North Korea Shows Off Space Center and Launches Missile

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

North Korea Shows Off Space Center and Launches Missile

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Thursday April 12, 2012 @12:10PM from the pay-no-attention-to-the-missle-behind-the-curtain dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that nobody would describe North Korea's mission control as imposing. It is a small, unremarkable, two-story building, tiny compared to Nasa's Houston home in America or Russia's space command. But the North's secretive regime, now headed by the third of the Kim dynasty to rule here, Kim Jong-un, is opening up, for the first time in an attempt to allay fears it is about to test missile technology that could deliver a warhead as far as America. 'Sixteen technicians man the satellite command center. Dressed in white coats, like doctors, they sit behind computer screens,' writes Damian Grammaticas. 'On a big screen are live pictures from the launch pad, showing North Korea's rocket being fueled up. The satellite it will carry has already been loaded on board, we are told.' Pyongyang says the minibar refrigerator-sized satellite covered with solar panels and golden foil to protect its instruments will broadcast martial music praising North Korea's founder, Kim Il Sung and is designed to monitor weather, natural disasters and agriculture patterns. As the five-day window for North Korea's rocket launch opens today, the United States has warned a launch would be a breach of UN Security Council resolutions that ban the North from testing missile technology. If North Korea goes ahead it could lead to UN sanctions, it has warned. 'That's why we have invited you, to clearly show that this is a satellite launch not a ballistic missile,' says Paek Chang-ho, head of the satellite control center. 'I hope you become supporters in showing the transparency of our satellite launch.'" After all that North Korea decided to launch a missile anyway. From the article: "The three-stage rocket, called the Unha-3, blasted off from the Soehae launch site near North Korea’s western corner with China, at about 7:39 a.m., the South Korea Defense Ministry said."

294 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Missle? by cl0secall · 2012-04-12 12:12 · Score: 0

What's a Missle?

--
Model 551, Chambered in 6mm
1. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In North Korea, they often shorten Missile to just Miss, so they don't have much experience with the full spelling.
2. Re:Missle? by Psychotria · 2012-04-12 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure it's a hemi-parasitic plant that for some reason people kiss under at Christmas. The author has just left off "toe".
3. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Leave samzenpus alone, he can't help his lisp.
4. Re:Missle? by mug+funky · 2012-04-12 12:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  the "i" broke off just under a minute after posting.
5. Re:Missle? by similar_name · 2012-04-12 12:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Aside from the misspelling I find the use of the word missile versus rocket interesting. They are essentially the same thing but the two words certainly have different connotations.
6. Re:Missle? by nirgle · 2012-04-12 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Kim Jong Il took more with him when he croaked than we thought.
7. Re:Missle? by jhoegl · 2012-04-12 12:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yes, one is designed to spawn fear and trepidation into the uneducated masses whilst the other is a peace time connotation for "WWWWEEEEEE we have packed, what is essentially 5 billion tons of explosives into this long tube and we hope it does what we want."
8. Re:Missle? by slew · 2012-04-12 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Aside from the misspelling I find the use of the word missile versus rocket interesting. They are essentially the same thing but the two words certainly have different connotations.
  I don't really see much different between using the words rockets and missiles. They are mostly interchangeable.
  V2 rockets, bottle rockets, "rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air", etc, show how historically rockets meant basically the same as missile.
  Or even pocket rockets, or heat seeking missile (in a more urban slang usage)...
  I may be mistaken, but I think even Nasa often called vehicle used in the Atlas program a missile.
9. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  They are mostly interchangeable
  You said it yourself. Mostly. They have different connotations. Which is what he said. You're being obtuse.
10. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:11 · Score: 0
  
  It's a hemiparasitic plant under which, for some reason, people kiss at Christmas."
  Grammar'd that for you.
11. Re:Missle? by mug+funky · 2012-04-12 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  the Atlas vehicles were ICBMs IIRC.
  that said, the space shuttle was pretty much 2 ICBMs strapped to a giant fuel tank with a little help from the SSMEs.
12. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:47 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  On the television, they had someone that clarified "Missile vs Rocket", in that they are exactly the same except for a guidance system.
  Eg, a rocket goes up and stops when it runs out of fuel or hits a target and detonates. A Missile has a guidance system to lock on to a target and deliver a payload.
  The end result is the same, we generally reserve the word "Rocket" for the ones without guidance systems, as such the context is correct when you refer to RPG as Rocket Propelled Grenade, and the kinds used in fireworks.
13. Re:Missle? by Urban+Garlic · 2012-04-12 13:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Missiles can be magic. But a magic rocket is just stupid.
  
  --
  2*3*3*3*3*11*251
14. Re:Missle? by Grishnakh · 2012-04-12 14:03 · Score: 2
  
  A "rocket" is generally anything that is powered by a rocket engine. A rocket engine is one which carries its oxidizer and fuel together, rather than using oxygen from the air.
  Of course, there's jet-powered missiles now (I believe the Tomahawk is one of these), so those, technically, do not qualify as "rockets".
15. Re:Missle? by tomhath · 2012-04-12 14:17 · Score: 3
  
  A missile is something you propel toward a target. Could be a spitwad, an arrow, or something carrying an explosive weapon. A rocket is a device that's propelled by the exhaust of gasses (and it's self-contained, unlike an air breathing jet engine). A rocket is generally a missile (unless it's tethered, etc), but a missile doesn't have to be propelled by a rocket.
16. Re:Missle? by Nunavut · 2012-04-12 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  iMissle?
17. Re:Missle? by icebike · 2012-04-12 14:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They don't have much experience with Missile launches either.
  It appears the launch failed, the second and third stage as well as the payload fell into the sea..
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
18. Re:Missle? by mug+funky · 2012-04-12 15:01 · Score: 2
  
  everything since the V2 has had guidance though... you think NASA just pointed and hoped?
19. Re:Missle? by mug+funky · 2012-04-12 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  i thought that definition was "projectile"? some point in the late '90s it became fashionable to extend the definition of "missile" to "shit that an unruly highschool kid throws", just for emotive impact.
20. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the misspelling I find the use of the word missile versus rocket interesting. They are essentially the same thing but the two words certainly have different connotations.
  I don't really see much different between using the words rockets and missiles. They are mostly interchangeable.
  V2 rockets, bottle rockets, "rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air", etc, show how historically rockets meant basically the same as missile.
  Or even pocket rockets, or heat seeking missile (in a more urban slang usage)...
  I may be mistaken, but I think even Nasa often called vehicle used in the Atlas program a missile.
  You forgot Team Rocket, blasting off at the speed of light! Team Missile is, somehow, even more pathetic.
21. Re:Missle? by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-04-12 15:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The end result is the same, we generally reserve the word "Rocket" for the ones without guidance systems, as such the context is correct when you refer to RPG as Rocket Propelled Grenade, and the kinds used in fireworks.
  
  In the fighter jet world, it is generally broken down thusly:
  
  Missile - Powered, guided (AIM-9/AIM-120/ALCM)
  Rocket - Powered, unguided (2.75" FFAR)
  Smart bomb - Guided, unpowered (JDAM)
  Bomb - unpowered, unguided (regular MK-82 dumb bomb)
  
  For large thingies:
  Missile - Goes up, parts come down, guided, hopefully on target (ICBM)
  Rocket - Goes up, parts stay in orbit or semi-orbit (first stages of an orbital vehicle/payload)
22. Re:Missle? by pwnyxpress · 2012-04-12 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the magic bullet, which makes one mean margarita
23. Re:Missle? by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-04-12 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they never seemed to have very good guidance, so they were definitely not a missile!
24. Re:Missle? by Hognoxious · 2012-04-12 17:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Cause of crash confirmed: they were holding it wrong.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
25. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  I have read this in a "Monty Python" announcer voice. I believe this that by doing this my night has been made. :)
26. Re:Missle? by Hognoxious · 2012-04-12 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  Jet powered missiles are nothing new. The V1 used a pulsejet (a ramjet with a stammer).
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
27. Re:Missle? by MichaelSmith · 2012-04-12 19:36 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe the second and third stages, as well as the orbital payload are just dummies which represent the payoad which willl ultimately be attached to the first stage.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
28. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 21:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's British English.
29. Re:Missle? by Dr.+Tom · 2012-04-12 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Kim Jong Un was later heard to say, "should I not have eaten that?"
30. Re:Missle? by Hognoxious · 2012-04-12 23:01 · Score: 2
  
  It's been used in military history & wargaming as long as I can remember, which is a long time before the late 90s.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
31. Re:Missle? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  Your mother likes *my* magic rocket.
32. Re:Missle? by Truedat · 2012-04-12 23:20 · Score: 2
  
  In the fighter jet world, it is generally broken down thusly:
  Not seen one of those in the wild for some time, quick let me get my camera ;)
33. Re:Missle? by RoccamOccam · 2012-04-13 00:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  R-r-r-amjet?
34. Re:Missle? by Hognoxious · 2012-04-13 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Missiles sometimes miss, but rockets always rock.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
35. Re:Missle? by Hognoxious · 2012-04-13 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  You can't polish a turdus.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
36. Re:Missle? by mSparks43 · 2012-04-13 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Failed.
  Shot down.
  Same difference I guess.
37. Re:Missle? by icebike · 2012-04-13 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Failed.
  Shot down.
  Same difference I guess.
  There were threats by SK to shoot it down but, launched in broad daylight with the world press watching, you know that didn't happen.
  Instead of shooting it down, I wouldn't be surprised to find some guy with a flash drive was involved.
  (It would be a great deterrent to let it be known that "All your missiles are belong to U.S.")
  Just saying...
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
38. Re:Missle? by mcgrew · 2012-04-13 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  The word "missile" has been in use since the 1600s and indeed does mean projectiles, including "shit that an unruly highschool kid throws". Rocks, arrows, bullets, rockets with warheads are all missles. Missiles with guidence systems are "guided missles." Rockets carrying people or sattellites are not. Rockets carrying warheads are.
  I'm annoyed that so many are putting their own, INCORRECT definitions of "missile" and "rocket" in comments, and being modded up for it. Sad, folks at slashdot used to be a bit more educated than that.
  Projectile is synonymous with missile. Rockeyt is not, even though a rocket can be a projectile.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
39. Re:Missle? by mcgrew · 2012-04-13 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Don't any of you people have access to a dictionary? From Webster's:
  Definition of MISSILE
  1: capable of being thrown or projected to strike a distant object
  2: adapted for throwing or hurling missiles
  Origin of MISSILE
  Latin missilis, from mittere to throw, send
  First Known Use: 1611
  A thrown rock is a missle, but there's no guidance system except your eye-hand coordination. By your (false) definition the Apollo rockets were missles, since they did indeed have guidance systems (BTW this week is the anniversary of Apollo 13).
  A missile is a weapon. A rocket isn't necessarily. A rocket whose purpose is destruction is a missile, and if it has a guidance system it's a guided missile. If its purpose is other than destroying something it's just a rocket, guided or not.
  The Korean missile was designed for destruction. Missile is a far more accurate term than "rocket" in that context.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
40. Re:Missle? by mcgrew · 2012-04-13 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Aside from the misspelling I find the use of the word missile versus rocket interesting.
  It's a rocket when it goes up, a missle when it comes down. A thrown rock is a missle. And this wasn't designed for speceflight, it was designed to carry a destructive payload, which is what makes it a missle.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
41. Re:Missle? by Tharkkun · 2012-04-13 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  They don't have much experience with Missile launches either. It appears the launch failed, the second and third stage as well as the payload fell into the sea..
  As long as they can get the missle to fly from North Korea to South Korea it won't matter where it falls apart. The whole point is to prove they can nuke another country.
Wow! Three times! by Psychotria · 2012-04-12 12:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Missle in the title, the summary AND the "from the pay-no-attention-to-the-missle-behind-the-curtain dept". That's gotta be a record.
1. Re:Wow! Three times! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You see, the UN resolutions bar North Korea from launching missiles. They say nothing about missles.
2. Re:Wow! Three times! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget Nasa. The folks at NASA probably appreciate that their organization is spelled correctly.
NK discovers life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:16 · Score: 4, Funny

After the launch...
South Korea Defense Ministry - "On this screen you can see we are detecting vast forms of life in outer space.."
BBC - "That looks a lot like the Pacific Ocean..."
1. Re:NK discovers life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You must be american. Geography is not one of your strengths.
2. Re:NK discovers life by Sneeka2 · 2012-04-12 16:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hint: North Korea and South Korea do not have the same kind of relationship as North Dakota and South Dakota.
  
