Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Jamming GPS Signals In South Korea

Fluffeh writes "North Korea has been looking for new and inventive ways to mess with South Korea. It seems that their missile launch fizzled a bit though, so those wacky folks from the North have bought a few GPS jamming trucks from Russia and are now blocking GPS signals around their city of Kaeson. While Kaeson is around 60 Km inside their borders, the jamming circle is around 100 Km, so it actually covers good parts of South Korea including the airports at Inchon and Gimpo. While no accidents have been caused as yet, it has caused quite some disruption and has made ocean going craft suffer as well due to their heavy reliance on GPS signals."

290 comments

  1. Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Noob question here: apart maybe from frequency allocation, is there an international law or equivalent regulation on signal jamming?

    1. Re:Legality? by korgitser · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well I have no idea about such a law, but if you find a way to make North Korea actually follow an international law, pleas let the world know ASAP.

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    2. Re:Legality? by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      International law only works if backed up by threats of punishment if you don't comply. It works well for bullying small non-nuclear nations. When you have a huge army, nukes, and an appearance of "just crazy enough to push the red button" nobody will stop you from being a pest.

      International law does not seem to apply to any state powerful enough (i.e. nuclear armed, and/or large conventional forces), as proved many times by the US (and probably others, but I can't think of any examples off the top of my head), and they are considered rational actors that will only use nukes as a last resort.

      Hell, NK has shelled islands belonging to the South, and is believed to have been behind the sinking of a South Korean Navy Vessel. Lives have been lost due to this, both of which constitute acts of war, yet nobody responded.

      I think jamming GPS is rather low on the "pest" scale, so I don't think anything major will be done about it (regardless of whether there is a law on the books against it).

    3. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a way. But a law of war is that you should not use weapons that cost more than what you destroy with them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Legality? by JazzHarper · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is a way. But a law of war is that you should not use weapons that cost more than what you destroy with them.

      That's not really a law, it's more of a guideline.

    5. Re:Legality? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all cost is counted in currency.

    6. Re:Legality? by neyla · · Score: 2

      That only applies if you're unwilling or unable to outspend your opponent.

      The US military has certainly used weapons that cost a lot more than whatever they've destroyed in Afghanistan, and that's fine, if they are both able and willing to spend ten times or hundred times what the opposition is spending.

    7. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a shortwave listener I can confirm that there are a lot of N.Korean jammers active. Often without a trace of the actual signal they are blocking. Same for China/Iran/Cuba and a couple of other countries I'm probably forgetting.

    8. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it's hard to find a weapon cheaper snot-missiles, to take on all of N. Korea.

    9. Re:Legality? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It is perfectly legal in North Korea to do so.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      International law only works if backed up by threats of punishment if you don't comply.

      And this is why American foreign politics are not taken seriously.

      Let's not be naive here. NK is a bandit state that follows and discards laws and regulations on a whim and in a seemingly irrational manner to an outside observer. Still, smaller countries (Scandinavian countries for example) have seen great successes in frequency allocation agreements through such organizations such as HFCC against a number of larger countries. I remember the Norwegian delegation some years ago negotiating away -China- from a critical allocation they both needed. This was done through careful diplomacy, some clever alternative arrangements and generally both parties being interested in a solution even if they were miles apart on the issue to begin with. The next year, they did it again, this time fending off Russia. Anyone suggesting that Norway has anything to threaten Russia and China with is an armchair general not to be taken seriously.

      Whether the same could be arranged with NK... I remain sceptical but to dismiss it off-hand is foolish. You seem to have a very ingrained mental image of NK being the very soul of evil and the US being the shining city on the hill, never acting in bad faith. This image is incorrect on both accounts.

      Personally, I'd think an invitation into HFCC and serious negotiation from equal parties is the best option likely to succeed. If not, and NK would be bluffing, THEN you would be in the situation where other options could be considered.

      tl;dr - You're too gung-ho. There ARE institutions to handle this sort of thing. I've served on several and we've done some very good and difficult work deemed "impossible" by the US State Dept. because they only really have a hammer and not every problem is a nail.

    11. Re:Legality? by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      if you find a way to make North Korea actually follow an international law, pleas let the world know ASAP.

      International law does not prohibit a nation state from building nuclear weapons, missiles etc., nor does it regulate what form of government nation states should have. They may be guilty of crimes against humanity, but for their actions to fall into that class, it would have to be shown that the actions were the result of a systematic policy of murder, genocide, torture etc. rather than these being individual acts. Some lawyers have made the case that North Korea has a policy of genocide and infanticide, both of which would qualify. On the other hand, people have made similar allegations of forced abortion and infanticide against the government of China, and yet very few have argued that constitutes a crime against humanity.

    12. Re:Legality? by Theophany · · Score: 2

      I hate to be that guy, but China are too valuable to us all to waste their precious importing time and money on accusing them of crimes against humanity.

    13. Re:Legality? by yacc143 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, technically they are at war, just in a very long cease-fire.

      And yes, while there might have been cases where other countries have done bad stuff, no questions, the US have the problem of being seen as a hypocrite.

      "The land of the Free", "The Good Guys", ... => well, in many cases it would be helpful if they could pin labels in big high contrast letters on the Americans on site "WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. REALLY.".

      The problem is that especially in the last decade, it has often become hard to find the goodness that the PR is still claiming.

      Examples would include:

      -) drone killings in foreign countries => collateral damage is accepted, and that does not even ask the question if the US administration can decide on it's own that they want someone dead, without a court, ... => how's that much different from a terrorist that want's to kill one person inside and bombs the whole house?

      -) arrests without warrants, without the option to legal representation, => everything there in the PATRIOT act.

      -) US agents wanted by international arrest warrants by supposedly friendly countries => yeah, sometimes the criminal (as the local law defines) energy of CIA agents can lead to embarrassing situations. (So if the local law does not apply, why do you expect Islamist terrorists to obey local US laws?)

      -) Generally speaking, the US constitution has been turned into an optional guideline.

      -) Ah, one last thing, the Supreme Court demands that capital punishment is handed down by objective criteria. Wonder how many service man have been sentenced to DR that commited multiple murders on the local population. Happened many times, and these guys usually get just a slap on the hand.

    14. Re:Legality? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Just wait for the S. Korea signal blackout satellite to start hanging out over N. Korea. No fOOking T.V. ,Radio, Wifi, no damn nothing.
      Just watch. Back to beating logs and smoke signals for teenage mutant dictator turtles.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    15. Re:Legality? by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, that guy or not, you are (sadly) correct. China has far too much economic influence in the world for any nation (even my much beloved USA) to stand up to them.

      The Norks, on the other hand, hold no such distinction. The only reason they haven't been stomped into the ground yet is both their proximity to China (China doesn't want a war in it's back yard and all the Nork refugees that would come with it) and the fact that they really are that unimportant in the world.

      Of course, should they actually get a viable nuke missile program off the ground AND the USA gets a president with some backbone (Unlike the current "teleprompter-in-chief") then something might be done about it. Maybe. At the rate China is divesting itself of US Bonds, the US won't owe them much debt fairly soon, and will be more free to act.

      The next several years should be "interesting" to say the least.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    16. Re:Legality? by Mike+Hock · · Score: 0

      Remember,
      NORTH KOREA is BEST KOREA.
      they do not submit to the laws of the world... they are above them.

      --
      ---lame
    17. Re:Legality? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are probably jamming GPS to make it harder for US drones to fly over them. There is probably an argument for defensive action to be made there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Legality? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ah, one last thing, the Supreme Court demands that capital punishment is handed down by objective criteria. Wonder how many service man have been sentenced to DR that commited multiple murders on the local population. Happened many times, and these guys usually get just a slap on the hand.

      What's even more relevant is that these service men or women should often be tried and sentenced in the country where the crime is committed. Especially in cases where the US has an extradition treaty with the country in question and would,expect to be able to extradite any criminals it wanted to stand trial in the US. The US policy seems to be though that their own law usurps any other countries (recently it seems to usurp the US constitution so that should not be too surprising).

      This is a fine attitude to take if you intend to impose it by force, but it completely fails to let you take any sort of moral high ground. This does not help win any hearts and minds of the local populace so has a habit of encouraging terrorism amongst them, especially if there is mass unemployment and people feel like they have nothing better to do than blow themselves up anyway.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    19. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why the U.N. is not taken seriously.

      FTFY. You must've already forgotten about Afghanistan and Iraq.

    20. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will do, I'm still working on ways that may work to make the US and Israel follow international law so it may be some time comming.

    21. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hell, NK has shelled islands belonging to the South, and is believed to have been behind the sinking of a South Korean Navy Vessel. Lives have been lost due to this, both of which constitute acts of war, yet nobody responded."

      You tend to expect that when you are still at war. The Korean War never finished, there's just been a series of ceasefires.

    22. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      International Laws rarely apply during wartime. the DPRK is still technically at war with the RoK and the USA

    23. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think about all the GPS guided weapons available and combine that with the suspicion NK must be feeling. It all makes sense trivially.

    24. Re:Legality? by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      North Korea is nothing more than a proxy and a test facility for both the Russian and the Chinese. If the North Korean ever do launch a nuclear strike, it will be ordered by either the Chinese or the Russian. I am sure the Russian did not gain too much profit by selling those jamming devices to the North Koreans so one can only conclude they are allowing the North Koreans to test them. Lets put the blame where it really lies.

    25. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that this president DID invade Iraq after the deadline passed. He DID give the "go ahead" to kill Bin laden despite such operations not always going as planned and costing the person who ok-ed them political capital, right?

      Or are you just bashing him 'cause you don't agree with his policies? I mean, I too want real national health care and a wallstreet crackdown, but I'll settle for a president who DOES take shit further than a strongly worded letter.

    26. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are aware that China is actually quite vigilant on its border with North Korea and the two countries are not exactly on good terms.
      I live in China and get my news from sources other than Fox... Sorry to be so blunt.

    27. Re:Legality? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      Cool troll, but when it comes to official government policy in China, there's probably no better source of information than the government controlled/censored news. For everything else... not so much.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    28. Re:Legality? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Especially when you're (the aggressor) left footing the bill to pay for the rebuild. If we are not committed to forcing a nation to kneel before the United State of America in the form of a signed declaration of surrender, we have no business getting into a war. This whole middle eastern conflict has been handled all wrong by both administrations. We've been way to soft handed and playing the nice guy for way to long. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know their history.

      War is hell! Engage, or don't. There is no "try".

      “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” George S. Patton Jr

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    29. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it is. An average joe is worth about $7 million.

    30. Re:Legality? by Hatta · · Score: 0

      Let's not be naive here. NK is a bandit state that follows and discards laws and regulations on a whim and in a seemingly irrational manner to an outside observer

      Boy does that sound familiar.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    31. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you should be the first one to go to this war with North Korea. Right?

