Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Announces 3rd Nuclear Test, Anti-US Aims
As reported by Reuters, The New York Times, and Fox News, among others, North Korea's nuclear saber-rattling has reached a new peak. North Korean officials have made clear their intent to conduct a third nuclear test (earlier tests were in 2006 and 2009), as well as further rocket launches specifically designed to demonstrate missile reach extending to the U.S. From Reuters' story: "North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States, although its December launch showed it had the capacity to deliver a rocket that could travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles), potentially putting San Francisco in range, according to an intelligence assessment by South Korea. 'We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are targeted at the United States,' North Korea's National Defence Commission said, according to state news agency KCNA."
Hey North Korea,
That country holding the other end of your leash just voted for the Security Council resolution against you rather than abstaining as they have done in the past. Maybe before you talk a bunch of shit about lobbing a nuke at the US, you should worry about China giving that leash a big yank.
Also, don't you guys only have enough nuclear material for 7-8 weapons? Please continue nuclear testing in your own country and use up all of your weapons grade material as fast as possible on making holes in the ground a lot bigger.
Cordially,
The Rest of the World.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Why is that? Right now, North Korea is a nice bargaining chip for China. The US doesn't want a direct conflict with China so cannot directly attack North Korea. When the time is right, China will reign in North Korea (for a time) in exchange for some concessions from the US. It is a poker game with an element of risk, but North Korea is a high face card in China's hand.
China tried reining them in 2 months ago, when they were getting ready to do the missile launch test. They still fired the missile, which is why China voted in favour of the current round of sanctions.
NK knows that China doesn't want US military presence on their borders, and that the US will not leave SK as long as NK is still a threat to the south. Thus, it's in NK's interest to be just annoying enough that SK still considers them a threat, but not annoying enough to trigger an attack. And yes, they are a credible threat to the south, with the amount of artillery they have embedded in the hills. They don't need nuclear weapons to do a lot of damage to the South, and are doing this for the attention.
As long as they don't do anything that would cause China to attack them, they're safe. (personally, I think that's how it's going to play out in the long run, btw... they'll piss China off enough that China attacks them, possibly with UN support, and then the US leaves SK). That means that they can ignore China's warnings and chidings all they want, as long as they don't actually do anything that directly affects China. Sadly, their current administration appears to be aware of this.
Interestingly enough, I was listening to a discussion on the radio this morning about Munchhausen syndrome, and can't help but wonder if NK's behaviour is a form of it.
I don't quite see it like that.
He's actually more like Clinton than Bush when it comes to responding. Clinton used cruise missiles and Obama uses drones. Though drone attacks started under Bush, Obama has increased their usage. Clinton relied much too heavily on cruise missiles rather than other tools available to him in responding to crises. Many of the troublemakers accepted that they could do something and the cost would be a cruise missile that would be unlikely to find them specifically. Sadam Hussein said as much after he was captured - he believed that that his failure to acknowledge the weapons inspectors would only result in some more cruise missiles and that the U.S. was bluffing about an actual invasion. Clinton's response to Bin Laden in Afghanistan was also cruise missiles. Bush changed the rules of the game, for better or worse, by committing ground troops. Obama appears to be flowing back into Clinton's strategy of using drones tactically rather than committing ground troops. That's why I believe that Obama's military strategy is more akin to Clinton's than Bush's.
I disagree with the characterization of going after Bin Laden in Pakistan as being brazen. Imagine that your entire national security team has been coming to you for months claiming that they have finally tracked down Bin Laden. The intelligence infrastructure has placed assets on the ground in houses near where Bin Laden is believed to be and they also believe that Bin Laden is in the house. The only real voice against going after him in Pakistan comes from your Vice President. You ran for office highlighting that Bush's failure to capture or kill Bin Laden hurt the stature of the United States and, unlike Bush, you would bring him to justice. You also turned over responsibility for the final recommendation to the head of the CIA and he comes back with a "let's go for it" kind of recommendation.
What would have been brazen would have been to ignore all of that and NOT go after him.
What would have been even more brazen would have been to go in and taken Bin Laden alive and never say a word about it.