  --
  Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
3. Re:NK discovers life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  If ACs could mod up for funny, I would.
4. Re:NK discovers life by pwnyxpress · 2012-04-12 16:58 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know, both southern entities have Badlands to the north
5. Re:NK discovers life by Chris+Burke · 2012-04-13 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  That does explain why I was never able to find the Dakotan DMZ.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
6. Re:NK discovers life by Zettaflops · 2012-04-13 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Almost a good point, except average Americans don't reference BBC. Therefore, I'm putting this one on your side of the Atlantic.
Fail by Dan+East · 2012-04-12 12:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Numerous news sites are reporting that the launch failed - it broke apart shortly after launch.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Fail by Dahamma · 2012-04-12 12:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  First time in ages /. has actually reported an event within hours of it happening, and if they had just waited an extra 3 minutes they could have done it right. The irony...
2. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:19 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  That is impossible. First, the North Korean rockets are infallible, second, the satellite that carries the voices of Dear Leader, his son and his grandson has negative gravity and third, I can already hear the patriotic songs from the satellite on my radio.
  You and all other liars on StateDep pay will NOT ruin this great day for the Juhche Democracy.
3. Re:Fail by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-12 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a fail, it's MIRV warhead testing!
4. Re:Fail by Dahamma · 2012-04-12 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Nice idea, but you have to leave before you can re-enter ;)
5. Re:Fail by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-04-12 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but they did have a few weeks notice.
6. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  Most countries 5, 10 years away, Hammer Industries 20.
7. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  In Korea, space already begins in a height of 10 km. ;-)
Kaputnik by daveschroeder · 2012-04-12 12:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Yep, and the launch failed.
Of course, even a failed launch is still valuable information for North Korea, as that is part of the whole point of such tests.
1. Re:Kaputnik by sqrt(2) · 2012-04-12 12:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It shows you just how isolated they are. Any other country wanting to build a rocket to send a satellite into space could build on the 100+ years of research and development done by the rest of the world.
  I'm sure whatever mistake they made here was made by some rocket scientist in the past and has already been corrected, but they don't have access to that. They had to start from nothing and repeat all the mistakes of the past.
  I'm sure they get some help from the Russians and China, but they are all about trying to do things their own way, alone. Except feed themselves, apparently.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
2. Re:Kaputnik by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:35 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  What's more worrisome is how the western press is buying into this openness thing and the ambiguity about the launch. Why don't they say it clearly for those who don't know already? a ballistic missile and a satellite launcher rocket are essentially the same thing, they can be used for both purposes.
3. Re:Kaputnik by daveschroeder · 2012-04-12 12:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Already known, even to amateurs.
  And the White House has been warning the media about this.
4. Re:Kaputnik by Dahamma · 2012-04-12 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? Every story I read pointed that out clearly (as if it wasn't obvious to anyone with half a brain anyway).
5. Re:Kaputnik by mug+funky · 2012-04-12 13:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  their entire weapons program is based on freely available info.
  their plutonium is made by reverse engineered magnox reactors.
  their missiles are based on (old) russian tech. ...neither of which they seem to be able to do right. they get frighteningly close, but by frightening i mean they have a lot of toys that could explode and cause damage beyond their borders.
6. Re:Kaputnik by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  I'd hate to work in the control room for that spoiled brat.
  Heads are gonna roll, insulting the supreme leader with a failure.
7. Re:Kaputnik by RightwingNutjob · 2012-04-12 13:45 · Score: 2
  
  Three launches and three failures. You get the sense these guys don't test their stuff before launch so much as they take the Dear Leader's word that it'll work just because. My understanding is that magical thinking is enforced from the top down in NK. Then again, I'd rather them be evil and stupid rather than evil and smart.
8. Re:Kaputnik by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  they could have bought the whole package from Bill Clinton.
9. Re:Kaputnik by retchdog · 2012-04-12 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  smells like juche spirit.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
10. Re:Kaputnik by sjwt · 2012-04-12 14:15 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Indeed, they are so backward that they didn't even kill 7 Astronauts by ignore their own teams warnings!
  New mistakes are found every day, and sometimes you just get a failure.
  
  --
  You have 5 Moderator Points!
  Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
11. Re:Kaputnik by doston · 2012-04-12 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  It shows you just how isolated they are. Any other country wanting to build a rocket to send a satellite into space could build on the 100+ years of research and development done by the rest of the world.
  I'm sure whatever mistake they made here was made by some rocket scientist in the past and has already been corrected, but they don't have access to that. They had to start from nothing and repeat all the mistakes of the past.
  I'm sure they get some help from the Russians and China, but they are all about trying to do things their own way, alone. Except feed themselves, apparently.
  That and their scientists probably don't perform as well on a skimpy diet with a gun to their head. I wouldn't be surprised if some North Korean prison camps got a few new members this week. I don't know about the research info...they probably bought that from China or on the black market a long time ago. Digressing here, but how did we let a regime this nuts get their claws this close to a working long range weapon, yet we're stomping all over the middle east, supposedly to prevent just this. I do know that North Korea isn't a petroleum exporter....
12. Re:Kaputnik by jonwil · 2012-04-12 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that the Peoples Republic of China doesn't have a vested interest in stopping the US from taking over Iraq or Iran.
  The PRC doesn't particularly like the idea of a nuclear armed North Korea but they like the idea of the land currently labeled "North Korea" controlled by the South Koreans or the US even less.
13. Re:Kaputnik by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-12 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  It shows you just how isolated they are. Any other country wanting to build a rocket to send a satellite into space could build on the 100+ years of research and development done by the rest of the world.
  It's not like nobody else ever has a launch failure anymore.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
14. Re:Kaputnik by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-12 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'd hate to work in the control room for that spoiled brat.
  Heads are gonna roll, insulting the supreme leader with a failure.
  Just tell him that he was seeing the simultaneous launch of celebratory fireworks.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
15. Re:Kaputnik by Cochonou · 2012-04-12 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  South Korea does not have a much better track record with their launch vehicles.
16. Re:Kaputnik by DerekLyons · 2012-04-12 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  It shows you just how isolated they are. Any other country wanting to build a rocket to send a satellite into space could build on the 100+ years of research and development done by the rest of the world.
  Yeah. It's not like anyone else ever has problems on their first flight. Or their second. Or their third...
17. Re:Kaputnik by mosb1000 · 2012-04-12 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  Three launches and three failures is expected when developing a new rocket (look at the falcon 1). There's a point where you have to try to launch a rocket, even though it probably won't go well. That's the nature of the beast. It's only a matter of time before they have a working rocket.
18. Re:Kaputnik by crutchy · 2012-04-12 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  Any other country wanting to build a rocket to send a satellite into space could build on the 100+ years of research and development done by the rest of the world.
  yeah cos that's why NASA astronauts are hitching rides on Russian rockets
  
  the biggest obstacle to getting in space has always been cost, not technological know-how
19. Re:Kaputnik by crutchy · 2012-04-12 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  maybe it didn't fail and they just fed western media with a bullshit video clip of a rocket exploding.
  
  western arrogance would more likely believe it than the possibility of NK launching a nuclear weapons platform into earth orbit.
  
  many people seem to be happily gobbling up endless spurts of corporate media spooge. ignorance is surely bliss.
20. Re:Kaputnik by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-12 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  I would imagine the consequences of failure would be rather severe if that were the case. The situation is far more complex than you imagine, and although the odd head may roll North Korea is well aware that it needs to keep its scientists working and accept some failures from them if it ever wants to get into space (or get nukes to the White House).
  The fact that they have admitted the failure on TV shows that they are capable of accepting and dealing with it in a somewhat sane manner.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
21. Re:Kaputnik by SuperDre · 2012-04-13 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm, you do know that even american/european rockets fail a lot of the times too, and they have 100+ years of knowledge according to you.
  
  If other countries are allowed to create/test missiles/rockets, who are we to bar NK to do the same.. I mean, there is one country in the world who still makes the most missiles and we know they even are willing to use nukes and kill a lot of innocent civilians even if it isn't necessary (as they have used them twice), but we still allow the US to make them..
  And it's the US that's threatening Iran and NK, and IMHO that give those countries the right to develop weapons to defend themselves (even though I wouldn't think it is a good idea), it's not like the US has such a sane goverment, they also do whatever and whenever they please (and it doesn't matter if it's the republicans or democrats that provide the president, it's run by a completely different group anyway with the presidents and it's staff as puppets)
22. Re:Kaputnik by Kotoku · 2012-04-13 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  But at least the US can ramp up several commercial space vehicles in short order. The falcon 9 appears to be "all systems go" and quite advanced.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Maiden_Launch
  
  --
  AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
23. Re:Kaputnik by Thorodin · 2012-04-13 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, byte me. If you can't see the difference between the US having nukes (and, btw, that was a World War we were involved in and go ahead and ask some older Chinese how they feel about the US dropping a couple on Japan) and NK, you haven't done much reading.
24. Re:Kaputnik by DerekLyons · 2012-04-13 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Translation: "I don't have any real comment or understanding, so GO SPACEX! GO SPACEX! ".
25. Re:Kaputnik by tibit · 2012-04-13 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, nobody has access to that, not even within the same country like USA. SpaceX had to learn for themselves. You won't exactly have a vendor with proven orbital launch technology tell their competitors what mistakes to avoid.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
26. Re:Kaputnik by SuperDre · 2012-04-13 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  I have done enough reading, and even a lot of UN countries still believe the US didn't have to drop the bombs, even back then among the US goverment there was a lot of debate..
  
  I know NK and Iran aren't the stablest countries in the world, and I too wouldn't like for them to have nukes, BUT as long there are other country still making nukes (like the US, which are still making them and replacing the old ones with better/more powerfull ones) they have the same rights to create them as them. If all other countries would stop making them and dismantle ALL they have, then ofcourse NK and Iran shouldn't be allowed to, but that's not the case.. As I said, I'm not for them to have nukes.
27. Re:Kaputnik by Kotoku · 2012-04-14 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  Funny comment coming from someone who finds North Korea to be on similar ground to other nations in the realm of space exploration.
  
  Sorry dear leader doesn't allow you internet access to see the great pioneers of future technology taking hold, building electric automobiles and space capable vehicles.
  