      I expect for you to join up as soon as it starts and head out there and fight those NK after all your so manly.
      Oh wail I figure your the type that will be hiding in the basement talking out his ass about how we are not doing enough.
      Even with Nukes we will not be touching them, just like we will not be hitting Iran. Because unlike attacking weak military country we are now talking about a whole different animal.
      One that will bite back and really hurt us, and bring in a few more players that this time many not be on our side.

    32. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War is hell! Engage, or don't. There is no "try".

      “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” George S. Patton Jr

      That may be so, but the thing with the Middle East is this: war weren't declared.

      As for quotes, I prefer this one: "It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it." Robert E. Lee

    33. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      It's rooted in economy, not morality. So it IS a law.

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

      An average Ali about $500-2500.

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

      How about stuff like this: http://china.org.cn/environment/2011-11/07/content_23843392.htm

      I'd read it as the problem is very serious since the official is allowed to actually say it on an official website.

    36. Re:Legality? by bitt3n · · Score: 2

      if you find a way to make North Korea actually follow an international law, pleas let the world know ASAP.

      their missile program rigorously adheres to the international law of gravity

    37. Re:Legality? by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

      Noob question here: apart maybe from frequency allocation, is there an international law or equivalent regulation on signal jamming?

      I think that North and South Korea are still at war, so its not like it an act of war. Rather this is just part of the ongoing struggle.

      We will skip the part about the armistice treaty in place.

    38. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      War isn't hell.

      Hell is filled with sinners. There are no innocent people in hell, but the war is full of them.

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

      Don't worry, every newly elected US president since WWII has started a war within the first 12 months of his presidency.

      No, I didn't fact-check that. Know why? I was told this somewhere during Dubya. We then tried top of our heads to invalidate this statement.
      It didn't do wonders for anyone's mood that every Presient we threw out there (without internet in reach) at least plausibly started a war within 12 months.
      I'd try and hope Obama didn't, but I have no need to have any more illusions shattered today.

      (Oh, and while the statement was indeed 12 months, an example where it was 14 months will not lift the mood either).

    40. Re:Legality? by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      The strategic or tactical value of a target may have little to do with its economic value.

    41. Re:Legality? by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Well maybe so but both administrations probably know that not playing the nice guy would have severe repercussions, the US is a signatory of the Geneva convention and therefore bound to follow it. Intentionally breaking statutes of the Geneva convention is likely to result in sanctions or other repercussions from various nations around the world.
      A more important fact than winning the war is that the aftermath needs to be acceptable and you can't go around and declare war on everyone that doesn't agree with you, short of using nukes the costs for attrition would be enormous(because eventually you would piss off someone who actually have the means to cause some serious damage even if the US won in the end), something your economy cannot handle in it's current state.
      For example what do you think the effect would be if EU overnight put the same restrictions on trade with the United States as it does with Iran?

    42. Re:Legality? by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      I would rather have real healthcare than real national healthcare.
      That is just me though.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    43. Re:Legality? by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the guys firing at Afghani wedding parties^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H insurgent terrists with $70 thousand missiles from $5 million drones.

    44. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An average Ali about $500-2500.

      Well, at least little girls go for $2500

    45. Re:Legality? by isorox · · Score: 1

      There is a way. But a law of war is that you should not use weapons that cost more than what you destroy with them.

      That's not really a law, it's more of a guideline.

      One which even Dubya followed

    46. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The innocent don't go to hell but rather hell comes to them, unfortunately.

    47. Re:Legality? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      In addition, stockpiled weapons are a sunk cost, and depending on their age they may already be fully depreciated.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    48. Re:Legality? by Colde · · Score: 2

      I am curious...as a non-USAian why you find the current president lacking in backbone military wise. This even considering he went after Bin Laden in Pakistan without informing or getting permission from Pakistan a clear violation of their sovereignty and quite possible an act of war against Pakistan.

      He even did something similar in Somalia to free hostages from capture by pirates. (Although no one would probably complain about that, since Somalia is not even close to being a functioning state)

      To me it seems he has more backbone than most Presidents of the USA. It seem however he does it smarter, going after the right people instead of trying to invade entire nations.

    49. Re:Legality? by jbezorg · · Score: 3, Funny

      This whole middle eastern conflict has been handled all wrong by both administrations.

      Yes. They fell victim to one of the classic blunders.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    50. Re:Legality? by flonker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't worry, every newly elected US president since WWII has started a war within the first 12 months of his presidency.

      No, I didn't fact-check that. Know why? I was told this somewhere during Dubya. We then tried top of our heads to invalidate this statement.
      It didn't do wonders for anyone's mood that every Presient we threw out there (without internet in reach) at least plausibly started a war within 12 months.
      I'd try and hope Obama didn't, but I have no need to have any more illusions shattered today.

      (Oh, and while the statement was indeed 12 months, an example where it was 14 months will not lift the mood either).

      That is a very interesting observation, so I put a timeline together to see if it's true. President Carter is the only exception. But if you only count direct military action as "war" (in bold), the observation breaks down a bit more (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter). With that said, looking at the timeline is rather disenheartening, especially if you look at the dramatic rise of 'international police'-like activity starting with Reagan. The bolded actions in the timeline look like they're rising exponentially. Also, I don't see any correlation between time in office and military activity. (No math was done, just visual estimation.) I leave the decision, dear reader, up to you.

      TIMELINE OF AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITY AND US PRESIDENTS AFTER WORLD WAR II

      Presidents inserted before first action which started during their presidency. Presidents are indented and in italic. What I see as direct military action is in bold.

      WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
      Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
      IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
      YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
      URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
      GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
      GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
      CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
      PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
      PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
      KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
      Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
      IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
      VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
      GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
      EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
      LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
      IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
      CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
      PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
      VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
      John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
      CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
      GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
      LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
      CUBA l962

    51. Re:Legality? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Negotiation worked GREAT in Bosnia-Kosovo. I remember when Europe solved that conflict in the late 90s through their excellent diplomacy and negotiation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    52. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EMP directed into that city - cut the power, no jamming... Easy as pie...
      If they raise a stink, fire it at their military bases, knock them offline as well.

    53. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worked pretty much as it's supposed to: A small group of people who own some major corporations are now filthy rich from record military budgets, the US government has insured that will have a large roster of enemies to war with and surrender our freedoms in defense of, and most everyone seems to buy the koolaid about the US government loving democracy while taxes are looted "for our security" and fed to dictators and questionable military campaigns.

      In fact, the worst part about it is that the whole thing has been so successful. If any of these backwater villages had put up any real fights it would probably be even more profitable to "US interests".

    54. Re:Legality? by n7ytd · · Score: 2

      Yes. They fell victim to one of the classic blunders.

      A land war in Asia?

    55. Re:Legality? by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

      So that's why the french were dropping concrete bombs on Libyan tanks...

    56. Re:Legality? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a very ingrained mental image of NK being the very soul of evil and the US being the shining city on the hill, never acting in bad faith. This image is incorrect on both accounts.

      Well I agree that the view of the US is incorrect, but with each documentary I watch about NK the more convinced I am that if any nation is the very soul of evil it would be them. The way that government treats its own citizens is a crime against humanity.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    57. Re:Legality? by Creepy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seems you don't realize why North Korea even exists - the North Koreans were essentially vanquished and their soldiers fleeing into China in the first year of the Korean war - then China felt threatened by the prospect of a US backed country so close to their border that they declared war in the name of national security and drove UN forces (mostly US) back to the current DMZ. North Korea today has over 1 million active soldiers (4th largest army in the world) and 8 million reserves - that is 5 million more reserves than the US has total soldiers.

      Attacking North Korea is like kicking a beehive sitting next to a bear. You may be much better armed and able to take out massive numbers of bees, but you may also annoy the bear enough to attack you, and by attack you, I mean China and the US would engage in a nuclear war. Even if China wasn't provoked, a massive draft would be necessary for soldiers and the ensuing occupation, and even if the war was relatively short, the people there are massively brainwashed and would fight any occupation. The US would need to borrow huge amounts of cash once again and China wouldn't be lending it to us. The added debt load on the economy will probably cause the government to collapse a few years before the Social Security burden will do the same thing (when SS takes up 90% of the budget we'll either need serious austerity or kill the program, and with 49% of people without any retirement savings other than SS... well, does the word the US is fucked mean anything?).

      North Korea knows the US probably can't "win" such a war which is why they continue to develop nuclear weapons and jam GPS and sink ships - they know they can be the bully and have no serious repercussions (aside from starving a few million peasants, but that is why you have a insular police state - hard to start a revolution with Big Brother watching). The only real reason I see for North Korea to need long range nuclear missiles is in case China turns on them.

    58. Re:Legality? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Obama will be leaving office in about 8 months. We'll just leave it at that.

    59. Re:Legality? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The only reason nobody is smashing North Korea into dust is that NK and South Korea are locked in a Mexican standoff. The north has tons of conventional artillery in range of Seoul and could kill millions with a bombardement but that's their only trump card, if they lost that they'd just be a pathetic third world country that wouldn't stand a chance against even a minor NATO assault. So both sides keep ignoring the other aside from some token insults because both know that actually attacking would cost more than it would gain.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    60. Re:Legality? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am curious...as a non-USAian why you find the current president lacking in backbone military wise.

      Because Obama is a Democrat, and as a matter of doctrine, all Democrats are spineless wishy-washy appeasers, and all Republicans are tough manly war heroes. If you want to understand US politics, you first need to understand that approximately half of our political establishment is operating in a world which bears only the most superficial resemblance to reality.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    61. Re:Legality? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you are joking - kinda hard to tell with the invalidate part- I can name several that didn't start wars in the first 12 months - Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Obama to name 4 - some were in wars already, but they didn't start them and there hasn't been an officially declared war in a long time. Military actions, sure, but not wars.

      The old saying goes every _generation_ has its war. Perhaps he got mixed up on that one. My generation almost missed one, or perhaps even missed one, since our war was Panama, aka "the tropical vacation that was mistaken for a war" according to a friend of mine that served there.

    62. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexican standoff

      That doesn't mean what you think it means.

    63. Re:Legality? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      EMP directed into that city - cut the power, no jamming... Easy as pie...

      How do you do that, exactly? Hit a city 60km away with EMP strong enough to knock out their electrical equipment?

      I suppose you could explode a nuclear bomb at high altitude, but that would knock out everything in South Korea too, and probably much of Japan. Or you could send fighter jets over the DMZ and drop FCGs on the city, but that would probably be interpreted by Mr. Kim as an all-out war.

      Is there an "easy as pie" method that only Anonymous Cowards know about?

    64. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example what do you think the effect would be if EU overnight put the same restrictions on trade with the United States as it does with Iran?

      There would be symmetric retaliation, and the EU would be just as fucked... or are you not paying attention to the economic solvency of the EU with the exception of Germany and Scandinavia?

    65. Re:Legality? by gentryx · · Score: 2

      Any cost can be counted in Bitcoins.

