North Korea Announces 3rd Nuclear Test, Anti-US Aims

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

North Korea Announces 3rd Nuclear Test, Anti-US Aims

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 24, 2013 @05:11AM from the state-vs-state-and-state-vs-man dept.

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."

35 of 597 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

A strange game.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I understand the monetary interest North Korea has in appearing to be a credible threat to peace. But someone over there needs to look at the end of this game.
If they launched something no more damaging than a dishwasher at San Francisco, their great defenders, the Chinese, would tell them "you're on your own." They have to know they wouldn't last 3 weeks against a U.S. military onslaught. Hundreds of thousands of good people on both sides would be dead, for nothing. No one in the US wants any resources North Korea has. There isn't even the weak excuse of fighting over oil (sorry, "energy security").
It's just so tragically pointless.
1. Re:A strange game.... by Antipater · 2013-01-24 05:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If I were China, I'd already be backing away from them.
  They already are. All this hubbub is in response to a UN vote censuring them for the December rocket launch. The vote was unanimous - China did not back them up or even abstain.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
2. Re:A strange game.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In the long run, they have three options:
  1) cave to foreign pressure, which eventually means the end of the regime
  2) rattle their sabers enough that they continue to be a threat worth placating/negotiating with, which keeps food coming in and the regime in place
  3) overplay their hand, and end up absolutely leveled by superior forces.
  They've done pretty well with (2) so far, but the trouble is that they actually have to keep hobbling themselves to make it work. If they're not seen as a genuine threat, they don't have a position to negotiate from. If they become an immediate threat, they will be destroyed. They have to occupy a medium position, where they are perpetually a few years away from being a major threat, but also constantly held back by the concessions they make in exchange for aid and trade.
  It's the aid and trade they want to keep the regime going. If the U.S. stops negotiating, they have to either put up or shut up, which either ends the regime with a bang or a wimper.
3. Re:A strange game.... by LordLimecat · 2013-01-24 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There could be many motives behind that, and it does not necessarily mean that China is upset about the launch.
  There could, for example, be value in privately encouraging an aggressive stance towards the US while publicly declaring a more neutral stance. For one, it doesnt burn all your bridges at once.
4. Re:A strange game.... by realityimpaired · 2013-01-24 05:47 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
5. Re:A strange game.... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2013-01-24 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Losing China makes me all the more nervous of the nature of the DPRK's behavior in the future. While in some ways frustrating, the fact that China was playing big brother with North Korea served the purpose of making them more comfortable. All on their own they're far more likely to switch from a temper tantruming baby, to an animal backed into a corner. Any military action on North Korea's part will result in grave consequences for South Korea.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
6. Re:A strange game.... by khallow · 2013-01-24 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So the guy who had Osama killed is not going to do anything about the latest Kim to rule NK if he steps over the line?
  
  I seriously doubt that.
  With bin Laden, Obama just had to approve the plan. No real risks would be taken since bin Laden is just a thug in hiding with little power. Here, if Kim Jong-un steps "over the line", any world leader has to consider what consequences would come, such as a bloody attack on South Korea or some sort of nuclear strike.
  
  Obama just doesn't strike me as the sort of politician who likes to take such risks.
7. Re:A strange game.... by MightyYar · 2013-01-24 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Obama carried out a black-ops strike in a supposedly "friendly" country without informing them at all. That was incredibly brazen. He regularly conducts drone attacks, though it appears always with approval of the countries involved. Nevertheless, it is a fairly aggressive posture. He wasted very little time at all going into Libya.
  He might not talk like Bush, but he acts a lot like Bush. The main difference seems to be European acceptance. I don't see anything to make me doubt that he'd respond appropriately.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
8. Re:A strange game.... by jythie · 2013-01-24 06:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Thing is, if they were actually going to attack the US, using an ICBM isn't the best method anyway. They could just put a nuke on a fishing trawler and wander into any number of coastal ports.
  
  Neither side wants a war there, NK has a pretty good memory of how the civil war went.. so NK, SK, China, Japan, US... all are quite aware that actual hostilities would be a bad idea. Symbolic gestures on the other hand have value... not on the international scale, but on the local one.
  