  --
  AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
28. Re:Kaputnik by Coren22 · 2012-04-16 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, aren't you opinionated. It is widely agreed that the only use of nuclear weapons against a civilian target was justified. The Japanese wouldn't have given up until the emperor was captured otherwise, which would have cost many lives on both sides.
  Also, the US is threatening NK and Iran BECAUSE they are building nuclear weapons. They were left alone for quite a long time before they started the nuclear weapons development plans and the ballistic missile development.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
29. Re:Kaputnik by Coren22 · 2012-04-16 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  You don't think the US could track the real launch and verify its breakup? I am pretty sure that that launch was tracked by multiple countries just in case it was a real nuclear attack.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
30. Re:Kaputnik by SuperDre · 2012-04-16 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  talk about opinionated, it's also widely agreed that it was NOT! a justified attack on civilians.. But I guess you're an american, and ofcourse you have a particulair view on this matter.
  
  And WHY should the US threaten NK and Iran for trying to defend themselves from an agressor like the US. I don't say I'm happy with NK and Iran for propably having Nukes (far from it), but since the US has them and are still creating new ones, who in the hell are they to judge and threaten any other country. ALL! countries should stop creating nuclear weapons and dismantle ALL they have, but as long as the countries who threaten others are still creating them any other countries has just as much right to do the same no matter what horrible regime..
  And again, I really don't like those horrible regimes to have them either..
  
  Maybe you american's should try to see how the rest of the world is looking at you, yes you have a beautifull country, but there are people leading your country who believe they own the world and the rest has to listen to them. How do you think we europeans feel when we read about US demanding an EU citizen to be handed over to them, but when we demand it from a US citizen we can go fuck ourselves.. Or when the rest of the world agrees to some treaty, but the US blocks it for their own filty reasons.. Or how about we having to give a lot of biometrical information if we want to fly to the US, but if we demand it from a US citizen you scream outraged..
  As I said the US is a beautifull country (landscapewise), but the rest of the world is seeing what kind of agressor it has become.
31. Re:Kaputnik by crutchy · 2012-04-16 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  USSTRATCOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network) may know such things, but what reason would they have to release such information if NK did launch nuclear weapons? same as other countries. any data covering such an event (if successful) would have been slapped with "TOP SECRET" stamps the moment it was created. same as for any event detected by defense in any country; just about anything that has national security implications is obscured from public scrutiny.
  
  that leaves corporate media to sensationalize, scaremonger, etc after events because they are really no wiser than you or me. and besides, the truth is in many cases less profitable than sensationalist bullshit.
  
  mass media and average joe don't have the ability to detect artificial satellites, so as far as we know nothing got to space, but it doesn't mean that those with the capability don't know
A predictable outcome... by hyades1 · 2012-04-12 12:23 · Score: 5, Funny

And in the belly of an oddly-configured 747 flying just beyond North Korea's radar horizon, a scientist skilled in laser technology was heard to mutter, "Pull!"

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
1. Re:A predictable outcome... by rbmorse · 2012-04-12 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they said they cancelled the Airborne LASER program, but did they? Has anybody actually seen the thing, lately?
2. Re:A predictable outcome... by jd2112 · 2012-04-12 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  The Navy still has ship mounted laser weapons.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
3. Re:A predictable outcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  They will report that it was shot down by either South Korea or the US.
4. Re:A predictable outcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  oh great, another spit take.
  tnx
5. Re:A predictable outcome... by Ihmhi · 2012-04-12 14:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You know what's worrying? There's people on things like 4chan right now that will one day be inventing stuff like this.
  "Sir, how does this laser rifle work again?"
  "Okay, first, push the button that says 'CHARGIN'. Then, press the button that says 'FIRAN'".
  *BWUUUUUUUUUUUHH*
  "Kinda sounds like a dude projectile vomiting, Sarge."
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
6. Re:A predictable outcome... by hyades1 · 2012-04-12 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  If I was allowed to moderate my own comment, I'd absolutely mod you up. Thanks for the laugh!
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
7. Re:A predictable outcome... by mosb1000 · 2012-04-12 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this is plausible. They did build one a while back, and this would be a good opportunity to test a "boost phase" interception system.
8. Re:A predictable outcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  you mean something like this?:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
9. Re:A predictable outcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  You have obviously never been on 4chan. Nobody there will amount to much.
Predictable by Sponge+Bath · 2012-04-12 12:23 · Score: 2

The previous /. story covering the new US agreement to provide aid was filled with posts of optimism, and contempt for anyone expressing skepticism as old relics too hardened in their ways to accept the new dictator's good faith.
I'm still skeptical.
1. Re:Predictable by Bomazi · 2012-04-12 12:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Of course they won't give up their nuclear weapon program in exchange for food aid, but that is irrelevant. Aid should be given, in exchange for nothing, even if it might be diverted or otherwise help the regime last. Using the threat of famine for political gains is unacceptable. North Korea does it to some extent, we shouldn't.
2. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  North Korea would have the economic power to buy food for its citizens itself if it wasn't blowing it all on shiny nukes and rocketry instead. The rest of the world shouldn't be expected to feed its people while it behaves like an irresponsible and rebellious teenager that spends all its money on hookers and fast cars. On the other hand, since the North Korean leadership has already demonstrated that it is perfectly willing to let its people starve so that it can play with shiny toys, outside demands aren't going to make much a difference. There is no easy answer to the situation.
3. Re:Predictable by hoboroadie · 2012-04-12 13:18 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I'm sad I missed that (damn job!) The North Koreans are real cut-ups, ripe for some mockery. Anyone who takes them seriously, aside from the occasional commando raid or whatever, is over-estimating. If they went to war with anyone, they would need total support from China or someone, and the Chinese are having too much fun fucking us economically. If the Chinese sucker us into a war, it'll probably be with Iran, but I don't see why they need to crush us that badly. Revenge?
  
  --
  They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
4. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  You know, the anti-science folk in the US say the same thing. We too could be feeding the homeless with the money we give to NASA.
5. Re:Predictable by fnj · 2012-04-12 14:26 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You mean kind of like the way the USA is spending beyond its means on all sorts of things while many are homeless? And the price of food is rocketing beyond the means of many?
6. Re:Predictable by gman003 · 2012-04-12 14:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sure there is.
  First, infiltrate the NK working classes. Give them outside information - anything they want. Secret Agent Man sneaks in, finds a farmer family, gives them each a Big Mac meal - Super-Sized - and a rundown of our side of the story. Don't ask them to do anything except listen. Just try to convince them that we're not the mass-murdering monsters the NK propaganda claims. Above all, though, be honest - admit to the things we have done wrong, don't hide it. It's not the glamorous James Bond spy gig, but it will actually work. Repeat on a massive scale - the number of agents involved should reach the thousands. Masquerade it as a food benefit program, if necessary.
  Second, start cutting off the rich kids' toys. We have sanctions on wheat and corn for the peasants, but the king still drinks $10,000-a-bottle champagne. Find a way to crack down on that sort of thing, and you'll either get them to seriously back down, or to go to even more extremes to maintain power.
  If the leaders did back down, a relatively bloodless revolution will come about naturally, over the course of decades. Just like the Soviet Union - the leaders liberalized, the oppressed used their new freedoms to get rid of *all* the tyranny. Didn't work out perfectly, but still better than the alternative. No more work involved on our end.
  If, however, Kim III clamps down tighter, get your "secret agents" to start a push for an armed revolution. Target especially the members of the army - when one in five North Korean combat-age men are in the army, you'll need to do something to shift those numbers. Promise the rebels full support - and GIVE it. They call for air strikes, give them. They ask for Stinger missiles, give them. The absolute worst thing you could do is fail to follow through at this point. This is arguably the only expensive part of the plan.
  If the revolution succeeds, try to angle them towards reunification. It'll be tough on South Korea's economy for a bit, but they're in good enough shape to handle it. If they insist on independence for whatever reason, make sure no new dictators pop up, through assassinations if necessary.
  Even if the revolution fails, the country will be in total ruins. Once the fighting stops, the generals will realize there's no food *at* *all*, and they'll either force the leadership out, or force them to accept any terms to get foreign food. You'll still have a dictator, but a pacified one, and one in a very, very tenuous situation.
  The only complicating factor is China. China views NK as a necessary buffer state between it, and the South Korean and American armies below. They've been propping the country up for half a century. They'll need to be neutralized somehow before any of this can have a reasonable chance of success.
  Best option? Trade. China is the world's #1 exporter, but also the world's #2 importer. Unlike North Korea, they *depend* on the rest of the world.
  The best place to squeeze them is on manufacturing technology. They import almost all their manufacturing machinery from either the US or Japan, both of whom have a vested interest in neutralizing North Korea. Getting Russia to join in by cutting off the flow of oil and power from the North would also help, but might be optional.
  Obviously, selling the American public on accepting a huge spike in consumer good prices "for liberating North Korea" will never work. However, doing so "for FREEDOM" might. There's been a huge amount of anti-Chinese rhetoric in American politics lately - between latent Sinophobia (racism against Chinese is probably one of the more tolerated bigotries in the US), and the whole "China buying up America" debt scare, you could probably sell America on accepting a spike in prices at least long enough to execute the NK plan.
  OK, fine, so it's not *easy*, but it is *possible*. And if there's ever a revolution in China that leads to them abandoning NK, it *does* become easy.
  But, as better men than I have said, "doing what is right is not always easy, and doing what is easy is not always right".
7. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's a mafia state he has to buy women for his heavily armed supporters or face armed rebellion.
8. Re:Predictable by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 15:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  this is akin to holding the cops accountable for what the kidnappers do
  nobody in the world is using the threat of famine for political gains on the issue of north korea, except north korea
  if the world is interested in feeding the people of north korea, it would remove the impediment that is preventing the people of north korea from feeding themselves. that would be the government of north korea
  or, the world could continue to ship grain to north korea while its government builds nukes and ICBMs instead of feeding its people. so with every passing decade, we have more and more weapons of mass destruction, and people still starving unless the world continues to feed them
  we can wait for the government to collapse itself. except that we've been doing that for over 50 years, and it never collapses. it just invests in more advanced military technology. we reward them for those efforts, because we prove to them we will still feed them no matter how crazy they act or how many threats they make or how vile the weapons they build
  the people of north korea continue to starve, the weapons technology proliferates to other vile regimes in the world, more weapons get stockpiled, and therefore the stakes involved with the government of north korea collapsing get more dire: who gets the weapons in the anarchy that follows? what does the long life of the north korea regime and the timidity of the world governments say to other countries who wish to engage in warmongering and neglect of its own people?
  this doesn't end well. and the longer the regime lasts, the less well it ends. and the whole time, the people there starve and suffer
  the interest in peace sometimes requires difficult choices. hundreds of thousands would die in south korea if north korea is attacked. but kicking the can down the road just means the choice gets more difficult later, and more die later
  i have two thoughts:
  1. the longer the regime lasts, the more people die when the regime goes away. so the bravest choice is to confront them as soon as possible. we have not done this, and now they have nuclear weapons while their people eat leaves
  2. china stops covering for its rabid historical ally, and begrudingly accepts a united korean penninsula under a seoul friendly to the west. chinese nationalism does not accept the numbers of chinese who died for the existence of north korea o allow this outcome
  am i a warmongerer for having these thoughts? because i am critical of a regime that endlessly prepares for war and does not feed its own people? how is that possible in your mind to not see the malice where the malice actually lies: pyongyang
  i am saying this does not end well. you can dispute me
  1. some kidnap scenarios end with the kidnapper and the hostage and a lot of police dead.
  2. some end with the kidnapper in custody and the hostage safe
  i'll try to be optimistic and think pyongyang will go away in scenario 2. but my gut and my mind tell me scenario 1 is more likely. i am sorry, i do not think i am being pessimistic here, i think i am being realistic about the obvious and long demonstrated malice of this rabid kooky mafia cult
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
9. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Interfering with their internal affairs is not right. If the people want a revolution, they will have one. If they do not want, who are you to tell them what is better for them? North Korea is not unique, many countries have dictatorships and monarchies, and they will all go down in due time. It is not your country, no matter how good you try to pretend your intentions are "freeing" them is not your responsibility but theirs.
  The only thing your plan would achieve is replace a dictator with another (that and spill a lot of blood). If that was your intention all along, congratulations you're an asshole.
10. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  The USA would have the economic power to buy food for its citizens itself if it wasn't blowing it all on shiny nukes and rocketry instead. The rest of the world shouldn't be expected to feed its people while it behaves like an irresponsible and rebellious teenager that spends all its money on hookers and fast cars. On the other hand, since the US leadership has already demonstrated that it is perfectly willing to let its people starve so that it can play with shiny toys, outside demands aren't going to make much a difference. There is no easy answer to the situation.
  Fixed that for you..
11. Re:Predictable by the+gnat · 2012-04-12 16:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You mean kind of like the way the USA is spending beyond its means on all sorts of things while many are homeless?
  I don't approve of my country's budget priorities either, but there's a couple of crucial differences:
  1. It's not illegal for the homeless to seek gainful employment in the private sector.
  2. It's not illegal for the homeless to leave the country and find another with less craptastic public policy.
  In North Korea, everyone is completely at the mercy of the government for every need, all the time. Complaining means getting thrown into prison camp. Trying to escape the country means getting thrown into prison camp. Trying to make money to support your family because your government job stopped paying you two years ago could also mean getting thrown into prison camp, except from what I've read NK stopped enforcing that rule because it's the only way most of the country is still alive.
  The people of North Korea are serfs - there's simply no other word for it. When the majority of the USA is burning garbage to stay warm, the entire population is several inches shorter than Canadians, and the border to Mexico is blocked by barbed wire and guard towers to keep the Americans from emigrating, then you can make simplistic comparisons.
12. Re:Predictable by Securityemo · 2012-04-12 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  1. It's not illegal for the homeless to seek gainful employment in the private sector.
  But if they're homeless then they obviously have severe problems preventing them from doing so, like drug abuse, mental illness or a personality disorder. Arguably, because vanishingly few rational adults would choose to live on the street.
  