      --
      Computer simulation made easy -- LibGeoDecomp
    66. Re:Legality? by Technician · · Score: 1

      I think a Homing Anti Radiation Missle (HARM) will send a message back that this is unacceptable. You turn it off or we will.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    67. Re:Legality? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a very ingrained mental image of NK being the very soul of evil and the US being the shining city on the hill, never acting in bad faith.

      NK isn't the "very soul of evil", it's the "very soul of crazy". They're kinda like what Ted Kazcinsky would be if he were a country.

      The US is the one that's pretty close to being the "very soul of evil". However, they're generally not crazy (though many of their politicians are, or at least act like it to get votes).

    68. Re:Legality? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The difference is rationality. In the prior poster's example, the people running Norway tend to be very rational (as do the people in Norway). The Russkies and the Chinese are also generally very rational in their dealings (at least these days; early on in their communist periods they weren't). Bosnia and Kosovo was all about a bunch of religious nuts; when people get carried away with their religion, all kinds of insanity ensues. Same goes for people carried away by ideology, which is what's going on in NK, though that seems to tend towards religion too with the way they almost portray their "Dear Leader" as a demigod.

    69. Re:Legality? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Real national healthcare (Euro or Canadian style, not Obamacare's gift to the insurance companies) IS real health care. One in four Americans have no health care at all (except for the emergency room).

    70. Re:Legality? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      China merely told the US that if they got closer than a certain distance to their border they would enter the war on North Korea's side. The US military command (IIRC Douglas MacArthur) basically ignored the warning because he thought he could simply threaten them with the use of nuclear weapons if they did and that it was a bluff. It was not a bluff of course. When the Chinese invaded North Korea in droves and started clawing back every gain the US had made on NK soil he asked Truman for nuclear strikes on Peking and Moscow but Truman (wisely IMO) rejected the use of nuclear bombings since it would escalate the war into WWIII.

    71. Re:Legality? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So much Fail.

      The Reason the US doesn't attack North Korea is twofold. The first being NK presents no tangible threat to the US. They've been trying to build that threat so we will take their threats seriously (and give them what they want) but they continue to fail at ICBM's. Second reason is that NK has about 50,000 ordinary artillery pieces within range of Seoul, a city of more than 10 million. Within 5 minutes NK could kill several million people with conventional artillery barrages. There is no doubt in anyones mind that if it came to war SK could at this time decimate NK, but the cost to SK would be VERY high (millions of casualties and decimate their industrial might). This is partly the reason the US troops stationed in SK are now several hundred miles from DMZ with the SK army taking the lead point of defense.

      Now on to the History. China didn't give two wits about NK and certainly didn't invade and defend NK for the silly reason of a united Korea with US backing (Sino-US relations had always been reasonable up to that point, even under the Communists and the US acting like babies about Commies). China invaded for several reasons but two are the most important. The first is that after Patton launched the amphibious landing behind NK lines and decimated the NK Army he started talking about not stopping at Pyongyang and continuing on to Beijing. (Yes, he did talk publicly about invading China). This brings up the second reason, because of Patton's statements the Chinese issued an ultimatum to the US that if UN forces approached within 300 miles of the Chinese border that China would be forced to retaliate. Patton and the US ignored the warning and proceeded on to within IIRC about 50 miles of the border (and ran right into the 300,000 troops China had snuck into NK). Patton was fired after this, partly for his failure to take the Chinese threat seriously and partly because he started publicly talking about Nuking Beijing as retaliation. The rest is history but to sum up, the reason China invaded was because they believed that they were under threat from invasion if for no other reason than the top general of the UN forces was talking publicly about doing it. The Chinese believed they were defending mainland China from invasion by US forces.

    72. Re:Legality? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      FWIW I think South Korea could invade the North (and probably will eventually) single handedly without any outside help. If that was the case I wonder if China would even bother. Especially if the US started removing its remaining troops from the peninsula afterwards.

    73. Re:Legality? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Are the jammers really Russian or Chinese? The North Koreans probably couldn't do them themselves but I suspect either partner has the technology. After the wars on Iraq and Serbia they had to develop something to deny precision attacks.

    74. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your stay in hell :) I'll be listening to you scream. For your own sake, learn some koine Greek...

    75. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it was great. NATO expelled Christians from their living places and let the Muslims take control. Great. Then the US starts blabering about how the EU is stupid and getting invaded by Muslims and they do nothing about it. Bah.

    76. Re:Legality? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The reason so many people can not afford to go to the doctor is the cost.
      The reason the cost is so high is that lawyers and government have gotten together to require that 900 tests be done and every thing be tried and covered regardless of cost.
      It would be so nice to just have a policy that only covers me in the result of catastrophic injury.
      One that does not have to cover pregnancy and drug addiction.
      One not required to hold onto me forever.
      It would also I am sure be awesome if a doctor could just tell you that you have a cold.
      And not be liable for $20 mil in damages because you had something that looks just like a cold but once every 12 years soemone gets this thing that is not a cold and needs a CAT scan to discover.
      Once people understand that they are not entitled to everything for free. Once they know that sometimes spending $800 on every patient that walks through the door to not get sued is a bad thing. Once humanity gets it that even though we are all created equal, we do not stay that way. Things will get much better. Till then it is gonna be a bitch.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    77. Re:Legality? by rk · · Score: 1

      Patton? You probably shouldn't accuse others of fail when you have a general doing things in your narrative that was dead 6 years before the events in question. You're thinking MacArthur... sad thing is your narrative is actually pretty much spot on, excepting for that. :-)

    78. Re:Legality? by rk · · Score: 1

      "the people there are massively brainwashed and would fight any occupation"

      You mean if your country was invaded and occupied by another, you'd just sit there and say "Whatever. It's cool, bro"?

    79. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking chickenhawk. You are the reason why your real teleprompter in chief, Bush the lesser, went to war with Irak. Because they really had no nukes.
      Fucking bully, even too stupid to see and admit it.

    80. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History fail.
      "The first is that after Patton launched the amphibious landing behind NK lines and decimated the NK"....Thats Gen Douglas McArthur you thinking of.

      Sadly Gen Patton had died in Dec 1945 about 5 years before the Korean War started.

    81. Re:Legality? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      then China felt threatened by the prospect of a US backed country so close to their border that they declared war in the name of national security

      The story that Chinese children are apparently taught in school is that the Chinese joined the war when a Chinese General saw MacArthur look across the river with his binoculars at China. I don't know if it's a true story, propaganda or both.

    82. Re:Legality? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      NK is pretty well a brainwashed theocracy so resistance is expected to be greater.

    83. Re:Legality? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when education is dumbed down to the slowest in the class.
      Then again, I know someone that lived in China just near the very heavily gaurded border with North Korea so your comment probably appears vastly more stupid and ignorant to me than it actually is.
      Don't confuse the situation where China will trade with absolutely anybody with control. North Korea has been xenophobic about China ever since China was implicated in an attempted coup in the 1970s.

    84. Re:Legality? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The reason the cost is so high is that lawyers and government have gotten together to require that 900 tests be done and every thing be tried and covered regardless of cost.

      It's not the lawyers and government, government doesn't have a hand in it. It's the insurance companies' and their lawyers' fault. Remember, they're insuring both the patient's health care and the doctor's malpractice insurance. The cost is high because the patient has little say over things; it's all the insurance companies.

      Insurance companies are the reason medical care is so much more expensive in the US than any other country while being far from the best by any metric.

      That's why I'm totally against Obama's health care plan; it's just a gift to the insurance industry. I don't think there should be any such thing as a health insurance industry or a malpractice insurance industry.

    85. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the world hopes that you are wrong. We do not need yet another backwards illiterate and incompetent warmonger.

    86. Re:Legality? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      So then. People should pay for their doctor visits just like pay pay to get their cars fixed?
      Good.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    87. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean McArthur. Patton was never in Korea that I know of, and certainly didn't launch the attach on Inchon.

    88. Re:Legality? by kbx911 · · Score: 0

      that's a disgusting statement, even if just for lulz

    89. Re:Legality? by HArchH · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Other than tulips and champagne does the EU export anything other than socialism?

      I guess Germany makes some high price sedans. Guinness might be harder to get.

      Anything else?

    90. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much history fail...

      First, you mean Douglas MacArthur and not George Patton. Different individuals, different theaters in WW2, different war (Patton died in Europe at the end of WW2). The amphibious landing at Inchon, conceived and order by MacArthur, caused the NK front to collapse and began a full-scale NK withdrawal from Korea south of the 38th. This was followed by MacArthur ordering UN troops north of the 38th parallel and encroached upon the Chinese border. Chinese troops, many hundreds of thousands, crossed the border (early winter). American and UN troops fought Chinese troops, withdrew in many sectors, and eventually established lines roughly along the 38th parallel. The size and scale of this operation matched many operations of the second World War (Chosin Reservoir was particularly bloody).

      The Sino-US relationship differed substantially in fact from your description. I'm not an expert on the Chinese revolution but, very roughly, we had two "Sino-US" relationships: Chinese Nationalists and the Chinese Communists. The US-Chinese Nationalists relationship was complicated but we provided them direct military aid. The US-Chinese Communists relationship was poor to non-existent. The troops which entered Korea were Chinese Communist veterans of the revolution. These were _not_ the Chinese Nationalist with whom we had an adequate relationship.

      At the time of the Korean War, the Chinese Nationalists controlled little, if any, of the Chinese mainland. Their forces were confined to Formosa/Taiwan. As a background, MacArthur advocated vocally for the commitment of US troops to support of the Chinese Nationalists against the Communist forces during the civil war. This did not occur. Nor did Nationalist China commit forces to fight in Korea alongside the UN forces after the civil war. I won't want to say that _no_ Nationalists fought in Korea but they certainly didn't commit full-scale battle units.

      MacArthur's legacy is debated. From a military history perspective, MacArthur is often faulted for dismissing intelligence reports concerning early Chinese infiltration into NK, over extending his forces, and for consolidating military decision making outside the theater of operations (MacArthur's HQ was in Tokyo). Why MacArthur so systematically dismissed the threat of Chinese intervention is open for debate? Institutional racism, promoting and selecting sycophants for senior HQ positions, and a close relationship with the Chinese Nationalist lobby within the United States have all been discussed (many US policymakers favored a close relationship with the Nationalists and Chiang Kai-shek lobbied actively for US support). But the facts surrounding the consequence were clear: US troops were over-extended and were not position to anticipate engagement by the Chinese. Many units were not supplied with winter gear or ammunition reserves to sustain the high tempo combat to come (many US units expected to be withdrawn to Japan or States-side by Christmas).

      MacArthur's firing is also debated. MacArthur was certainly insubordinate to Truman in the media. Their domestic politics were also in conflict (MacArthur was vocal here as well). And MacArthur's performance as a combatant commander was unacceptable. All of these probably played a factor in his dismissal.

      As another note, MacArthur did advocate bombing Chinese cities up to and including atomic weapons during the war. This was politically unpalatable and may have had broader geo-political implications. This remains hotly debated. My view is that broadening the conflict beyond conventional forces contained in the Korean peninsula risked extended conflict with China and involvement by the Soviet Union. I think Truman made the right call.

