywhere around the target.

  129. cp.tar don't run from answering questions here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  130. cp.tar, still running from simple questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  131. Re:This is tech news? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    In my defintion, tough control on all workers, attempted extinction of individuality and free enterprise - or even personal property no matter how small - could very well be called "Communism".

    I hate to say this, but that sounds like what Multi-national corporations are going for. No individuality (get back to work, you lazy fuck!), no free enterprise or even personal property (*we* own the planet, you ungrateful fucks! now, get back to work!)

  132. Re:This is tech news? by Plow · · Score: 1

    Is it a coincidence that all this talk about nuking other countries is coming a couple of weeks after the release of that cable by Wikileaks?

    This was more likely a response to the recent turmoil which happened just before the leaks. If there is a relation I think its more likely that it is because the US wanted to divert attention from the leaks.

  133. Re:This is tech news? by gtall · · Score: 1

    I more or less agree, but I think there is another issue China thinks it must contend with. If S. Korea takes over N. Korea, and S. Korea remains tied to the U.S., then China will find it harder to make their claims to control the seas around their country. So I think China is always going to be looking for a way to keep the U.S. out of their neighborhood, and if that means sticking by N. Korea, they'll do that.

  134. Except it's not Red by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    Nothing in its constitution mentions communism. It's simply a dictatorship.

    But impressions are more important than fact to China, and just about everyone else, I guess.

    1. Re:Except it's not Red by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Nothing in its constitution mentions communism. It's simply a dictatorship.

      But impressions are more important than fact to China, and just about everyone else, I guess.

      I would say having a ruling party called the "Communist Party of [country]" whose official economic policy is "socialism with [country's] characteristics" has more to do with how Red a country is than what's in its Constitution. At any rate, China certainly claims to be Red and North Korea claims to as well, so it's in their interest to keep up those appearances any way they can.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  135. Humm.... by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    If I recall we are at war now. There has only been an armistice, not a peace treaty.

  136. Win-win for China by littlewink · · Score: 1

    China is sitting pretty on this. They want to eventually acquire North Korea (NK) but without the cost of a modern war. So China will let the U.S. do their dirty work for them, then move into NK en masse. We couldn't stop them easily.

    Our best tactic would be, should hostilities begin, to destroy the overland supply routes in NK leading to China, thereby cutting off NK's supplies and guaranteeing the NK regime a limited lifetime. The Chinese would bitch about it and, in a worst case might send in repair teams. But consistency pays off, and repeatedly bombing the supply routes would eventually starve the regime.

    Question is, once they fell, would China stay out or march in again as they did in 1950. My bet is they would go in. Sometimes it is useful to own even a trashyard. They could use NK as a nuclear waste dump, a weapons testing facility, a farming region, a national park and a huge set of port cities. It would give China a much increased coastline from which to prod Japan and project and develop sea power.

    The only way to thwart China would be for the NK military to remain intact, so that no Chinese invasion could easily occur. That requires a peaceful change of regime with no significant war. In any case, despite political posturing, I don't believe China will allow NK to be turned over to South Korea.

  137. Those who can...DO by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

    So I think I speak for everyone when I say:

    "Are you gonna bark, all day, little doggie...or are you gonna bite?

    --
    "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
  138. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikileaks was extraordinarily irresponsible in deciding to release all of them. Some of this stuff is secret for a good reason, and a cable stating that China would like to see North Korea taken over by the South is exactly the kind of thing that could potentially destabilize an already unstable situation.

    So its wrong to find out the person that claims to be your friend is out to stab you in the back? Bet you wouldn't feel that way if the shoe was on the other foot and it was you finding out that your friend was about to do you in. You'd be grateful for the information.

    Leaks have no effect on Truth and Honesty. Be truthful and honest in your actions and your words and leaks like this have no effect. The only people upset about Wikileaks are the ones caught in THEIR own lies.

  139. translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are very hungry and desperate, and our govt is about to collapse.

  140. No problem by davidwr · · Score: 1

    North Korea has Internet for highly privileged people and sneakernet-aware viruses cross air gaps quite well.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  141. But for the fact it's wrong you could be right by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The USA won't stoop to this not because we aren't capable of it but because it would be a home-front PR disaster and in the typical case it's actually counter-productive. I like to think we learned this lesson in Vietnam.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if American forces used "unfair play targeting civilians" in warfare from 1776 (or earlier, if you count colonial times) until the press decided (correctly IMHO) that upholding the human-rights principles American stands for is more important than winning a war and started publishing American human-rights abuses knowing full well it could hurt the war effort.