  2. It's not illegal for the homeless to leave the country and find another with less craptastic public policy.
  
  Again, if they can't manage to get a job then they probably can't manage to leave the country either. Moving to another country is quite a large step compared to getting a minimum-wage job.
  
  --
  Emotions! In your brain!
13. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 17:46 · Score: 0
  
  The United States would have the economic power to pay for jobs for its citizens itself if it wasn't blowing it all on bankers and the military instead. The rest of the world shouldn't be expected to loan money to its government while it behaves like an irresponsible and rebellious teenager that spends all its money on hookers and fast cars. On the other hand, since the American leadership has already demonstrated that it is perfectly willing to let its economy crash so that it can play with shiny toys, outside demands aren't going to make much a difference. There is no easy answer to the situation.
14. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 18:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Somewhere, an intelligence analyst is rolling on the floor laughing at your post.
  Infiltrate the North Korean working classes? Secret Agent Man just sneaks in? If he somehow manages to get into the country, the first peasant to see him is going to run screaming for help from the army. According to everything they've heard in their lives, the West is a big scary monster out to kill them. How many Secret Agent Men are you prepared to sacrifice before you get one who lasts longer than a couple of hours before he's shot?
  More fundamentally, North Korea has a shedload of conventional artillery pointed at Seoul: the capital of South Korea, with a few million people. As soon as you do anything that they notice and don't like - possibly including cutting off food aid, but definitely including any Secret Agent Men - they can open fire and destroy more economic activity than their entire country is worth, several times over. If it weren't for this, the US would probably have just bombed the damn place already.
15. Re:Predictable by bryan1945 · 2012-04-12 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nice diversion comment. We shouldn't send extra food money to a regime that wastes its money on this kind of crap. For your comment, the US shouldn't be spending money on crap (like useless wars) when it should be taking care of its own citizens. However, the US isn't asking for food aid from other countries.
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
16. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Giggling like giggity.
  Put it this way, I don't come to /. for the geopolitics.
17. Re:Predictable by roca · 2012-04-12 23:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's absolutely mad to compare hunger and poverty in the USA to what happens in North Korea.
  When a significant percentage of Americans are eating rats, bark and grass to try to stay alive, and fleeing to Mexico to find food, then you'd have a comparable situation.
18. Re:Predictable by darkmeridian · 2012-04-13 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, good dude. We aren't sanctioning food products. We have been embargoing the expensive booze that the ruling glass loves, though.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
19. Re:Predictable by Hognoxious · 2012-04-13 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  the expensive booze that the ruling glass loves
  I see what you did there.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
20. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Eh? They are building nukes in order to save money. I read an analysis a few years ago, I believe in The Economist, that with nuclear weapons, NK can reduce its military to 1/5th its size, as the likelihood that anyone will start a war with the nation would drastically decrease. Considering they have the 4th largest army in the world, with 1 million active members, and 8 million reservists (all from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army), they would surely like to downsize, and free up some money to feed their people. Interestingly, as the worlds 4th largest military, their budget is in the $5-10 billion range, a mere rounding error on the US DOD's budget of ~660 billion.
  You don't have to do everything gold plated like the US does. Close is good enough with nuclear weapons when it comes to scaring off your neighbors who want to get into scraps over territorial disputes or start eyeing up your natural resources.
21. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Or instead of that house of cards. Try Freedom. It's known throughout the universe as Self Control. I am unsure why we call it by a different name. Maybe because "SELF CONTROL, FUCK YEAH" doesn't make a catchy tune.
22. Re:Predictable by DrBoumBoum · 2012-04-13 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting thoughts, but you should fix your shift key.
23. Re:Predictable by Coren22 · 2012-04-16 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that the US is the primary source for aid for the entire world? If homelessness could be cured, it would already have been done. Unfortunately, homelessness often stems from mental disorders, and locking the people (who have major mental disorders) up in a mental hospital is seen as inhumane.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
24. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-16 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  "and the border to Mexico is blocked by barbed wire and guard towers to keep the Americans from emigrating"
  The US doesn't use old-fashioned barbed wire at the borders. It uses other things.
  * No-Fly-List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
  * Selectee List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Selection
  * SBInet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBInet
  * BTEP http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/gtep/btep.cfm
Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously the hypocrisy of the Americans is astounding. In regards to this launch the North Koreans did everything by the book
- They applied to the international regulatory authorities for space launch approval and orbital slot
- They posted air and maritime notices
- They had the international press to tour the launch site
Now any other country doing this would not have any issues. But if it is Iran or North Korea then go fuck yourself because the Americans don't like you. Don't forget that after all these years Cuba still deserves that embargo, you know because they are such a threat to the Americans.
1. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by stevenfuzz · 2012-04-12 12:28 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, I mean the UN Security Council is really just a bunch of talking heads pumping out American Propaganda! Not. Yes, that's a not joke. I don't care.
2. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:38 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I really don't care what the Americans think, but being from Japan, I think they should put NK in the ground.
3. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by HBI · 2012-04-12 12:42 · Score: 2
  
  Other nations aren't doing underground nuclear tests to go with their ICBM tests.
  Yes, the difference between an ICBM and an orbital shot is the intended trajectory.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
4. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  The following is off topic
  (For the record, I totally agree with the points you made - only one unimportant detail I wanted to address)
  
  Don't forget that after all these years Cuba still deserves that embargo, you know because they are such a threat to the Americans.
  Last I checked, Cuba has not physically moved any further away from the US border, and are still not a government under US control.
  The threat was Cuba allowing another government to install missiles capable of reaching the USA.
  That threat still exists.
  It may not be right, but the US controls Canada and Mexico, and there's not much else near them that they do not also control.
  It may not be a likely threat, at least not anymore.
  But that's how it is.
5. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by CaptainLard · 2012-04-12 13:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Now any other country doing this would not have any issues.
  
  I'm not going to argue that the US isn't grossly hypocritical but you can't call North Korea just another country. Not 2 years ago they torpedoed and sank a south korean navy ship! 2/5 of their population is currently in the military and up to 400k of the rest are in prisions/camps with a 40% mortality rate. The reason the population isn't in constant famine is because of food aid provided by countries such as the US under conditions that they not develop ICBMs! Their grand leader for eternity died decades ago. IMO, north korea filing a flight plan for a rocket launch is about the same as someone guilty of a knife attack applying for a gun. As for Iran, the US should get the hell out of the middle east but a regime who's goal is to destroy a nearby country (Israel) shouldn't get a free pass.
6. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Alex+Belits · 2012-04-12 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  It isn't?
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
7. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 13:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  When you post something like this, you are really just loudly announcing your low IQ.
  I am in no way defending the USA. The USA has done plenty wrong in the world. If you dislike the USA, you are free to criticize the USA. There is plenty I am unhappy about the USA's actions in this world. I ENCOURAGE you to criticize the USA.
  But what I want you to try to do is criticize the USA on the merits of what the USA has done wrong. Not use global condemnation of the actions of a mafia family who starves its people and pursues nukes as an excuse to go "well, the USA is the same! hypocrisy!"
  No, moron, you're wrong. Factually, objectively wrong, on simple and obvious facts an elementary school student can grasp about simple and obvious, undisputed facts of the governments of the two countries and their historical records.
  That you think it is even remotely valid to compare the two nations on their actions and talk about hypocrisy is just an exercise in gross stupidity.
  I am not flinging empty insults. I am using your words as the starting point for an objective analysis of your ability to look at world events and use basic mental skills like compare and contrast: you fail. Horribly. You are a moron. This is an objective appraisal of your IQ, not an empty insult.
  Do yourself a favor and think and educate yourself. Then post your opinions on the Internet. Not that stupidity stops anyone from commenting, but maybe you can eventually grow mentally and come to appreciate where you fail so miserably in your thought processes here. Fucking pathetic.
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
8. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  North Korea could have fed their people with the amount of money that went into this rocket launch. They apparently find it more important to impress the world than actually keep their citizens from starving to death. Also, before North Korea gets to complain about rape and murder, maybe they should consider shutting down those massive prison camps of theirs.
9. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  You *do* realize the leaders of Iran and North Korea are fucking crazy unlike leaders of "other countries", right?
  Fuck you and the high-horse your rode in on.
10. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by DeadCatX2 · 2012-04-12 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Cuba is a threat, therefore we should embargo them so that they are desperate. Then when someone who doesn't likes us comes along and offers to help them, they're much more conducive to such help.
  Wouldn't it be better to normalize relations with Cuba, so that way they wouldn't want to let someone aim some missiles at their ally?
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
11. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by ShanghaiBill · 2012-04-12 13:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  - They applied to the international regulatory authorities for space launch approval and orbital slot
  - They posted air and maritime notices
  - They had the international press to tour the launch site
  You forgot a few:
  - They promised to suspend weapons testing, including missile launches, in exchange for food aid.
  - They maintain one of the largest armies on the planet.
  - They launched an unprovoked artillery attack on an American ally just last year, killing mostly civilians.
  - They have never signed a peace treaty ending the Korea War. There is only a cease-fire. Technically we are still at war with them.
12. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  We don't say it like it is here in America.. that gets you put on a list.
13. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Funny you mention that: for the last sixty-seven years, it has been the North Korean government that is doing the raping, murdering and plundering. But enough with the facts. Carry on, comrade.
14. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately, this is not what a trade embargo does. A trade embargo stops US companies, civilians and interests from trading with Cuba
  A trade embargo does not stop another country from putting missiles on Cuban soil. In fact, many other countries such as Canada trade with Cuba all the time.
  The real reason the US doesn't like Cuba is because Cuba annexed all the US Oil interests in the country.
15. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by caladine · 2012-04-12 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Brought to you by the D.P.R.K
  Sorry, but your tag is showing.
16. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by mug+funky · 2012-04-12 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  he who is without sin cast the first stone yada yada...
17. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, somebody touched a nerve.
  Whats that saying; you get the most flack when your over the target.
18. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by mug+funky · 2012-04-12 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  i'm pretty sure that crisis was resolved before a certain november day in 1963...
19. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah "America" (and thats the nation, not the people) does not show korean and others as the bad guys and them as the good guys. America has nothing to do with the "missile" titles, nothing!
  Not sure who's the moron here.
20. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, a nerve has been touched. Gross ignorance, outright flaming stupidity, a humongous capacity to open one's mouth while the wattage in the cranium is dim: this insults me.
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
21. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  I can imagine you spewing the same hate in 2003 when people objected to the invasion of Iraq. Dick Cheney and Bush were right and the global condemnation of the mafia family in Iraq with all those WMD's was totally correct. The half million Iraq men, women and children war dead totally had it coming. U-S-A.... U-S-A.... U-S-A...U-S-A
  You know what? Iran probably has some WMD too. So let's invade Iran and North Korea. Maybe Yemen too, make it a buy 2 get 1 free offer?
22. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Z34107 · 2012-04-12 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations on finding your "shift" key.
  