      Mao's motivation is less clear. From the Chinese perspective, logistics in Korea were terrible. Many Chinese units fought without winter equipment. They were deficient in artillery. But were, at least initially, highly mobile and organized infantry units. They had an abundance of mortars and small arms

    91. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Can't be. We don't have the death penalty in my land. He might be doing a lot of time, but he certainly won't be executed, you can't put that shit on my head!

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

      Yeah, we all had a good laugh. Especially when they acted like they're winning the war.

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

      More disgusting than the reason to say it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    94. Re:Legality? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The execution happened 2000 years ago, and the victime volunteered to be executed.

      We don't have the death penalty here in Illinois, either.

    95. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh dammit, can't you let that crap rest finally? I mean, I can see why we still get to hear about the holocaust every other year, that's only been half a century, but this is really ridiculous.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't this fall under most countries definition of cyber warfare? Then again, South Korea seems to ignore actual warfare/violent aggression from North Korea so I doubt it would make a difference either way.

    1. Re:Cyber Warfare by rhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Korean War never ended.

    2. Re:Cyber Warfare by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this fall under most countries definition of cyber warfare?

      My guess is that since the USA says it may jam or stop the civilian codes if necessary, jamming is not against international law if they can give some sort of excuse for it being defensive. The way these things go, even if it was a really pathetic excuse it would be enough to stop international courts bringing charges. Of course even if they did, the reaction is unlikely to be like that of the USA or other Western countries - hand wringing and either campaigning for the law to change or stopping the practice - they would probably just say "so what".

    3. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in that case, the excuse is quite easy: "our enemy might have wanted to fly GPS-enabled drones over our heads"

    4. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      the USA does not care for international laws, unless they created them themselves...

    5. Re:Cyber Warfare by outsider007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks for the update, Hawkeye.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    6. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the USA does not care for international laws, unless they created them themselves...

      Not even then.

    7. Re:Cyber Warfare by rhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US does not jam GPS signals, you're thinking of Selective Availiability which is currently disabled.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Availability#Selective_availability

      GPS includes a (currently disabled) feature called Selective Availability (SA) that adds intentional, time varying errors of up to 100 meters (328 ft) to the publicly available navigation signals. This was intended to deny an enemy the use of civilian GPS receivers for precision weapon guidance.
      SA errors are actually pseudorandom, generated by a cryptographic algorithm from a classified seed key available only to authorized users (the U.S. military, its allies and a few other users, mostly government) with a special military GPS receiver. Mere possession of the receiver is insufficient; it still needs the tightly controlled daily key.
      Before it was turned off on May 2, 2000, typical SA errors were about 50 m (164 ft) horizontally and about 100 m (328 ft) vertically.[5] Because SA affects every GPS receiver in a given area almost equally, a fixed station with an accurately known position can measure the SA error values and transmit them to the local GPS receivers so they may correct their position fixes. This is called Differential GPS or DGPS. DGPS also corrects for several other important sources of GPS errors, particularly ionospheric delay, so it continues to be widely used even though SA has been turned off. The ineffectiveness of SA in the face of widely available DGPS was a common argument for turning off SA, and this was finally done by order of President Clinton in 2000.

    8. Re:Cyber Warfare by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ". Mere possession of the receiver is insufficient; it still needs the tightly controlled daily key."

      This is incorrect.

      You can fix the Dilution errors by using DGPS. 2-3 cheap GPS recievers in an area can create a correction signal to give you back the accuracy. Did it daily in the 90's when I worked with the new fangled GPS based survey equipment. Plop down 2 tripods with GPS recievers and you go winder with your third. if you are inside the area your two error receivers are set you have a 1cm accuracy, outside them but within radio range and you have 10cm.

      You can easily make your own DGPS setup for a few hundred bucks and some used GPS units.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Cyber Warfare by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      You can fix the Dilution errors by using DGPS. 2-3 cheap GPS recievers in an area can create a correction signal to give you back the accuracy. Did it daily in the 90's when I worked with the new fangled GPS based survey equipment. Plop down 2 tripods with GPS recievers and you go winder with your third. if you are inside the area your two error receivers are set you have a 1cm accuracy, outside them but within radio range and you have 10cm.

      Because SA affects every GPS receiver in a given area almost equally, a fixed station with an accurately known position can measure the SA error values and transmit them to the local GPS receivers so they may correct their position fixes. This is called Differential GPS or DGPS. DGPS also corrects for several other important sources of GPS errors, particularly ionospheric delay, so it continues to be widely used even though SA has been turned off. The ineffectiveness of SA in the face of widely available DGPS was a common argument for turning off SA, and this was finally done by order of President Clinton in 2000.

      Herp the derps?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quote from GP:
      ". Mere possession of the receiver is insufficient; it still needs the tightly controlled daily key."
      "Because SA affects every GPS receiver in a given area almost equally, a fixed station with an accurately known position can measure the SA error values and transmit them to the local GPS receivers so they may correct their position fixes. This is called Differential GPS or DGPS. DGPS also corrects for several other important sources of GPS errors, particularly ionospheric delay, so it continues to be widely used even though SA has been turned off. The ineffectiveness of SA in the face of widely available DGPS was a common argument for turning off SA, and this was finally done by order of President Clinton in 2000."

      Quote from you:
      "This is incorrect.
      You can fix the Dilution errors by using DGPS"

      So I'm confused what you are saying. First you say using DGPS will not work, then claim DGPS will work. You say the GP is wrong, only to repeat exactly what GP said as a "correction".

      So which is it? Is the GP wrong that DGPS works? If so, why are you not wrong that DGPS works?

      Illiteracy is so sad :(

    11. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumer grade units wont give you the raw data from which you can produce corrections, never mind give you the RTCM itself. It wont read the L2 carrier phase, and it unlikely to utilise the L1 carrier either, plus the antenna will be naff. You are right that survey equipment is needed, but such things are never cheap. You will have to spend more than a few hundred bucks.

    12. Re:Cyber Warfare by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      So the logical thing to do is send a jamming signal missile straight down the emissions to blow up the trucks. Isnt it time we ran out of patience with North Korea?

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    13. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, this is classic electronic warfare .

    14. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isnt it time we ran out of patience with North Korea?

      No.

    15. Re:Cyber Warfare by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      So I'm confused what you are saying. First you say using DGPS will not work, then claim DGPS will work. You say the GP is wrong, only to repeat exactly what GP said as a "correction".

      Very simple, really. SA transmits GPS signals, but with an error added. An ordinary GPS receiver therefore cannot figure out its exact position, you need this clever GPS receiver where you can type in what error SA is currently using.

      Or you use a very simple method: You plug a GPS in the ground in a known location. You check where it thinks it is based on the GPS signal, and where you know that it is because you put it there and you know the place, and that gives you the exact error in the GPS signal.

      In practice this is used to get highly accurate positioning that gets rid of the unintended errors caused by not-quite-exact satellite positions and the delays of the signals due to weather conditions.

    16. Re:Cyber Warfare by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Illiteracy is so sad :(

      Yes, it is, please point out where I say DGPS will not work. I think you need to learn english.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that you don't need to have the SA key to guide a missile, you just need to set up DGPS in your target area? Good luck with that!

      dom

    18. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old timers such as myself have referred to signal jamming as "electronic warfare" for about 5 decades.

    19. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. There is a ceasefire, but that is it. Hence all the constant tension and huge DMZ between them.

    20. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    21. Re:Cyber Warfare by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You plugging the base station in the ground doesn't give you an exact location, because you don't know where exactly it's located (without doing a bunch of extra surveying work, or picking a location whose exact coordinates are already known).

      Instead, you simply plug the base station into the ground someplace convenient, and leave it there for a few hours or days. The errors injected in the GPS signal by SA will average themselves out over time, and you'll have a nearly exact location for that base station which you can then compare with another receiver that is roving.

    22. Re:Cyber Warfare by Baseclass · · Score: 2

      South Korea seems to ignore actual warfare/violent aggression from North Korea so I doubt it would make a difference either way.

      If said jamming is affecting their Starcraft servers in any way there's no telling what they might be capable of.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    23. Re:Cyber Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military GPS signal is sent coded with another higher precision format. The civilian signal can be either disabled, enabled with low accuracy and enabled with high accuracy.
      As stated above the signal can be disable altogether for a specific area, if that is just for the civilian or also for the military signals is AFAIK unknown/classified.

    24. Re:Cyber Warfare by rhook · · Score: 1

      The military signal is on a different frequency and has a correction algorithm that changes daily.

  3. Good sign for their economy by cvtan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good to know the North Koreans have extra money to send to the Russians and can afford to maintain jamming trucks.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Good sign for their economy by macson_g · · Score: 1

      Of course! They don't need to pay for food for they people, they get it free from the USofA.

    2. Re:Good sign for their economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Good sign for their economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is far from new. My brother is an Apache pilot and has had two tours in Korea. The North periodically jams GPS along the border. They also provide false navigation signals (including encoded identification) for both NDB and VOR near the border. They get a hard on for the potential to create an international incident. They would love to declare the US violated their airspace. Should it happen, of course they would claim their border was violated and neglect to tell you they also caused it.

      Pilots receive specific training there so as to double check all navigation signals and to cross check against maps. They are not allowed to use GPS for primary navigation. They're not supposed to use it for primary navigation anyways, but in Korea, along the border, the realistic need is brought to the forefront.

      So basically, this is the same stuff they've been doing for two decades. Seriously, nothing new here...aside from the fact that perhaps civilians are hearing about it.

    4. Re:Good sign for their economy by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good to know the North Koreans have extra money to send to the Russians and can afford to maintain jamming trucks.

      It's not "extra money" it's a policy called military first or some such crap. Basically it means the people can go starve if the army needs the money for a new toy.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    5. Re:Good sign for their economy by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Because there are so many enemy countries wanting to move in on North Korea's turf and steal all their stuff.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    6. Re:Good sign for their economy by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      The irony here is that since the US and South Korean military have learned to expect jamming on an everyday basis, if NK ever wants to re-ignite open war, any military advantage they may have been able to gain from such tactics is neutralized almost completely.

      Of course, NK (the sane part, anyways) doesn't want open war: they know they would get their ass kicked, and hard. They just was to rattle some sabers.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:Good sign for their economy by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      North Korea needs a good regular peppering with anti-radiation munitions it seems.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Good sign for their economy by austin987 · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Good sign for their economy by CBravo · · Score: 1

      Interesting to hear that they do not have phased array GPS receivers...

      --
      nosig today
    10. Re:Good sign for their economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they turn their blade heaters on, the blade will delaminate and fly apart. Many Apaches which do not commonly opperate in cold weather have the heater switch wired (as in bailing wire) in the off position.

      The Apache is an awesome airframe but there are many things about which significantly lag. For example, its FLIR system is at least two generations old. Not to mention, most are not equipped with anti-heat seeking defense systems.