    Now, I wouldn't at all be surprised if America used TARGETED poisoning to kill or injure a particular person or group. But I doubt very much they would poison leaflets or rig children's toys to explode unless they knew that only their intended (adult) target would be killed.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  142. Re:This is tech news? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The North Korean government says they have nukes, and since what the North Korean Government says must be true, they have nukes.

    At least that's what my friend in Pyongyang says, assuming our mail wasn't tampered with.

    *checking for steam marks* um nevermind, I think our communication has been compromised.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  143. 8 seconds to worldwide destruction by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Possible, yes, but it would take pre-planted nukes over the entire inhabited part of the earth to do it. The closest I've heard of this happening using technology the earth has now was an episode of Babylon 5 when The Shadows claimed to have planted weapons of mass destruction in every major city. Unlike The Shadows, no single government on Earth has the capability of seeding the populated parts of the planet with nukes. Not yet anyways.

    At one time we probably had enough nukes to seed the major cities and wipe out 70-90% of the world's population in 8 seconds assuming all governments cooperated in a worldwide suicide pact. With the limited disarmament over the last 30+ years we may not have that anymore. I hope we don't.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  144. We won't glass N. Korea unless necessary by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Once you take out every known military installation, cripple their infrastructure, and kill or capture anyone capable of mounting a serious resistance effort, there's not much point in killing everyone else.

    If you have the luxury, the right thing to do when the enemy is reduced to small-arms combat is to shower them with humanitarian goods like air-drops of food and pro-peace propoganda then shoot anyone who points a gun in your direction AFTER you warn them to drop it or anyone who actually fires in your direction.

    Yes, you'll still lose a few soldiers to people who manage to fire off a shot or two before getting killed but you'll win the hearts and minds of those who you just conquered.

    Then like the Japanese before them in a generation or two they'll be undercutting you in the capitalist marketplace :).

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  145. This is NOT team America by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Multiple nations have colluded to get some pretty shady nations the bomb. We now have:
    1) North Korea (a totalitarian) with the bomb,
    2) Iran (a religious totalitarian) close to having a bomb,
    3) Burma actively working on a nuke (a 'medical' reactor that is 10x what is needed and buried more than 100' below ground) with North Korea and China,
    4) Venezuela who as of last night became a totalitarian nation (willingly, imagine that) who supposedly got China and North Korea to agree to help them develop a nuke,
    5) And Syria is said to be fairly quietly working on it as well.

    And these are JUST the nations that the public KNOWs about.
    Now, do you really think that these nations are getting the bomb to sit on it? Not likely.
    But if you really think that you would like to see these go, please, go to somalia or pakistan and tell them that you are there to convert them to Christianity and ask that they not use the nuke in Christ's name. I am sure that your doing that will take care of things and the west can just ignore what is going on.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  146. cp.tar: Is there an english grammar section on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cp.tar: Is there an english grammar section on /.?

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1912006&cid=34606392

    LMAO - Watch cp.tar RUN LIKE THE TROLLING BEYOTCH HE IS, where he refuses to answer 3 simple questions!

  147. Re:This is tech news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bing.

  148. with conventional missile & radioactive dust, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can poison VERY BADLY some city or other, without nuclear-detonation capability.

    That's one of the problems with nucular:
    it's poisonous enough that all descendants will pay, the world will pay, and the area will be perpetually genetically poisonous.

    ( a few years ago, someone did an experiment where they had given a SINGLE atom of plutonium to each of some mice, and the grandchildren of 'em had statistically-significantly changed cancer rates. Double-blind, too. Of course, since it'd threaten so much establishment, no-one dares to duplicate the experiment...

    Never assume science will be allowed, when it threatens political authority!

    the experiment was reported in NS, before they started blocking most access )

  149. Re:with conventional missile & radioactive dus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is so much stupid in this post...

  150. Re:This is tech news? by blair1q · · Score: 1

    It's what all economic systems go for, if they don't have explicit regulation of wealth and power in the ruling cadres. It's the natural effect of money on humans and human organizations. And while it's natural, it's not a good thing at the levels of excess practiced by laissez-faire capitalism or single-party-rule (or single-family-rule) socialism.