  --
  DATABASE WOW WOW
23. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  make believe the USA does not exist. what are your opinions of the actions of North Korea?
  is it possible in your mind to criticize the USA, which i ENCOURAGE you to do, AND criticize North Korea, at the same time?
  or is your brain so heavily hardwired for cromagnon tribal posturing, that it is impossible for you to look at the actions of North Korea, and the actions of the USA, and not criticize them SEPARATELY AT THE SAME TIME
  am i asking you to play chopin's opus 25 on the piano? am i asking you to walk on a wire over niagara falls?
  why is it so fucking utterly beyond your dim mental abilities to be able to criticize North Korea without somehow invoking your dislike for the USA? why is that so hard for you?
  look, over here: North Korea. got it? and now, over there: USA. different. separate. amazing right?
  i ENCOURAGE you to criticize the USA. repeat: i ENCOURAGE you to criticize the USA. on the merits of the crimes the USA has committed in this world, which are many and large. do you understand me?
  but maybe, just MAYBE, when the mafia family in pyongyang, when not busy starving its people and building nuclear bombs, decides to launch a missile over other countries, that you might just find the compunction somewhere within your dim cranium to... get this, i know, far out wacky thought.. .to criticize North Korea?
  is kneejerk tribal rah rah rah all you are capable of?
  simply put: morons hardwired to tribal, oppositional thinking, like you, represent the downfall of humanity. this really is the truth
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
24. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Grishnakh · 2012-04-12 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was because Cuba seized all the US-owned sugar plantations there when Castro took over.
25. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Grishnakh · 2012-04-12 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  The leaders of NK are indeed "fucking crazy"; that really should be obvious. I'm not so sure about Iran though; Ahmadinejad seems like a pretty sane person to me. Iran's leaders aren't exactly nice people (with the way they handled their recent rebellion, the way they treat citizens, etc.), and have some extreme religious beliefs (like many people across the world), but that doesn't really make them "fucking crazy", at least not compared to the bulk of the global population or to the leaders of many other countries.
26. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  North Korea just launched a missile over other countries. What is your opinion?
  Are you able to offer one that does not revolve around your obsession, the USA?
  Do you see where I wrote " I ENCOURAGE you to criticize the USA." above? Did that statement make any impression on you?
  Does therefore a criticism of a blind American patriotism on my part seem logical or reasonable to you?
  Do you understand that it is entirely possible to criticize North Korea and still dislike the USA?
  The issue is not my blind prejudicial love of the USA. Because I have none. The issue is your blind prejudicial dislike for the USA. which you have, because you have a mental inability to see actions by other country and... somehow not invoke the USA.
  You completely and utterly do not understand the simple and obvious point I am making:
  1. USA bad.
  2. North Korea bad.
  3. 100% ok to criticize North Korea when it launches a missile over other countries and...get this, I know far out and wacky concept... not be in love with the USA when you do that.
  NO WAY!
  What drives me nuts is this tribal thinking you are trapped in: an inability to see North Korea's actions, and the USA's actions, completely separately, when they obviously are. This sort of kneejerk tribal thinking you demonstrate is the source of wars in this world. Really. Look at World War II, wonder at what motivated the thinking of those who started it. Look in the mirror. The tribal thinking that motivated them, is alive and well in you.
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
27. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget that after all these years Cuba still deserves that embargo, you know because they are such a threat to the Americans.
  How many people, mostly children, in Cuba weren't even born when America started its embargo against Cuba? How can they be held accountable? It smells like revenge, plain and simple - starve a bunch of kids for the sins of their parents because...it is the right thing to do?...it is justice?...no other reason than America can do it?
  Welcome to American foreign policy. If there isn't a boogey-man America will invent one to suit its purposes.
28. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  1. can't rebut within context
  2. shift to next target
29. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by soundguy · 2012-04-12 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, the real reason is because Castro confiscated all of Meyer Lansky's Cuban casino interests.
  
  --
  Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
30. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  There are hungry people in US too. Besides it is non of other's business to wine about where they should or should not invest.
31. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Have you ever looked at the pictures of the dead Kurdish women and children in the streets after they were gassed by Saddam? Tallied up the number of people killed by his army crushing opposition? See the pictures of the families of suicide bombers celebrating after they got a $30000 check from him? Watched the videos of people jumping to their deaths off the World Trade Center to escape the flames? Yea, USA had it all wrong.
32. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  Someone needed to mention that. Thanks.
  Besides you forgot to mention irresponsible use of nuclear power and polluting the earth and ruining people's lives.
33. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AK+Marc · 2012-04-12 14:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  i ENCOURAGE you to criticize the USA. repeat: i ENCOURAGE you to criticize the USA. on the merits of the crimes the USA has committed in this world, which are many and large. do you understand me?
  The USA had slavery. The USA persecuted people for beliefs or skin color. The USA has the death penalty. The USA had concentration camps. The USA kills innocent civilians in war zones because it's easier to kill innocents than properly identify combatants. Gitmo.
  
  The USA has committed a large number of crimes, internationally and locally. Most legislation these days is unconstitutional. The government doesn't even follow its own rules, and worse, the voters don't care and encourage it.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
34. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't, cause they already got those nuclear and ICMB tests done many decades ago. Where was all the UN sanctions back then?
35. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by roca · 2012-04-12 14:53 · Score: 2
  
  The North Korean dictatorship pursues nuclear and missile weapons while its people starve. It maintains order with torture, arbitrary executions and a network of prison/slave labour camps. It sells nuclear and missile weapons technology to anyone who'll buy, making the world a more dangerous place. It is a very, very nasty regime. It blackmails countries into sending food aid by making promises to change, and then breaking them --- and aid is diverted to the military anyway. So yeah, anyone in their right mind doesn't like them.
  Here's some light reading:
  http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/24/us/north-korean-refugees/index.html
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/north-koreas-hidden-gulag/2012/04/12/gIQASJP3CT_story.html
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/16/escape-north-korea-prison-camp
36. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AK+Marc · 2012-04-12 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  They have never signed a peace treaty ending the Korea War. There is only a cease-fire. Technically we are still at war with them.
  Did we ever technically declare war on them? I didn't think so, in which case, we never were at war, so the lack of a peace treaty indicates a lack of an end to a non-war.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
37. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  thank you. i agree with you on your observations
  now, the regime in pyongyang just launched a missile. consider the history of this government. what are your opinions of north korea?
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
38. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  I was with you up until #3... the artillery attack was most certainly provoked. South Korea decided to go ahead with naval war games in disputed territory in spite of repeated North Korean warnings.
39. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  ...you can't call North Korea just another country. Not 2 years ago they torpedoed and sank a south korean navy ship!
  If you had got past the initial hype, you could have found that when the S. Koreans asked Russia to review the findings of the S. Korean investigation, the report was never published because in the words of a US Ambassador to Korea it would be embarrassing to Obama and damage the S. Korean president. (International Herald Tribune, 31 August 2010).
  A leaked version of the report suggested a S. Korean mine was the likely culprit and that fragments of torpedo had been in the water much too long to have been responsible.
40. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  Korean War was under a UN mandate.
41. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Formalin · 2012-04-12 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  The Soviets didn't attempt to put nukes in Cuba until someone put them in Turkey.
  The US brought that on themselves, entirely. USSR was just maintaining the arms race, to neutralise the advantage the US gained in Turkey.
42. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:58 · Score: 0
  
  Watch out for Andorra then.
43. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AK+Marc · 2012-04-12 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  They are far from being able to do me harm, so my opinion is "I don't care"
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
44. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  How many countries has NK invaded in the last 100 years? How many people have they killed? If anything, they are much more peaceful than a certain country that loves democracy when the right people are elected but can't stand it when people vote for someone they weren't supposed to. This is not to say NK's dictator is a great guy, he deserves to die (I'm assuming he's like the last dictator, he could be surprisingly better but I doubt it). If need be NK could be crushed in a few days. It's a small, poor country, they are not a real threat. Last time I checked launching satellites doesn't goes against any treaty signed by NK, so no nation has the right to tell another sovereign nation it can't research rocketry or launch rockets into the ground.
  Oh, and props on insulting the other poster before. That really showed him and got you a deserved +5 Insightful. Stay classy.
45. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  They are a small unpowerful country. However how evil they may be, they are unable to do as much damage as a big powerful country, like, by example, USA.
46. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-04-12 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  A ceasefire which they repudiated in 2009.
47. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AK+Marc · 2012-04-12 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  So "we" (the US) was never at war with them. Whether the UN is at war with DPRK is irrelevant to the question of whether the US is at war with them.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
48. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  This is an objective appraisal of your IQ, not an empty insult.
  It's a loaded insult, and there's nothing even remotely objective about your opinion. That's all you've provided. If you can't see that the UN is the global arm of the US, you're blind. The US has been using the UN to sanction the groups it doesn't like for over 50 years, and you look the other way while criticizing those people the US are telling you to criticize.
  Why does North Korea have such a large army? For defense. This can't be said for the US whom have never in their history been attacked but have used their excessive offensive professional military to kill millions upon millions of people. Why does North Korea have nukes? To deter the US from attacking them again. Because if North Korea wants to remain a sovereign state, they must have nukes. This is (again) unlike the US.
  North Korea's people are starving because of 50 years of trade sanctions imposed by the US. If the US imposed trade sanctions against the UK, they'd starve too. Why did the US impose trade sanctions? Because they couldn't win the war. What the US didn't realize was that the regime had such control over the population that even if they starved, they wouldn't revolt. In 2010 the US increased trade sanctions, since when, there has been (surprise, surprise) a massive famine.
  Do yourself a favor and wake up. Your government is filling your mind with 'facts' which you're happily regurgitating for your 'uneducated' countrymen. I really do feel for the North Korean population, because things are terrible for them. Strangely I feel a lot worse for the US population, I think I'd rather see the boot on my throat.
49. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-12 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  he who is without sin cast the first stone yada yada...
  That's what Jesus said just before throwing a rock throw the moneychangers' window, right?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
50. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 17:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How many countries has NK invaded in the last 100 years?
  One (South Korea). There was this minor scuffle called the Korean War back in the fifties. Perhaps you might have heard of it.
  