      Apache pilots are trained all onboard navigation is corruptable and should not be trusted except in very specific situations. The most reliable navigation system on board is a set of mark II eyeballs and a map. Most of the time they fly VFR so this isn't normally a problem - thoough both the pilot and aircraft are IFR capable. Interestingly enough, they have no VOR receivers either. Its NDB/ADF, GPS, and/or VFR.

  4. When your dealing with the irrational by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    do you think that treaties mean anything to them? Rules are simply something they use to assert control over the actions of others when needed, they do not apply such limits and rules to themselves.

    If anything they would use it as leverage to gain something. After all they have their threat pretty well displayed. It is not ever loon that backs their insanity with a large army possibly armed with both chemical and nuclear weapons.

    If anything expresses the danger of certain middle eastern countries obtaining nuclear weapons it is North Korea. North Korea simply proves what everyone knows but likes to pretend otherwise, when the irrational have weapons of mass destruction you can never be sure.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  5. Don't act hostile and seem like the bad guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the recent changes in leadership at the top, I would be inclined to be forgiving about this kind of thing, unless something unambiguously nasty happens.

    Send a note saying "please turn the power down a bit", because this is silly border squabbling on the level of building a stupidly huge flagpole ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gijeong-ri_Flag.jpg ) rather than the actively hostile sort, like shelling an inhabited island ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong )

    1. Re:Don't act hostile and seem like the bad guy... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      To me, "at least they aren't shelling villages" smacks a bit of the abused partner syndrome. None of these acts are acceptable, and while I get the whole holding themselves and parts of SK hostage thing, sooner or later a line will have to be drawn.

    2. Re:Don't act hostile and seem like the bad guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Abusive partner isn't the right metaphor for this situation. South Korea as a US ally is definitely the major power in this situation.

      DPRK is more like a bully who knows they are weak, who knows they can't kick anybody without getting their face smashed in, so they throw insults around trying to annoy everybody else into doing something stupid. Hostility towards them is what they want, so that they can claim to be the victim.

    3. Re:Don't act hostile and seem like the bad guy... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      sooner or later a line will have to be drawn.

      Absolutely! They should name that line too, in advance. Let's call it, randomly, the DMZ. When we get it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. GPS reliance by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While no accidents have been caused as yet, it has caused quite some disruption and has made ocean going craft suffer as well due to their heavy reliance on GPS signals.

    It's amazing how many pilots/captains have completely lost the ability to navigate their vessels without electronics and the problem is made worse by the fact that the infrastructure you need to navigate without it has been neglected or even systematically dismantled in many countries. I have sometimes wondered what effect it would have on a major NATO military maneuver if you specified half way through the war-game that: "The enemy just knocked out several of our GPS satellites, please simulate this by not making any use of your GPS equipment nor any GPS enabled munitions except those that have a fallback mode".

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:GPS reliance by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      LIke it or not, GPS is integrated into ATC infrastructure. Jamming like this has a direct economic impact because separation standards need to acount for degraded positioning data. Increase the separation between aircraft and you reduce the throughput of the affected airspace.

    2. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      seem to remember a documentary from a us aircraft carrier, at regular intervals during the day someone was picked to go out and find the ships position the old fashion way and report it to the captain who could then check the gps to verify that they still knew how to do it

    3. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love the brass to do this. It is the very reason why I carry around a stack of maps I pay for myself and refuse to use GPS if I can avoid it. Luckily that ganers respect. Navigation is a skill that needs to be maintained. Oh and I have never heard an order with the word 'please' in it.

    4. Re:GPS reliance by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Well, lets assume that there is no GPS. You navigate by ground based radio beacons. Guess what anyone with a big transmitter can do to those? So, whats left? Visual navigation? Only works if you can see your reference point(so, at night or in fog, you're screwed). That leaves for ships, what? Stars? If you can see them.

      Like it or not, the issue is not the technology. It is the fact that you have some asshole country who wants to mess with it. A political problem, which has no genuine technical solution.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    5. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: changing the voices is in "GPS Hacking 101"!

    6. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like it or not, the issue is not the technology. It is the fact that you have some asshole country who wants to mess with it. A political problem, which has no genuine technical solution.

      Which is why the savage rabbit suggests NATO play around with that idea during some of their WARgames!

    7. Re:GPS reliance by phaunt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The GP's point still stands. He mentions "that the infrastructure you need to navigate without it has been neglected or even systematically dismantled". This includes lighthouses, many of which are no longer being maintained. I find this a bad idea: they offer a globally distributed and resilient fall-back option to the much more centralised (almost single-point-of-failure) technology that GPS offers.

    8. Re:GPS reliance by rhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      Airplane pilots are required to be up-to-date on their celestial navigation. The same applies to most maritime officers. In fact you never rely on just navigation system.

    9. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A political problem, which has no genuine technical solution.

      Oh, there is a technical solution, but it is too expensive and has undesirable side effects.
      The only way to be sure is to nuke the site form orbit.
      It should be a no-brainer to figure out why this has not been done yet.

    10. Re:GPS reliance by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      You missed the one that most people use. Normal navigation using that new fangled compass thing and paper maps.

      Not hard at all if you have any education at all in how to use them. I know private pilots that double check their GPS gear by taking headings and using VFR references to navigate through clouds. and as for the glide slope and inner and outer beacons, they would need some serious transmitter power to screw with those. Because you are very close to those highly directional transmitters when you use them.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should we also teach all our tankers and jetfigther pilots how to build and use spears? After all, they have lost that skill as well, and what if the enemy knocks out all our fighter jets... then we will need our pilots to go in there with spears right?

    12. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Milspec gear is supposed to use encrypted P-code to stop spoofing (and after the Iran drone-stealing debacle this will probably actually be enforced), and the new M-code can be spot beamed to the specific theatre of operations for a gain of 20dB vs. normal GPS which makes it jamming it require 100 times the power. It's arguably still true that they rely on it excessively, though.

    13. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ground bases beacons can be jammed, but their signals are many times more powerful than GPS satellites. To effectively jam all ground based navaids in a given area would require proximity or much more power. Also, you could not take out all ground based navaids as easily as you could take out the GPS system, assuming access to space based weaponry, which will become more common and not less. The US government could remotely shut down ground based navaids, but would have to detail troops to occupy transmitters to KEEP them off--should the government ever find itself at war with its citizens or something. GPS can be turned off by a few people with keyboards.

      Also, ground based navaids use older technology that can be understood, repaired, or even created by someone with appropriate electronics skills, GPS--not so much. The ground based stuff is not perfect, but it's quirks are pretty well understood now and it served us well for decades.

      Bottom line is relying ONLY on GPS is stupidity to an almost criminal degree. There hasn't been only one kind of navaid since the 1930s and the FAA, the airlines, and others seem hell bent on taking us backwards for the sake of alleged cost savings.

    14. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lighthouses have been more usurped by radar than by GPS. Almost every vessel has radar now, which allows them to navigate any shore instead of just the few ones that got lighthouses. It does cost a lot more effort to navigate on it though, so GPS and radio beacons are used mainly with radar as backup.

      And lighthouses don't work well in bad weather (fog, storm, rain), which is why radar and gps are used so much more.

    15. Re:GPS reliance by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      In case of war, creating a fake lighthouse to lead ships into rocks is a possibility.

      A good fallback plan would be to have radar equipment that can see through fog and a database of the coast profiles.

      Note however, that both lighthouses and this plan requires the ships to travel along the coast, that's still having an impact and not a replacement for a fully functional GPS system.

      I think that jamming is possible when you are having omnidirectional receptors, but one could use a "navigation by star" system that works even in case of cloudy weather by identifying and tracking satellites with a parabolic dish. Not that easy on a ship but probably doable with a bit of infrastructure.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    16. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get announcements in the north of Scotland to warn us that GPS may be intermittent for periods of time during exercises. I'm pretty sure they practise it :)

    17. Re:GPS reliance by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've often wondered why the very powerful onboard computer systems of large commercial and military vessels do NOT have some kind of fallback system. Perhaps they do and we simply don't know about it? (How many Sailors are there on /.?)

      I would think that a system that calculates position based on both the relative motion of the vessel combined with observable star and land positions (using motion, wind, light and radar sensors) would be an excellent fallback system. Not as accurate as GPS, but much more difficult to mess with technologically.

      I like Yvanhoe's "synthetic star" system as well, although that might have the same issues as GPS. Unless one was using reflected visible light via mirrors on the satellites. but then, one would have to think about issues of blocking visible actual stars with giant sunlight reflecting mirrors. I can't imagine the astronomical community around the globe liking you very much if you start washing out the universe with local sunlight reflection.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    18. Re:GPS reliance by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      Hint: Long before GPS, human beings navigated.

      Fascinating aspect is that you need to be able to navigate traditionally to get license for sailing ships here around. It's nothing very difficult, it's just that it requires one guy (that is responsible for navigation) to keep his brain engaged. Personally I always found docking under sails without engine, potentially at night time to be way more nerve wrecking.

    19. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airplane pilots are required to be up-to-date on their celestial navigation. The same applies to most maritime officers. In fact you never rely on just navigation system.

      At least that is the theory. In practice many pilots and skippers are over-confident that GPS always works.

    20. Re:GPS reliance by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      They do. It is called an Inertial navigation system. The problem with an INS is that they drift over time so you must update it. To update it you can use GPS, Loran when it was available, or celestial. If you are near enough to land you can also use a fix from radar. Out of all these methods GPS is the most accurate.
      INS has been in use for a very long time.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    21. Re:GPS reliance by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Are you telling me that air pilots are walking around with astrolabes and that airplanes have astrodomes?

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    22. Re:GPS reliance by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      The point you and most other sibling posters have missed about this is that back then we had a high tolerance for error. If the boat was late because of the weather, it was late. By the time we had commercial flight there were enough radio beacons to keep things relatively on time. Take away that technology and a lot of modern business falls apart. If we have to wait for a clear day to fly, how will you make your meeting? Attend to that breakdown 2000km away?

      Like it or not, technology is useful. I'm not saying pilots/ship captains should not be able to operate without it in emergency conditions, but I am saying that technology is an integral and important part of our modern world. And believe it or not, it can save lives.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    23. Re:GPS reliance by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2

      It's also amazing how many pilots/captains have completely lost the ability to transmit messages via carrier pigeon.

      It's a tool, and like any tool, if you remove the ability to use it while you are using it, it's going to cause disruption. Most pilots prepare for emergency landings should their engine quit, you wouldn't be surprised if that disrupted things, why should GPS?

      What if their more robust VHF/UHF radios kicked the bucket while flying? That would seriously disrupt them too, but you wouldn't lament the fact that they are dependent on that technology would you?