  How many people have they killed?
  Lots.
  
  If anything, they are much more peaceful
  You tell that to the people who were kidnapped from Japan to train North Korean spies.
  
  It's a small, poor country, they are not a real threat.
  A small, poor country with nuclear weapons, spends over 30% of its GDP on the military, has a history of threats to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire,", not to mention torpedoing South Korean ships and shelling South Korea (only a few miles from Incheon International Airport, mind you) Just the kind of small, poor, safe neighbor you want to have in your backyard.
  
  If need be NK could be crushed in a few days.
  If it were that easy, it'd have been done already. Even if all of their missiles fail (leaving them unable to attack Japan), they can still easily decimate Seoul, as it's within artillery range of the North Korean border. NK also happens to have an unholy relationship to China, which is fed up with NK's antics, but is still geopolitically wedded to that nation. China will most likely be forced to intervene against any Western efforts to dislodge the Dear Leader.
  
  Last time I checked launching satellites doesn't goes against any treaty signed by NK
  They broke their agreement over nuclear development. That's why no one trusts them.
  
  no nation has the right to tell another sovereign nation it can't research rocketry or launch rockets into the ground.
  When that same nation comes begging for food which it can't buy because it spent all of its lunch money on rockets, we sure as hell do have the right to tell them how not to spend their money! And that is true even if the same nation doesn't keep threatening to take military action against the very same people offering aid.
51. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 18:14 · Score: 2
  
  do you live in alaska? (referencing your sig). this is the closest us territory to north korea
  they build missiles and nuclear bombs while their people eat leaves and starve, we are still technically in a state of war with them (the korean war "ended" with only an armistice), they repeatedly and continually lie about their intentions, they have for decades announced their hostile intentions to their neighbors and the usa, they are universally condemned by all countries in the world, including their only "close" ally, china, they are ruled by a mafia family that has built a cult of personality around the invincibility and infallibility of the favorite son who holds all power (currently a fat kid in his late 20s), they regularly attack and kill south koreans, and abduct japanese civilians, etc., etc.
  and this doesn't bother you
  an ac in a sibling thread summarizes it better:
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783493&cid=39669961
  for not caring, you are a moron
  i am not flinging an empty insult. i am making a comparison of your attitude and the obvious facts of what you are dealing with in north korea and making an objective description of your intellectual abilities. educate yourself. then open your ignorant mouth. thank you
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
52. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  they build missiles and nuclear bombs while their people eat leaves and starve, we are still technically in a state of war with them (the korean war "ended" with only an armistice), they repeatedly and continually lie about their intentions, they have for decades announced their hostile intentions to their neighbors and the usa, they are universally condemned by all countries in the world, including their only "close" ally, china, they are ruled by a mafia family that has built a cult of personality around the invincibility and infallibility of the favorite son who holds all power (currently a fat kid in his late 20s), they regularly attack and kill south koreans, and abduct japanese civilians, etc., etc.
  and this doesn't bother you
  notice something else about your small unpowerful country:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
  sort on the total column, descending.
  #1, russia: 21.5 million troops
  #2, north korea: 9.5 million troops
  #8, usa: 3 million troops
  yes, you read that right. this small country where people can't get enough to eat has over three times the number of troops as the USA. that's your "small unpowerful country"
  you are a moron
  i am not flinging an empty insult. i am making a comparison of your attitude and the obvious facts of what you are dealing with in north korea, and making an objective description of your intellectual abilities. educate yourself. then open your ignorant mouth. thank you
  an ac in a sibling thread summarizes it better:
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783493&cid=39669961
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
53. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by KlomDark · 2012-04-12 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  > They maintain one of the largest armies on the planet.
  Look how stupid you are... Largest? Seriously? You expect us to believe that? One of the largest as in "not the smallest"?
54. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by phantomfive · 2012-04-12 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  How many Americans died fighting North Korea? Enough to call it a war, no matter how stupidly you want to split hairs.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
55. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  These days no actually. It seems more to be the location of russian and chinese leverage, ie the lack of international response over Syria.
56. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by hrtserpent6 · 2012-04-12 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus, pedant much? No, we are technically not at war with them.
  
  We haven't technically declared war on anyone since 1942. We have engaged in plenty of donnybrooks, some authorized by Congress, some authorized by the UN, many just because the President felt like it. According to the DOJ:
  
  "As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994)"
  The DPRK are at war with South Korea. The cease-fire is a condition of the Korean Armistice Agreement between them, which is monitored by the UN United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission, of which (surprise!) we are a permanent member. Between the authority granted us by the Armistice, UN Security Council Resolution 84and the Mutual Defense Treaty, we are allowed to respond militarily - excuse me, "act to meet the common danger" - to any violation of the cease-fire. And according to the DOJ, we can just say "national security! booga booga!" and send in the Marines whenever we like. What, exactly, is the difference?
57. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  North Korea's people are starving because of 50 years of trade sanctions imposed by the US.
  An assertion with no link to reality. You do know that North Korea was part of the Communist Bloc during the cold war, right? US sanctions meant nothing to them or their allies (USSR and China) until the 1990s. Even today China doesn't really honor the trade sanctions, much to the chagrin of US, Japan and South Korea.
  And a trade sanction need not cause famines: Cuba, while poor, did not suffer mass starvations on anything like North Korea's scale as a result of US blockades. Castro did seem to manage to feed his people, whatever his other vices may be.
  No, the famine in North Korea is not due to any evil empire outside of North Korea. It is Kim Jong-Il's failure to invest in his own country's internal economy, plain and simple.
  
  Why does North Korea have such a large army? For defense. Why does North Korea have nukes? To deter the US from attacking them again.
  
  Almost all nations get by just fine without nukes or an army of North Korea's magnitude. The Kim dynasty's motivation for going after nukes is a reflection of their fear of being deposed by an angry populace than anything else.
  
  Your government is filling your mind with 'facts' which you're happily regurgitating for your 'uneducated' countrymen.
  Facts as opposed to what? Your uninformed propaganda?
  
  Do yourself a favor and wake up.
  
  Oh, the irony.
58. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-12 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  I nearly fell off my chair when you quoted the number for Russia, just so you know anyone who has ever served in the military is technically counted as being in reserves until they are 55. This is hardly a valid way to estimate army strength, better list only active troops.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
59. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-12 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, even the former head of an Israeli intelligence agency recently said that Iran is a "rational actor".
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
60. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-12 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  1) This was not a weapons test.
  2) Because they are still at war and their territory to the south is a US puppet government occupied buy tens of thousands of American troops..
  3) That was a border skirmish in a disputed territory. Happens all the time all over the world. .
  4) Yes , you occupied the south of their country and installed a puppet regime there..
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
61. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-12 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  wow, links to US and British sites, how trustworthy. Meanwhile real people who have been to DPRK report a completely different situation. Like tourists or exchange students, they are even some blogs on the net, stop being a pathetic brainwashed tool and educate yourself.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
62. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  Tourism in the country isn't free. You basically get taken on an official tour, monitored by an official tour guide, and they are the ones who choose where you go, not the tourist.
  Tourists are not going to be taken to see the prisons.
  There are plenty of reports of tourists being shown faked scenes of progress and efficiency. They like to put on a show of being a wonderfully modern nation with successful industry, and it is just a show.
63. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AK+Marc · 2012-04-12 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  As I've posted elsewhere, we were never at war with them. Even if I'm close to DPRK, why would they attack Alaska? To make a point that they could attack a barren piece of rock with almost no people? One bomb here, and 90% of North Koreans would be dead in a week. If they use nukes, 100% in a few hours.
  
  i am making a comparison of your attitude and the obvious facts
  DPRK has no real nuclear capability, and no ability to project it to the US. If they were to, I doubt they'd attack Alaska. There is no risk to me. I don't hide under my bed every night in case of a nuclear bomb. It's not going to happen. You are wrong.
  
  educate yourself. then open your ignorant mouth. thank you
  Ah, the idiots who think that anyone with the information they have would come to the same conclusion. That's simply false. I might have the same or more information that you, and evaluate it differently. That would make you the one that's ignorant and a moron.
  
  an ac in a sibling thread summarizes it better:
  The AC doesn't understand anything, and is just trying to sell fear. For one, China *hates* North Korea. They support them for one and only one reason, and if you or the AC had a brain in your ass (where you obviously keep your head), then you'd know it. A little diplomacy from the US, and China would invade DPRK themselves, they hate it so much (well, maybe a lot of diplomacy, as the US has mishandled the situation so badly already).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
64. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AK+Marc · 2012-04-12 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  The one claiming we are "still at war with them" like they are plotting how to strike the US in an ongoing war is the one splitting hairs. Of course we don't have a peace treaty with them, we were never at war with them in the first place. My father was drafted for Korea, so I've heard about it before, it's everyone else thinking it's an active US war that's mistaken. Yes, they may still be at war with South Korea, and we may be allies with South Korea, but that doesn't mean we are at war with North Korea.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
65. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by roca · 2012-04-12 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  There is a lot of first-hand testimony of oppression in North Korea from people who have escaped (both victims of oppression and high-ranking officials who have defected). There are also reports from the UN, Amnesty International, and similar organizations. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea and follow links to the sources.
  No-one can visit North Korea and freely report what's going on there. The government assigns minders to all "tourists", who are always present when you talk to any locals. Of course the citizens know what will happen if they speak against the government.
66. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 00:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, who can argue with the cute NK traffic girls in their shiny uniforms?
  That's a luxury we cannot afford in the US and UK. We have to rely on old fashioned traffic lights with cameras to enforce the laws. Help! We're being oppressed!
67. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-13 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm familiar with these information, again it comes from the Western sphere of influence. Wikipedia is also heavily biased towards Western point of view. hell, IU even read the "Nothing to envy" book based on recent recommendation I found on Slashdot.. I do not find the stories believable, just like I didn't not believe Iraqi defectors claiming Sadam drew a red circle around Baghdad and was ready to use WMDs on anyone crossing it. The defectors have a conflict of interest to present their country unfavorably. Forget about minders, it's more paranoid Western propaganda, here's a post from a blog of a Russian exchange student i was talking about as an example, it's mostly pictures of scenes of lifes of ordinary people, judge for yourself. http://ashen-rus.livejournal.com/11238.html#cutid1
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
68. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Guppy · 2012-04-13 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Since this is News for Nerds, North Korea's abduction of MIT Student Jae Hwan Lee might be relevant.
  Well, alleged abduction -- North Korea claims he defected willingly (which I suppose is somehow congruent with his later death in a political prisoner camp).
69. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yes it's just those damn americans. Poor peaceful north korea. While their entire country literally starves to death they need to launch these very important missiles! Don't worry, the UN will ship you a couple hundred thousand tons of food, you save all your money for your missile program.
70. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by jon3k · 2012-04-13 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  hungry != starving to death by the thousands
71. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-13 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  ok, good info.
  then it is:
  1. China
  2. USA
  3. India
  4. North Korea
  5. Russia
  Still absurd that such a tiny impoverished country should have more active troops than countries with populations in the hundred of millions and almost as much as India, a nation of over a billion and with fractured warlike relations with neighboring Pakistan (which only pops up at number 8). AND more than Russia.
  By per capita, North Korea is clearly the most hypermilitaristic country in the world, by far.
  That's the "small unpowerful country" the uneducated moron in the above thread refers to. It does this, and pursues ICBMs and nukes, while its people eat leaves. And we're supposed to not worry about this according to certain geniuses.
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
72. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by circletimessquare · 2012-04-13 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  yes, they would be crazy to attack
  and as your genius level analytic abilities have noted, they are a sober, stable country (!?)
  so your sense of false complacency rests on a clearly psychotic regime acting perfectly rationally, and as it tinkers with advanced technology and makes threats for decades in a constant hypermilitaristic state, while its people starve, no mistakes will ever happen that will be misinterpreted, right? no brainwashed underfed delusional commander willing to show dear leader his real devotion right? everything perfectly fine as it builds nukes and ICBMs while a totalitarian regime propagandizes and terrorizes its cowed people, right?
  you're a fucking moron
  not a baseless insult. an objective analysis of the facts as contrasted with your attitude
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
73. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by el+jocko+del+oeste · 2012-04-13 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  One of the largest as in "one of the largest". North Korea has the fourth largest active duty army in the world. Behind China, USA, and India. Ahead of Russia. I think that can safely be considered one of the largest.
74. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by el+jocko+del+oeste · 2012-04-13 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  1) This was not a weapons test.
  This was a test of a weapon delivery system. You do recall the whole point behind the US and the USSR racing to be the first to put a man on the moon? Developing Tang and bringing home a few rocks had nothing to do with it.
75. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AmiMoJo · 2012-04-13 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly why they want/need nukes. Your army is much better than theirs, and you have America behind you, and you openly talk about your desire to destroy their country. America in particular has a history of actually following through on those threats.
  The situation is as much your own fault as that of North Korea's.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
76. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-13 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  How much do you know about your own country? Do you know that people are forced to eat grass in order to survive in the USA right now? The following quote is not from some fringe left-wing blog. it's from the excellent "Voices of the long-term unemployed". http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/down-not-voices-long-term-unemployed-125453267.html
  