      You can dig a ditch with a shovel and a bucket, but you don't see road crews eschewing the use of diesel powered equipment for fear that you would run out of fuel mid-project.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    24. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading an article a few months back about a US Navy cruiser that tried this. All the systems went bonkers, and they had to turn the GPS back on (too lazy to go look for it). You would also be surprised how hard it is to test, considering lots of devices come with a GPS built in. So every gun, tracker, and radar on the vessel will likely have one. So there is no master GPS ON/OFF switch. You would probably have to dig through the settings on all the hundreds of devices, and disable and reboot them manually.

    25. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is bullshit. I work as an airliner and have never even seen a pilot who can do celestial navigation. It's even impossible in some cases, you know those white puffy things going over your head? There are other instruments for navigation but their ground based stations are not available in deserted places like oceans. If you're flying over Europe you don't need GPS to navigate but the airspace structure mandates a precision higher than you can do with the other instruments.

      How can you simply assert some horseshit like that?

      This is modded +5 informative? Come on slashdot.

    26. Re:GPS reliance by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2

      Ground based radiobeacons are much harder to jam than GPS by orders of magnitude. To jam it you would need to raise the noise floor or exceed the signal strength at the location of the aircraft.

      Not to mention that your jammer would show up as the perfect target for an radio seeking missile. If someone wereto complain that your missile hit their jammer... you respond "The missile was a controlled demolition missike that only could target this specific registered radio frequency. That frequency is only used by this beacon. Therefore it couldnt hit anything else... unless of course that something else were a system designed to specifically crash civilian aircraft, but we know that such a thing didn't happen. Next time we will use a demolition missile that only goes to specific geographic coordinates. We appreciate your concern Mr kim. I do hope this letter reaches you at 59.06578N Xx.4564E. Sincerely, the guy with very accurate missiles."

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    27. Re:GPS reliance by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      seem to remember a documentary from a us aircraft carrier, at regular intervals during the day someone was picked to go out and find the ships position the old fashion way and report it to the captain who could then check the gps to verify that they still knew how to do it

      Hehe... I approve, especially if the reward for failure is toilet cleaning duty, with a toothbrush. Any ranking ships officer on a military vessel who fails that test deserves it.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    28. Re:GPS reliance by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Lighthouses have been more usurped by radar than by GPS. Almost every vessel has radar now, which allows them to navigate any shore instead of just the few ones that got lighthouses.

      In a war zone where the enemy has knocked out or james your GPS, and if you are in command of a radar stealthy naval surface vessel turning on radar is the equivalent of putting up a big flashing "shoot me" sign. Any naval vessel that wants to stay hidden must rely on passive navigation.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    29. Re:GPS reliance by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      I would add that it is the only available navigation system in immersed submarines. I used to work with mechanical engineers that described the gyroscopes inside submarines as wonders of mechanical engineering.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    30. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and I have never heard an order with the word 'please' in it.

      In our army we try to be polite, after shooting somebody we always apologize for the inconvenience we caused.

    31. Re:GPS reliance by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1
      I think I was not really clear in the system I propose : have a parabolic dish tracking the satellite on a radio spectrum that can go through clouds. That way, you can do one of several things :
      • * If it is the GPS satellites you are tracking, you can then use the GPS protocol normally, I think regular jamming won't work on directional antennas.
      • * If i is another satellite (like TV stations) that you are tracking, you can use their positions to triangulate your own.

      These system can not be jammed unless you put an object between the satellite and the ship.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    32. Re:GPS reliance by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Actually not as integral as you'd expect. Airliners don't rely solely on GPS for obvious reasons; they take a weighted average of about a half dozen different navigational aids to determine their position. GPS has become the dominant one, fair enough, but if GPS is unavailable or unreliable (if it disagrees with the other measurements by too much) it's weighting is decreased or it is removed from the average completely. VOR stations, ADF stations, ILS, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning can all pick up the slack if GPS is unavailable. You might have a slightly longer flight as more adjustments are made, especially if flying over a large area without radio navigation aides, but you will get there and once you're in range of the airport ILS the rest is basically moot.

    33. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow excellent point. The generals surely have not thought of this scenario.

    34. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call it a "sextant" and "charts", but yes. I believe it is pretty common for aircraft to have old-school analog navigation tools on-board.

    35. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bull. First of all, every nation can set their own requirements for accrediting sea-faring captains (yeah, subject to international treaties, but still).
      Secondly, I just checked. Celestial navigation covers (at best) 3 points out of 65 (*if* you include meteorology and taking barings). 45 points needed to pass. So: no, maritime officers are not required to know *any* celestial navigation.

      Your last claim is true (at least, when I got my sailing license it was), but that does not offset the bull before. And let me tell you: plotting a course in sea, with constantly changing currents, tides, and winds to account for... your predicted course starts deviating significantly from reality after a few hours.

    36. Re:GPS reliance by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many pilots/captains have completely lost the ability to navigate their vessels without electronics

      Being (at most) 40 km from the DMZ means that any slight error in navigation results in instant flaming death, and that's only if you're lucky. I'd be anxious about navigation under those conditions as well.

    37. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airplane pilots are required to be up-to-date on their celestial navigation. The same applies to most maritime officers. In fact you never rely on just navigation system.

      As a commercial pilot, I call bull on your comment. Most aircraft can still rely on ground based VOR/VORTAC stations for navigation, not to mention multiple redundant INS (Inertial Navigation) systems. Most pilots won't ever have heard of the sight reduction tables, or the nautical almanac or even sextants.

    38. Re:GPS reliance by rot26 · · Score: 1

      You work as an airliner? That's cool, I work as a oscilloscope. Long hours, though.

      It's possible that commercial aircraft don't use celestial navigation. (Also possible that some do. Dunno.) Military aircraft (particularly bombers) can use celestial navigation, and the weather or time of day isn't much of a factor. You figure out the rest.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    39. Re:GPS reliance by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      Take us to JFK Airport, Warp 7.

      Engage!

      --
      -David
    40. Re:GPS reliance by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Airplane pilots are required to be up-to-date on their celestial navigation.

      [[Citation needed.]] As outside of a few special purpose aircraft. I haven't seen an aircraft (civilian or military) equipped with a dome for taking star sights in decades. Not to mention, celestial navigation is for point-to-point navigation, not precision navigation in controlled airspace. (Like the airports cited in the summary.)

    41. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or even sextants.

      I could just see it now: a navigator or flight engineer that goes "Hey, I need to use the sextent, can we maintain our current position for a couple minutes?".

    42. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work as an airliner ...

      Are your arms tired?

    43. Re:GPS reliance by sudonymous · · Score: 1

      You work as an airliner? That's cool, I work as a oscilloscope. Long hours, though.

      Long hours? You can drop a few cycles per second, but no fewer seconds in an hour, bro...

      Hey, this one time I asked an oscilloscope "how's life treating ya?" He replied "it hertz".

      I told him he should turn away from sine and repaint. He's had a DC bias ever since...

      mkay I'll stop now.

    44. Re:GPS reliance by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

      He's a jet, not a whirly-bird.

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
    45. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is totally wrong. Aside from SR-71 pilots, nobody uses celestial navigation in the air.

      Who the hell modded this up to +5?

    46. Re:GPS reliance by X0563511 · · Score: 1
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    47. Re:GPS reliance by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Political. You can't just fire that for no reason. Basically you're saying "invade them." are you American? :P

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    48. Re:GPS reliance by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... but there is reason. There has been reasons in the past. It's just that nobody wants to tell NK "Fine, that's it, you want to play, lets play."

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    49. Re:GPS reliance by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised too. GPS is relatively new technology we can't have forgotten how to walk since it became common. In particular all pilots must be trained to deal without it or they should have their licenses pulled. If the GPS doesn't work then don't panic, instead just remember how you got along before it. Relying solely on GPS is a terrible idea. GPS will fail even without jamming so you need a backup plan.

    50. Re:GPS reliance by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If all your navigation aids fail then you stop the ship or reduce to a very slow speed. If you can't see the stars then chances are you can't see the other ship you're about to crash into either.

    51. Re:GPS reliance by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      That's politics.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    52. Re:GPS reliance by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Fine for an emergency. Not ok for normal operations.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    53. Re:GPS reliance by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No it's not. It just has political ramifications.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    54. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Milspec gear is supposed to use encrypted P-code to stop spoofing (and after the Iran drone-stealing debacle this will probably actually be enforced),

      All evidence points to the drone using encrypted P-code. The explanation is the Iranians rebroadcast the GPS signals louder and with a specifically designed delay to spoof the position. While hard to do right, it should work and wouldn't require cracking the encryption.

    55. Re:GPS reliance by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      "it's just that nobody wants to tell NK"

      Welcome to planet earth. The above is politics. Enjoy your stay. :)

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    56. Re:GPS reliance by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You don't think that enemy would knock out a few lighthouses?

    57. Re:GPS reliance by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. My wif'e's a pilot, and there's zero instruction about following stars that I've heard of. They do still teach using VOR, paper charts, waypoints, etc., in addition to GPS (in fact, GPS isn't used that much for helicopters, or at least not relied on that much). But stars? You obviously don't know any pilots.

    58. Re:GPS reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about the rest of NATO but the U.S Navy's quartermasters are still trained in multiple navigation techniques, and on my boat we would drill it quite a bit. It would cause some problems sure but we would still be going, plus if you take out our gps, they lose theirs as well.

    59. Re:GPS reliance by CBravo · · Score: 1

      And they use lasers these days (in their INS).

      --
      nosig today
    60. Re:GPS reliance by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I heard that there are some INS that use kilometers of optical fibers. I am not sure how it works...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    61. Re:GPS reliance by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many pilots/captains have completely lost the ability to navigate their vessels without electronics and the problem is made worse by the fact that the infrastructure you need to navigate without it has been neglected or even systematically dismantled in many countries. I have sometimes wondered what effect it would have on a major NATO military maneuver if you specified half way through the war-game that: "The enemy just knocked out several of our GPS satellites, please simulate this by not making any use of your GPS equipment nor any GPS enabled munitions except those that have a fallback mode".

      As far as the sea goes I disagree. You still have to know how to read charts, radar, compass, plot tr/dr, visual nav, est strategies..etc. People may be 'rusty' and unpracticed but they still learned how to do these things when they were going for their exam to be on the bridge of any vessel of any consequence.

      Loranc is being torn down and people enter sextant readings into a computer nowadays rather than filling out worksheets or looking up sight reductions.. big deal.

      The people who we need to be most worried about when GPS goes down are idiots who buy a boat call themelves "captains" yet can not read a chart and have not even considered what they would do if their electronics or engine failed.

    62. Re:GPS reliance by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      In case of war, creating a fake lighthouse to lead ships into rocks is a possibility.

      And in cases of D&D modules.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    63. Re:GPS reliance by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      You work as an airliner? That's cool, I work as a oscilloscope. Long hours, though.
       