  "My family is eating stir-fried dandelions out of yards to keep from starving.."
  
  "I add oatmeal to many of my dishes to extend the idea of 'beef'"
  These quotes could come unedited from Western anti-DPRK propoganda. yet this is is what USA has come3 down to, all of this while you are spending trillions on foreign wars.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
77. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-13 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Theoretically any industrial age technology can be considered dual-use, isn't that the reason behind bombing bridges, railroads and power stations in Yugoslavia and Iraq? And now denying the right to develop to Iran, DPRK, and other developing countries not in the Western sphere of influence. Most experts agree that a rocket that takes so long to fuel and can only carry a 100 kg payload is useless military. As far i I recall both USA and Soviet Union had ICBMs before the American moon program.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
78. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by hrtserpent6 · 2012-04-13 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, now I see where you were going with it.
79. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by AK+Marc · 2012-04-13 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  and as your genius level analytic abilities have noted, they are a sober, stable country (!?)
  I never said such a thing. As you must lie to support your position, there is no reason to argue with you. You would be the expert on insane unstable people, as they are your kind.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
80. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by DrBoumBoum · 2012-04-13 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the interesting - and seemingly quite needed - clarification.
81. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Alex+Belits · 2012-04-13 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, opposition to an attempt to pull off another Libya -- complete with foreign military attacking the government forces and assassination of the leader after taking it as a prisoner of war?
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
82. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 19:32 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, don't worry about a nation unable to feed its population. What you have here is a tiny bug trying to look very big but in fact have a hungry, demoralized and under-equiped military. They don't have nuke. And even if they have a few, none of these actually work. 10% of the US army can completely destroy NK's. No, I don't fear North Korea. You are the elephant who's afraid of the mouse.
  OTOH, USA spend more on military than the total of every other nations. They are aggressive and attack other countrys for discutable reasons. They think they are losing ground and power. That make them VERY dangerous. USA is the country I worry about. Who know when they will panick and do something undoable?
83. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by cheesybagel · 2012-04-14 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  That was what Saddam and Gaddafi did. They suspended weapon testing and missile launches, dissassembled their rocket artillery forces for food aid. They eventually got invaded. I think the NKPR is not very willing to see what will happen the 3rd time. So yes of course they will retain their rocket artillery forces and nuclear weapon research and development.
84. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by cheesybagel · 2012-04-14 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I also remember the "they never signed a peace treaty" line spouted by Bush Jr. just before Iraq War II.
85. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by cheesybagel · 2012-04-14 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  There was a cease fire and there is a DMZ line with barbed wire and ditches demarcating the two territories. Troops regularly patrol both sides of the DMZ. South Korea has recently started experimenting with automated gun turrets to reduce the required manpower. The US stations some 28K troops in South Korea proper and more in Japan.
86. Re:Oh Baby Jeebus the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-19 18:56 · Score: 0
  
  You are not worried about North Korea because you do not live within strike range of their weapons. Those of us who do live near them are worried because North Korea has enough toys on their hand that they can cause serious mayhem on their way out, and regularly threaten to do just that. And if you truly do not fear them, you are welcome to move to Seoul, which is right next door to their artillery battery.
relevant simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:26 · Score: 0

so it broke apart not long after the launch...
Nelson *pointing*: "Ha Ha"
Mod parent up. by bussdriver · 2012-04-12 12:29 · Score: 0, Troll

Wish I had mod points. Does not matter what you think of them America is too ignorant to realize the high amount hypocrisy that goes on.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Another Predictable Outcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:31 · Score: 0

And in the belly of the earth, single pistol shots to the heads of a dozen scientists who went with out hardly a mutter at all.
1. Re:Another Predictable Outcome... by AHuxley · 2012-04-12 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  In other parts of the world your company might lose the next rocket contract. People get laid off and you face a slow social death.
  No more luxury home mortgage, good schools, real health care, designer brands, trips around the world, dreams of sailing, country club, golf, that expensive secretive self improvement 'cult', great food, sports...
  Back to been a home appliance/toy/small projects engineer in an ok neighbourhood, ok public schooling, no real health cover, no holidays, no social standing, average food, endless public charity work with no more secrets or connections, no more insider "tips".... but you still have the bank loans...and new endless stress
  Unless your glorious state of federal leader can step in and fix that paperwork misunderstanding and boondoggle your company back into rocket contracts...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:Another Predictable Outcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  Are you really comparing getting laid off to being executed by the state? You're a fucking moron.
3. Re:Another Predictable Outcome... by Grishnakh · 2012-04-12 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  WTF? Scientists and engineers working on rocket contracts don't get substantially different paychecks than scientists and engineers working on home appliances, toys, etc. A little more prestige, perhaps, but there's no difference in pay; they get the same lackluster pay that all non-managers and non-executives get. An engineer working at a rocket company who loses his job can go work somewhere else (assuming skills transfer; depends on the exact skills) and get the same paycheck, or probably better, since engineers need to quit their job every few years if they want a raise greater than inflation.
4. Re:Another Predictable Outcome... by AHuxley · 2012-04-12 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  What did the Soviets offer? Death or a better life in a sealed elite science city/camp.
  WW2 Germany? A uniform, party links, funding or risk falling out of favour and been consumed in lesser projects.
  Post WW2 Germany? The French gave skilled Germans a factory job with the hint of going home.
  The US offered a Paperclip like deal, a clean file, a new life or risk a court in Europe or Russia.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
5. Re:Another Predictable Outcome... by AHuxley · 2012-04-12 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whiteside_Parsons, wealth, politics, rockets, faith :)
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Missle Failure by stevenfuzz · 2012-04-12 12:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Apparently the AP is reporting that the missile broke up shortly after lauch, and has called the launch a failure. This is not entirely true. The missile broke apart releasing millions of pieces of paper simply stating "You are happy. North Korea make great party. You are not hungry.". According to officials in North Korea the launch was a great success.
The jokes just write themselves by grouchomarxist · 2012-04-12 12:37 · Score: 5, Funny

The missile was supposed to mark Kim Jong Un's ascension to power, but it failed to rise to the occasion.
1. Re:The jokes just write themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  And isn't his grandfathers 100th birthday this month as well? I would assume that a satellite would have been in his honor.
2. Re:The jokes just write themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing that a bit of imported whisky and a presidential limo ride out in Pyongyang to visit and "inspect" one of those cute little traffic cops wont cure though. (Either that, or pick the best line dancing cosplay soldier girl from the last propaganda party.) Despite failure to impress world, being Fearless Leader Jr. still has its perks. Something that still puts Kim Jong Un ahead in the game compared to most Slashdot nerds.
  Now failing to rise to that occasion would be funnier than lame rocket jokes...
3. Re:The jokes just write themselves by DigiShaman · 2012-04-12 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  And all the women now know that he simply couldn't get it up long enough before it blew its load. How embarrassing.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
WTF is a "Missle?" by EmagGeek · 2012-04-12 12:38 · Score: 0

I've never seen that word before...
1. Re:WTF is a "Missle?" by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-12 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen that word before...
  I almost always write it that way, and when the spell-checker flags it I have genuine difficulty finding out what's wrong with it.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
FAIL: Imagine if you were the head missle engineer by schwit1 · 2012-04-12 12:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

His family and anyone he works with and their families are in trouble.
Cut 'im a husk, buddy. by hoboroadie · 2012-04-12 12:40 · Score: 1

I had Heroic Leader, or whats'is-name as my desktop for a long time, some painting where he's getting the serum through the storm or something. The Young One has BIG SHOES (size 5 or so) to fill. He's doing the best his people can make him look like he's doing.
Enjoy the show.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I blame the name by damn_registrars · 2012-04-12 12:42 · Score: 2

When the previous missiles were had names that were phonetically "Type O Dong", they were certain to work. Now that the missile names don't automatically lend themselves to silly jokes, they can't possibly work.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Hey, China by Alien+Being · 2012-04-12 12:42 · Score: 0

You're pretending that this isn't your problem, but you're wrong. You and North Korea are the biggest red flags on this planet and you are close enough together that you're bound to catch big shrapnel from fire returned on your comrades/neighbors/whatever.
You are the giant on the world stage. What are you going to do?
1. Re:Hey, China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:01 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I'm more scared of the USA than any other country. The people from the USA keep complaining about weapons from countries that don't play nice with them, but they keep invading other countries with stealth planes, killer robots, and nukes. The day the USA decides to fight countries that can actually fight back, it's WW3 and we are all going to die.
2. Re:Hey, China by DigiShaman · 2012-04-12 16:05 · Score: 2
  
  It's 2012, and the Chinese government is practically communist in name only. Actually, it's a pure totalitarian regime with a primary focus on self preservation of said regime. N.Korea is a problem for China because should the N.Korean government fall, there will be a flood of Korean refugees jumping the Chinese border. They simply don't want to be sucked into the geopolitical maelstrom that would ensue.
  China will avoid taking sides, but in the end both China and Russa would side with the US come decision time. Not without a some minor threatening words first, but they would fold easily. It's all politics.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
3. Re:Hey, China by grouchomarxist · 2012-04-12 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  China also likes having a buffer region between it and South Korea. That is another reason why they continue to prop North Korea up.
4. Re:Hey, China by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Another reason North Korea continues to exist is that South Korea looks on unification with horror, at least for now.
  The South Koreans are all aware of the staggering economic hit that West Germany took in absorbing East Germany --- even though East was wealthier, relative to West, than North Koria is relative to South. So while the people of the South make occasional noises about unification, they back off hastily whenever the talk gets even semi-serious. It's also why the South continues sending food to the North --- a total collapse would be catastrophic for both Koreas.
5. Re:Hey, China by Alien+Being · 2012-04-13 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  So, compared to the U.S., North Korea are good guys? You're out of your mind.
6. Re:Hey, China by Alien+Being · 2012-04-13 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Guess what. It's decision time.
7. Re:Hey, China by Alien+Being · 2012-04-13 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody says they have to unify. North Korea needs a new constitution and new, elected leadership.
Trust? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 12:57 · Score: 0

I trust North Korea about as far as they can chuck a missle.
Re:Oh f@ck off US already by Doctor_Jest · 2012-04-12 12:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

Ironically, some of the idiocy coming from California sounds remarkably like the rhetoric and propaganda from "dear leader"... couple that with the fact that they can't do anything right in California either... well, we're seeing distinct parallels.
The only thing missing in NK is a leader who actually believed he was abducted by aliens...