      It's the back and forth that really gets you though.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    64. Re:GPS reliance by denobug · · Score: 1

      Political. You can't just fire that for no reason. Basically you're saying "invade them." are you American? :P

      This is why neither South Korea or US forces want to do anything with it! Why bother when you know you have the tools to solve the problem at the time you wanted to, versus giving your opponent the knowledge and incentive to adapt and change to more sophisticated method that is harder to deal with?

    65. Re:GPS reliance by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Precisely.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    66. Re:GPS reliance by 0ld_d0g · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. but can't all of those be jammed too? Or is there some kind of reliable indicator?

    67. Re:GPS reliance by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Celestial navigation is great until the clouds roll in.

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

      Which is why you also learn other forms of navigation to fall back on. A compass and a stopwatch works wonders if you know how to use them with a chart.

    69. Re:GPS reliance by rhook · · Score: 1

      Which is why you are required to constantly get re-certified.

    70. Re:GPS reliance by samwichse · · Score: 1

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

      A long loop of fiber has light of the same frequency traveling both directions in it. The phase shift as the loop and emitters is rotated about the axis causes interference patterns.

      Sam

  7. Same old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DPRK does this every year. I am surprised that there have not been any significant accidents yet.

    1. Re:Same old by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      Accidents? Like someone lobbing a few ARMs over the border?
      Me too.

  8. Jammin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're jammin':
    I wanna jam it wid you.
    We're jammin', jammin',
    And I hope you like jammin', too.

    1. Re:Jammin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: How does Bob Marley like his doughnuts?

      A: Wi' jam in.

  9. get even... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    airdrop millions of Skittles on the North - they'll soon sue for peace

  10. EMP Cannon? by andydread · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the electronics on these trucks can be mysteriously fried from a distance with some kind of directed energy beam?. Maybe can be taking out covertly with the ABL/ALTB?

  11. Why just block. by will_die · · Score: 1

    If you can block the satellite signals and want do cause problems why not start broadcasting fake information.
    Change the fake info on a rotating basis and even more fun.

    1. Re:Why just block. by Pentium100 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The power requirements are different.

      To jam a signal you need to transmit noise that can drown the original signal, so that the receiver cannot figure out what it is. To transmit fake information, you need a much stronger transmitter because you not only need to drown the original signal but also have your signal be strong enough so that the receiver does not get confused when it receives both signals (the original and yours), otherwise you are just jamming.

      Also transmitting fake information requires more complex electronics instead of just a noise generator and a big transmitter.

    2. Re:Why just block. by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Well, that and faking GPS over a wide area is notoriously difficult. Simple boxes that put out properly corrected spoofed GPS for a single point in space have just recently come down to the $500,000 mark. Making it work over a wide area is very, very tough without a multitude of jammers in different locations around the target all very precisely coordinated.

  12. blocking in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the USSR, the Soviets spent several hundred million a year on jamming stations.

    In the UK, radio is jammed by allowing BT to distribute PLT networking kit which turns household mains wiring into large antennas and distributes noise all over the HF (and in some cases VHF) spectrum. The Internet is increasingly censored (CP, "piracy" and - if Baroness Howe has her way - porn) via the IWF "voluntary" tech, where "voluntary" is in the sense that a de facto prerequisite for government contracts is that an ISP uses it.

    If NK is blocking a US military technology then that's frankly the least of our spectrum worries.

  13. Innovation! by Breakable · · Score: 0

    Yay for innovation!

  14. Anarchy by srussia · · Score: 1

    International law does not seem to apply to any state powerful enough

    Quite right, but it is simpler to think of this situation as sovereign countries being in a state of anarchy vis-a-vis each other.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  15. What about glonass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does glonass work? It'd be easy to jam that to, but are they?

  16. The republic's not on fire, it's in ashes. by windcask · · Score: 2

    Perhaps they could put their money to more constructive uses, like, you know, feeding their severely malnourished populous.

  17. ARM by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    ARM = Anti-Radiation Missile. Should solve the problem.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:ARM by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny
      Could be a laugh too (except for the guys in the trucks).
      • South: Dude, those jamming trucks are way uncool, they're harshing our buzz.
      • North: LOL, what trucks?
      • South: [BOOM]
      • North: Dude! You just totally blew up our trucks!
      • South: LOL, what trucks?
      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:ARM by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But it could case a bigger one. WAR = death, destruction, cost, and suffering.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:ARM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More probable, after the "BOOM", they would start throwing babies into the burning fire, take pictures, and then internationally scorn the South/US for its travestity and complete disregard for human life for attacking a bus filled with children.

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

      How?
      Not like NK has electricity.

    5. Re:ARM by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      But it could case a bigger one. WAR = death, destruction, cost, and suffering.

      Hmm, seems to me that that's the attitude people had in 1936, when the German Army moved into the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:ARM by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      People no, the military yes :p

    7. Re:ARM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossibru!

    8. Re:ARM by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Don't you think that is a bit of an over statement? I mean it isn't like like when Germany moved into the Sudetenland! You have to pick your line and harmless GPS jamming is not the same thing as killing people like when NK torpedoed a SK ship.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  18. take them out by jeppen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    South Korea should simply take out those jamming trucks with missiles. If that escalates into a war, then that may be for the best. North Korea should have been liberated by force at least ten years ago. It was a much better target than Iraq, and a much nobler cause. What NK does to its own people is, on a per-capita basis, about as bad as it gets.

    1. Re:take them out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As much as it may rankle the cheapest (and best) option is for the South Koreans to do everything it can to avoid war. Cost in life and money of war would be enormous (on both sides), that is not something that you can be flippant about. It would also likely end up being a fight with China who would use it as an excuse for a North Korean land-grab.

      I think the resolution to this stalemate will probably come from China invading or otherwise taking over North Korea at some stage in next decade or two.

    2. Re:take them out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A Chinese takeover is unlikely on such a short timescale, unless NK went totally batshit and tried to nuke somewhere. NK is such a clusterfuck that nobody really wants it. Initially it would be a serious drain on whoever took it over - broken economy, starving refugees, probably insane holdout guerillas, having to deal with war damage probably including deliberate sabotage / scorched earth. This would take many years and billions of dollars to fix.

    3. Re:take them out by alexo · · Score: 0

      South Korea should simply take out those jamming trucks with missiles. If that escalates into a war, then that may be for the best.

      There's an Interesting thing about wars that you may not be aware of: people die in them. On both sides.
      So unless you are planning on joining the infantry and leading the assault, kindly shove your suggestions back into the backside orifice they came from.

    4. Re:take them out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seoul is in range of hundreds artillery pieces along the border. South korean and US troops wouldn't be able to destroy them fast enough to prevent a mayor bloodbath with thousands to ten thousands of civilian deaths. Even if you evacuate Seoul (pop. city 10M, metro 24M) beforehand the property damage alone would be billions of dollars.

    5. Re:take them out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop sending them oil. When the trucks run out of fuel, the jamming will stop.

    6. Re:take them out by jeppen · · Score: 1

      Your argument has merit, my friend. If the South Koreans don't want to, then that's their choice. One cannot ask SK people to sacrifice lives in a cause they don't believe in. I'm a Swede and I'm unlikely to participate in any effort on the Korean peninsula. I certainly won't volunteer.

      However, my belief is that total suffering would be less if NK was liberated and reunified by force. The atrocities of the NK regime toward its own people is beyond belief. (If you don't know of them, please google.) War is somewhat worse, but of much shorter duration. And war might come even if we try to avoid it - alas NK is improving their nuclear arsenal as we speak and later wars will likely be worse.

      But I certainly hope that the NK regime will fall soon and without war. This has been the gamble for the last few decades, and with luck, it may eventually happen.

    7. Re:take them out by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that NK has tons of artillery pointed at Seoul. A war would have immediate, devastating effects on SK. If it weren't for that, they probably would have been more firm in the dealing with NK.

    8. Re:take them out by jeppen · · Score: 1

      Actually I didn't forget about that. I think the NK ongoing atrocities are worse than having to combat that artillery and suffer heavy losses from it. But perhaps the window of opportunity has been missed. If NK can reliably deliver nukes to Seoul and a few other cities, then perhaps it is statistically better to just wait and see.

      I worry, though, that the NK regime will fall and decide to go out with a bang. For one thing, Kim Jong-Un was caught with bondage porn as a student in Switzerland. A sadist losing his grip may very well decide to unleash whatever destructive power he has at his disposal. OTOH, a palace coup may fix that. Hopefully, though, this is all part of US/SK contingency planning. I can only hope that TPTB knows what they're doing and not doing.

    9. Re:take them out by jeppen · · Score: 1

      So, how does this compare to ongoing NK atrocities, including starvation and stunted mental and physical growth among a very large portion of NK children? I may trigger Godwin's law here, but NK is, scaled by population, worse than nazi Germany.

  19. Two thoughts by rjejr · · Score: 1

    1. Is there a jammer for the jammer? If not, shouldn't somebody be working on making one? 2. Have the South Koreans ASKED the North to stop or are they just whining about it on Facebook? IF they asked and the North said "no", well it really goes against everything I beleive in but I would do something violent. Does the south have pinpoint accuracy (or there abouts) missiles that could take the trucks out? I don't think bombing the entire city would be a good idea. Maybe the Navy seals need some sequel material?

    1. Re:Two thoughts by Hatta · · Score: 1

      1. Is there a jammer for the jammer? If not, shouldn't somebody be working on making one?

      Just how do you think jammers work?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Two thoughts by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Are you a moron?

      Asking the NK to stop is futile; they just deny everything. "What jammers? We don't have any jammers! These are baseless accusations!" Their whole motive is to get SK aircraft to accidentally cross into the DMZ or NK airspace so they can act like the victim.

      Doing something violent will set them off and have an incredible amount of artillery raining on Seoul, a city with 24M people. Pinpoint accuracy missiles against trucks isn't going to stop a barrage of artillery shells.

  20. Stop feeding the Norks. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Cut all aid and permanently embargo the North with the understanding that if they attack the South they get nuked. They won't attack.

    Tac nukes are what kept them in their box after the Korean war, which is still not over. The North plays the same game over decades, and each generation of Westerners thinks its fucking new.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:Stop feeding the Norks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, starve the people who have nothing to do with politics. Hope for a revolution that never comes.
      Then invade the country in the name of freedom, meanwhile igniting a civil war that last for decades.
      I think we have seen this before a couple of times already.

      You must be American, because you never learn!

    2. Re:Stop feeding the Norks. by poity · · Score: 1

      1. Those people you care about are already starving since NK was mismanaged to the point where food was prioritized to the military while SOE profits valued in the hundreds of thousands USD per year were spend on cognac for Dear Leader. If KJI had given up his drinking habit and bought rice instead, a few million NK lives would have been preserved.

      2. Korean peninsula was liberated by the Allies from the Empire of Japan and divided between Soviet and US governance. NK, with the tacit backing of the Soviets, were the ones to first cross the 38th parallel, in the name of liberty for all Koreans

      If being non-American is at the root of your current body of knowledge, then it seems you would benefit from immigrating to the US.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    3. Re:Stop feeding the Norks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that they know that nobody would ever fire a nuke at them, so nothing would change. They'd keep poking and prodding, and being all "whatcha gonna do, huh?", like they've been doing for decades.

  21. Jam NK?? But in NK even the *radio* is wired! by Herve5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, NK state radio is delivered to each home by wire. And each home has a "radio" set which of course is geared to only connect to this wire, and does not receive any RF signal indeed. In NK not only you aren't supposed to listed other countries' radios, but you technically can't.

    And incidentally, this "wire radio" is by design unjammable...

    --
    Herve S.
    1. Re:Jam NK?? But in NK even the *radio* is wired! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I believe the North Korean term for the coaxial "radio" is "the third radio". I don't recall exactly what the other two are, but they're both wireless and the wired radio is IIRC largely restricted to Pyongyang.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:Jam NK?? But in NK even the *radio* is wired! by modecx · · Score: 1

      There's nothing that's completely unjammable.

      Hell, if you put out a powerful enough broadcast, you could induce a signal right into the radio's amplifier, directly. I've had that happen with a truckers' way-overpowered CB radio bleeding over on my TV, telephone, stereo etc. It was kind of bizarre, even unpowered devices made audible sound.

      Inverse square law considered, you'd need a massive transmitter to effect a significant number of these 'radios'.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    3. Re:Jam NK?? But in NK even the *radio* is wired! by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Now, there's something I've never heard before. Never imagined before.Entertainment by corporation is bad enough,entertainment by committee probably drives the suicide rate.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  22. The Mafia State by Guppy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hell, NK has shelled islands belonging to the South, and is believed to have been behind the sinking of a South Korean Navy Vessel. Lives have been lost due to this, both of which constitute acts of war, yet nobody responded.

    That's just the beginning. Abductions of South Korean and Japanese civilians, and probably a few citizens of some other countries as well. The 1983 Rangoon Embassy Bombing and 1987 Flight 858 Bombing. Probable government-level drug-smuggling and similar criminal enterprises.

    From a standpoint of international law, North Korea's government level, large-scale counterfeiting of US Currency, just by itself, might be sufficient to constitute an act act of war.

    1. Re:The Mafia State by TheLink · · Score: 0

      If counterfeiting tens of millions a year = war then I think the US Federal Reserve has declared war on the USA. ;). http://www.google.com/search?q=federal+reserve+trillions

      Note: when the Federal Reserve loans money, money is typically created - AFAIK nobody's bank balances goes down - what happens is devaluation of the currency.

      Yes I know there's a legal difference between what the FR and NK do, but still...

      --
    2. Re:The Mafia State by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They are acts of War. The USA and South Korea are at war with the DPRK. The War never ended, just some cease-fires.

      Is this really not common knowledge?

  23. why SA off? by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    Well, if I dare say, SA was turned off not at all because of its ineffectiveness, but in a last, desperate move to try preventing Europe deciding for their own positioning system, aka Galileo.

    Clinton turned SA off mere months before Europe voted Galileo funding, and this after an anti-Galileo campaign that was so gross that indeed it was vastly counter-effective for the decision-makers here.

    The only other campaign that was as laughable as that was when we voted on the Euro: I still keep some actual paper newspaper full-page ads that were tremendous...

    --
    Herve S.
  24. Stupid country by Aizenmyou · · Score: 1

    Their threats are as empty as their grocery stores. North Korea. Such attention whores.

  25. HERF EM! by trinity93 · · Score: 1

    Never underestimate the power of a used microwave oven klystron , some aluminium square tube, and a bank of air-conditioner capacitors.

    --
    We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
    1. Re:HERF EM! by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I think microwave ovens use magnetrons, not klystrons. Klystrons seem pretty expensive and accurate if all you want to do is heat some food. I think an IR laser would be a lot more effective than a maser for destroying the transmitters.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  26. Tim Burton Movie Fodder by retroworks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now that he's finished "Dark Shadows", and in the spirit of "Mars Attacks!", and Edward Scissorhands etc., we really need Tim Burton to do a movie about North Korea. I think he could capture the ethos.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Tim Burton Movie Fodder by martas · · Score: 1

      Johnny Depp as Kim Jong-un...?

  27. homing signal for cruise missile by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Should be incredibly easy to knock out if any one in the US had balls.

  28. This threat could actually be pretty big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jamming GPS signals means that more ships and aircraft will mistakenly enter North Korean territory. If an off-course military vessel skirts too close to some imaginary line in the water it could be said to be invading and give NK a good excuse to justify mortaring it out of existence.

  29. MALWARE on site in link above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not click on the link above- that site is reported to have malware.

  30. Get a brain Kim Down ill 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North Kora wants to be overthrown badly. Their only reason for existing is the trade with China.

    It would take just one airplane crash or ship crash to accuse them of a military attack. China will gladly take over their resources, if South Korea would trade them in return for military favors.

    Japan is also interested, as long as China can share.

  31. Someone should "test" a cruise missile by alispguru · · Score: 1

    One with a GPS jamming detector.

    "Oh we're sorry - our missile wandered into your GPS jamming zone and lost its way..."

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:Someone should "test" a cruise missile by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      There's special anti-radiation missiles for that task. They home in on signal emitters and are used to hit radars. Whether anyone wants to bother hitting those trucks with 'em is a different question.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Someone should "test" a cruise missile by X0563511 · · Score: 1
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Someone should "test" a cruise missile by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Fail.

      "Heh, we already have missles for that. Just have to work the same idea into a bigger payload :P"

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  32. Good reason to keep VORs and omnis. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the US, the FAA is planning to discontinue VORs and omnirange stations, the non-satellite navigational aids that have run aerial navigation for decades. The Coast Guard discontinued LORAN C in 2010. This was done with the concurrence of the Department of Homeland Security, which said it was "not needed for GPS backup."

    GPS is a very weak signal, and easy to jam. Satellites put out only 500 watts, spread over half the surface of the planet. LORAN C was transmitted at power levels from 100KW to 4MW, with huge antenna farms. That kind of power is difficult to jam at any distance. VORs and omnis aren't as powerful, but they're usually located at airports, so that when you're close to an airport and need to find the runway, the signal is at its strongest.

  33. Lightsquared Alpha Test Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps Falcone found someplace to try out his new 4G networks

  34. Fuck that shit by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Drop a big bomb on the mother fuckers. Problem solved. You know, I'm all against violence and warfare as much as the next person, but these stupid pricks just don't know when to quit. You wanna jam our shit? Hope you can afford to lose those jamming trucks, assholes.

  35. GPS jammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they want test their shiny new GPS jamming equipment, So. Korea should test their shiny new ANTI-GPS JAMMER missiles.

  36. New cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like Lightsquared found its market after all.

  37. We need Agent Abdul . . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Agent Abdul of the Saudi Intelligence Service

    Tom Ashbrook, on NPR, was absolutely gushing in his panties about the Saudi intelligence agent, and kept chanting:

    “It sounds like Mission Impossible! It sounds like Mission Impossible!”

    One can just imagine the scenario: Abdul is enjoying his usual Friday noon lunch in Riyadh, taking in the weakly beheading of innocent women.

    Suddenly, a woman’s severed head rolls in front of agent Abdul. Abdul gazes at the glassy-eyed stare on the bloody head and quickly reaches down and rips off her crystal earring.

    Holding the earring towards the noon day sun, a holographic image appears, with a caftan-wearing man intoning,

    “Agent Abdul, you will proceed to Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and retrieve the latest underwear explosive. We will call this Operation Calvin Klein.”

    “Should you be successful, the CIA will pay you a fortune and reward you with endless nights with the pink slime lady, Ann Coulter. Should you fail, it’s sloppy seconds from the US Secret Service and no more lunchtime beheadings for your viewing pleasure.”

    Abdul tosses the earring into the hot desert sky and watches it fizzle into dust, while suddenly the Lalo Schfrin theme blares in the background, scaring the crap out of Abdul!

    Stay tuned for agent Abdul’s next adventure when he confronts Al Qaeda on Wall Street (AQWS) and closes in on Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Phil Gramm, Hank Paulson, Hank Greenberg, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Neal Wolin, Gary Gensler, Fredric Mishkin, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Stephen Friedman, Sandy Weill, Kerry Killinger, Gene Sperling, Martin Feldstein, C. Fred Bergsten . . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAYhNHhxN0A

  38. Well, go and get on that then by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    If negotiation is such a powerful tool that'll work on the North, get with it. The EU doesn't need the US to participate or consent. Go, arrange it, get an agreement, and see that they live with it.

    However before you get all up on that you might want to spend some time reviewing the history of diplomacy with NK and realize that it has been tried, and see what the outcomes have been (cliff notes version: spectacular failures).

    I always find it funny when people whine that more diplomacy with NK is needed but then never seem to be interested in having their nation get involved. As though you can somehow write it all off as "the US's problem" and then just criticize the US for not dealing with it how you want.

    The EU nations are big boy countries, with diplomatic corps and all that. Go to it, if you think it'll work. However I bet if you ask said diplomatic corps they'll tell you that you are out of your mind.

  39. Also SA is explicitly and implicitly legal by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Why? Because the US owns GPS. GPS was 100% funded and is operated by the US military. It is not some international collaboration, it is a US military project and always was. They decided to open it up to civilians of all nations back in the day, and it has enjoyed great success and is now the primary navigation system for essentially all civilian and commercial traffic. However it is still military, it was never handed over to any international body or anything.

    This means if they US wants they can just straight turn it off. Nobody has standing to say otherwise, it belongs to the US, in particular the US military. So whatever the US government says, goes. It is their ball, they can take it and go home if they like.

    Hence the argument to build something like Galileo and have another GNSS. The problem is, nobody wants to spend the money. Galileo has been talked about by the EU forever, and was supposed to be fully online years ago, but isn't. If it ever is then there'll be a system not under US control so if they US decides to mess with GPS, people can still use Galileo.

    However thus far only the US military has wanted to foot the bill for a GNSS so they can do what they want. That means they are also the one and only group with real standing to mess with it.

  40. Thank you North Korea for the protection by Polo · · Score: 1

    Thank goodness they are protecting the US GPS Satellites. If someone were to try to shoot down a GPS satellite, the missile would be diverted to destroy the GPS jammer truck, protecting Global Positioning for the benefit of the world!

  41. US Virgin Islands = US Territory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Several of the events included in this list are US internal, and, by that standard, this list is way to short. Of the top of my head you are missing Little Rock, and probably other places occupied during de-segragation.

    Likewise, including the Virgin Islands is misleading, because as a very small area, it has a very small National Guard (22 people in 1980).

    I think if you removed the US internal affairs, you'd make a stronger argument.

    1. Re:US Virgin Islands = US Territory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I got the list of events from http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html , and the list of presidents from Wikipedia, then merged and formatted them to test the hypothesis proposed by the previous AC. The list of events seemed very subjective, so I was hesitant to editorialize content from someone who has obviously studied it more than me.