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
and OMG LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:04 · Score: 0

The world still didn't end.....
They should have save money ... by jbeaupre · 2012-04-12 13:17 · Score: 2

... and hired SpaceX to launch their satellite.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Be Proud North Koreans by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:19 · Score: 0

Your awesome government and brilliant minds finally brought you slightly closer to technology of the 1950's, hold your heads up high!
Re:FAIL: Imagine if you were the head missle engin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:20 · Score: 0

Yep. One way trip to prison camp, slavery, torture, and starvation. It's good to live in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
could you actually define the hypocrisy? by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 13:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

would this be like the hypocrisy that charles manson uses a gun, and the police use a gun, and so they are morally equivalent, and to criticize charles manson is hypocrisy?
or a burglar breaks into your home, and the government forces you to pay taxes, so its all the same thing: robbery... hypocrisy!
how about a drunk driver jumping the sidewalk and killing a pedestrian is the same as a drunk stumbling into a highway and getting hit... hypocrisy!
yeah hypocrisy! everything is morally equivalent!
please define the parameters in which the globally condemned mafia family who starves its people while it pursues nukes is the same as the government of the USA
bonus thought (if you can handle more than one thought at a time): it is not required to like the USA to agree with my comment. it is actually possible *gasp*, get this radical craziness!: to dislike North Korea, AND the USA, for different, REAL reasons... at the same time! no freakin way! for real?
rather than the genius level analysis you and parent poster demonstrate. "bad things from government A" = "bad things government B": hypocrisy!
durrr....duhh...

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:could you actually define the hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  Mod down... expresses too much reasonable thought.
2. Re:could you actually define the hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in anger....? Hence the charge of hypocrisy. You can't claim the moral high ground and justify mass killing at the same time. Just look at the last decade - The Americans have waged war across most of the globe.
3. Re:could you actually define the hypocrisy? by Johann+Lau · 2012-04-12 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  please define the parameters in which the globally condemned mafia family who starves its people while it pursues nukes is the same as the government of the USA
  in response to
  
  In regards to this launch the North Koreans did everything by the book
  ???
  Mods on crack. And you are just projecting with stuff like this:
  
  bonus thought (if you can handle more than one thought at a time):
4. Re:could you actually define the hypocrisy? by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 15:17 · Score: 2
  
  those are bad things. now try to understand that those bad things are not the same as the bad things north korea does. and it is possible to dislike both governments at the same time. and it is also possible to criticize north korea when it launches a missile. what do you think of the missile launch from the mafia that starves its people while it builds nuke in defiance of the world? (not defiance of the usa, defiance of the world)
  is it possible to step back from simpleminded tribal thinking and criticize both countries? or do you find only reason to criticize the usa when north korea does something vile? why is that?
  put it this way: if next year the usa is found to be torturing some people in gitmo, what do you think of the person who comments "well, north korea has nuclear weapons, that's what we should be talking about today"
  what do you think of such a person?
  now look in the mirror
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
5. Re:could you actually define the hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  +1
6. Re:could you actually define the hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  They hypocrisy is that NK using a gun gets called "Charles Manson" while the US using a gun gets called a "Cop"
7. Re:could you actually define the hypocrisy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  'Moral high ground' isn't the top of a mountain of dead bodies in Baghdad.
haha by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:29 · Score: 1

ya then promptly never get any contract anywhere but north korea....
waiting for "its morally equivalent to USA" trolls by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 13:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

who show up in every story that might possibly condemn another country
oh here they are:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783493&cid=39668133
hey, geniuses: it's actually mentally possible to... drum roll please... get this far out idea:
1. dislike country XYZ, and
2. dislike the USA,
3. at the same time!
no freakin way! i know, radically subversive mental concept huh?
get this piece of really far out thinking: you can actually condemn North Korea, and, still dislike the USA? whoa, heavy stuff
you don't actually have to defend a rabid civilian starving nuke pursuing nutcase mafia regime, just because you dislike the USA?
i know, i know, crazy far out concept huh?
you don't actually have to side with the USA to condemn North Korea... hmmm... that's some deep, wacky stuff
you mean... think and act on principles, rather than think on moronic tribal oppositional posturing?
wow, how come i never thought of that!

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:waiting for "its morally equivalent to USA" tro by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:38 · Score: 0

Go and puke you bile on kuro5hin, twatstain.
Re:FAIL: Imagine if you were the head missle engin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 13:45 · Score: 1

If I were the head missile engineer, I'd likely know the odds of the launch failing - and with that in mind, I'd have arranged for some relatively comfortable means of suicide before being dragged off to the local version of gestapo.
Re:waiting for "its morally equivalent to USA" tro by circletimessquare · 2012-04-12 13:50 · Score: 1

i'm sorry, i've patented that insult word in the context of internet flamewars. you owe me $5

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I havent tuned into Voice of Korea recently by atari2600a · 2012-04-12 13:50 · Score: 1

Do they have a Song of General Kim-Jong Un yet? Damn they used to send me copies of The Pyongyang Times (probably put me on some sort of list here in the US), but not recently...
China? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:05 · Score: 0

Shot it with lasers? Hey look, we get to test again without anyone knowing and without creating a debris field in orbit!
North Korea, what a paranoid country. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:38 · Score: 0

They seem so stubborn about the idea that enemies are after them they keep spending lots of money in military expending aimed at defense but making them look aggressive to the outside world.
How can they be so like, so like... oh!
Re:Oh f@ck off US already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:42 · Score: 0

Hey just look at Sacramento for some examples of that: Maloofs anyone? Ship 'em back to Vegas, and empeach that dick, Johnson.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-04-12 14:45 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yep. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 14:50 · Score: 0

You're right. America should be feeding its own hungry before worrying about starving people anywhere else.
It is the business of anyone they expect to be giving them free stuff. The rest of the world has no obligation to let them have their cake and eat it too.
ABL? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:06 · Score: 0

Given the breakup in atmosphere, I am curious if the airborne laser 747 is still at its' base for decommissioning,
Oops! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:41 · Score: 0

Looks like all the butt-zillion of counterfit US$ minted by South Korea in coordination with North Korea to get military intel from the US at US universities through Student exchanges, North Koreans posings as South Koreans or even Chinese student, is a bust.
The only people the "South" Koreans dispise more than Japs is Big White ass Americas.
Its no secret that South Korea is front company of North Korea.
LoL
1. Re:Oops! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 16:45 · Score: 0
  
  ...coordination between South Korea and North Korea? A conspiracy between two countries who are at war to deceive the rest of the world? Whatever you're smoking man, I want some.
Re:waiting for "its morally equivalent to USA" tro by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 15:52 · Score: 0

Forget the patent. You own the copyright too, and you can get $50,000 for every time someone viewed it.
Are we missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 16:09 · Score: 0

Hmm, the whole thing is starting to sound like a successful anti-ABM laser test. Target went down during boost phase. And here is no way we can tell any different. right?
North Koreans are imbeciles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 16:40 · Score: 0

Breaking News:
North Korean satellite launch goes awry...payload fell back to earth scoring a bullseye on the White House of all places...
Idiots!
Splash by aussie.virologist · 2012-04-12 17:43 · Score: 1

Is this the same rocket that went for a swim in the Yellow sea today?
What a Putz Country by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 17:52 · Score: 0

Even Yakuza grunts in Shinjuku know that South Korea is a front company for North Korea.
LoL
Only a minute? by AlienIntelligence · 2012-04-12 18:30 · Score: 2

That's pretty bad if the new leader's missle {sic} is only useful for a minute.
I thought he was was younger than that.
-AI

--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Re:Oh f@ck off US already by bryan1945 · 2012-04-12 19:24 · Score: 1

So what did California do? Did I miss something?

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
North Korea Rocket Fails by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 19:26 · Score: 0

http://www.startribune.com/world/147262245.html
North Korea? BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Step one uh, comprete! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 19:37 · Score: 0

We show we can uh buird wocket to outtah space... Now, ah, step two, Team Amewica, we building wocket that actuawy wowks! Muahahahahahahha!
Quite clearly by AliasMarlowe · 2012-04-12 19:47 · Score: 2

Darn all typos and abbreviations. The North Koreans obviously meant to refer to their Missal doctrines...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Balance of terror by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-12 20:42 · Score: 0

Stunts like this disturb the Balance of Terror (that everyone fears United States' military might as much as everyone else)
Re:waiting for "its morally equivalent to USA" tro by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-12 21:45 · Score: 1

On the other hand most readers will abandon their rationality and automatically condemn anything that does not come from the US sphere of influence, be it China, Russia or DPRK. This mixture of misguided patriotism and suppressed anger is especially obvious now that Western power is in steep decline

--
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
poor satellite, so ronery up there by kobi77 · 2012-04-12 23:48 · Score: 1

...NOT
The shooting of tourist Park Wang-ja by Guppy · 2012-04-13 00:05 · Score: 1

wow, links to US and British sites, how trustworthy. Meanwhile real people who have been to DPRK report a completely different situation. Like tourists or exchange students, they are even some blogs on the net, stop being a pathetic brainwashed tool and educate yourself.
Just don't wander off the beaten path:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/12/content_8536078.htm

PYONGYANG, July 12 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) regrets the death of a South Korean tourist killed by a DPRK soldier but the woman should take full responsibility for the incident, a DPRK spokesman said Saturday.
South Korean government should take full responsibilities, make an apology to the DPRK and promise that a similar incident would never happen again, said the spokesman for the DPRK Guidance Bureau for Comprehensive Development of Scenic Spots.

I even linked to a mainland China news source instead. Happy?
1. Re:The shooting of tourist Park Wang-ja by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-04-13 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  What does it prove exactly? Accidents happen, in this case the woman wondered into a militarized area against all common sense. DPRK apologized. Foreign tourists get killed all the time in the US, in the 90s there was a story about Japanese foreign student who knocked on the door to ask for directions and got shot and killed by a paranoid American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Re:FAIL: Imagine if you were the head missle engin by darkmeridian · 2012-04-13 00:16 · Score: 2

The hilarious part is that this is probably why all of their missile launches have been failures. If they keep killing or torturing the guys who are responsible for each failed launch, the next guys have to start from scratch without the benefits of learning exactly what went wrong. So let's let them keep doing this and laugh at how stupid and shortsighted they're being.

--
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Re:FAIL: Imagine if you were the head missle engin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 01:27 · Score: 0

His locket brew up!
Re:Oh f@ck off US already by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-13 02:23 · Score: 0

Mind his are own bloody business? Fuckhead.
It's a tlap by Hognoxious · 2012-04-13 02:58 · Score: 0

1) Build rocket that catches fire/sinks into swamp etc.
2) Repeat step 1 until nobody's really paying attention any more. Given the attention span of the MTV generation, twice should be more than enough.
3) Build lots of rockets that actually work.
4) ...
5) Totar victoly over roundeyed imperarist pig-dogs!!!!!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A missile is a weaponized rocket. by Viewsonic · 2012-04-13 05:52 · Score: 1

That is the definition.