  The military in NK is very powerful.. while people like to talk about the place like it is a simple dictatorship, the political reality is the Leader needs the backing of the generals, otherwise his power-base dissolves. One way to do that is build up the internal public image of military streght and show that he is willing to snub the world in favor of the generals. In essence, it is the Leader demonstrating his allegiance to his military and reasserting their primacy within the country.
9. Re:A strange game.... by Nethemas+the+Great · 2013-01-24 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You speak like it would be so neat and simple to wipe them from the map. Have you forgotten about China, or the very strong chance they'd shell Seoul--home of some 24 million people--into rubble? As a red blooded American I suppose that doesn't fit your "bring it on", "put a boot in their *ss", "and to hell with the consequences" philosophy. Who cares about a few "slant eyes" right?
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
10. Re:A strange game.... by rastilin · 2013-01-24 06:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I was thinking why not use the stealth bombers to drop a little cloud of leaflets with the american flag on one side and the word "boom" on the other over their major city?
  
  --
  How do you kill that which has no life?
11. Re:A strange game.... by MightyMartian · 2013-01-24 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  At the end of the day it isn't because Beijing are big fans the NK regime. They likely hate the Kims as much as anyone. What wakes up the Chinese leadership in cold sweats late at night is the idea of a regime collapse (whether internal or external factors) and millions of North Korean refugees flooding over the border.
  The Chinese may be more willing to use open lines of communication to voice their disapproval of the regime's conduct than in the past, but until someone can come up with a credible plan to wind the regime down with as little violence and upheaval as possible, they will continue to back it.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
12. Re:A strange game.... by Jmc23 · 2013-01-24 06:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  To be fair, Koreans really don't have slanty eyes.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
13. Re:A strange game.... by AmiMoJo · 2013-01-24 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They see (2) more as Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e. protection from US invasion. Just like the US was willing to spend untold trillions on protecting itself from the USSR, because after all if you have no country nothing else matters, North Korea is willing to disadvantage itself to create a viable defence system.
  The threat to them is real. The US on their doorstep and declared them to be part of an "axis of evil". Afghanistan and Iraq have already been invaded, Iran is being actively attacked with cyber-weapons and trying to build up its nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible. It doesn't help that even the wider international community applies the double standard of congratulating most countries on their space programmes while condemning NK. Why would India be allowed such a programme when NK isn't? Why should the US for that matter? It just makes them more determined to succeed.
  That's the problem with this game. You can't choose to not play. The only reasonable move is to develop the capability to nuke the US, and MAD keeps the peace. Then the US starts talking about an ICBM shield again and you suddenly need a few hundred instead of just a few, and the game escalates...
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
14. Re:A strange game.... by Rich0 · 2013-01-24 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They voted for the resolution, and a few years ago when NK was rattling sabers they actually cut off their oil supply.
  China is all for NK being a general pain to the US. They're not really all that eager to have a nuclear war break out on their border. I think both the US and China have given up on the whole expansion-of-communism vs containment thing - neither country really wants to have tens of thousands of people dying and billions of dollars spent because some kid wants to be a big shot in his third world nation. They'll fight over oil, but not pride.
15. Re:A strange game.... by jonadab · 2013-01-24 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > If they launched something... at San Francisco, ...
  > the Chinese, would tell them "you're on your own."
  
  Very likely, yes.
  
  If they launched a *Nuke* at San Francisco, China would actively participate in dismantling the DPRK.
  
  > They have to know they wouldn't last 3 weeks
  > against a U.S. military onslaught.
  
  I'm not sure exactly what the Kim family knows. If they had even a basic grasp of macroeconomics, for instance, they wouldn't be running the country the way they are. And economic differences are the main reason why they wouldn't have a prayer, militarily speaking, against a first-world power.
  
  Isolationism always leads to economic stagnation, and people who grow up under it usually are not fully aware of the extent to which the world is passing them by. When we think of the development of nuclear weapons, we think of the WWII era, which for us in the first world seems like a very long time ago, technologically; but that's because we've lived all our lives around modern technology. living in isolation, you don't necessarily *notice* all the changes taking place in the rest of the world. Time slows down, and the WWII era doesn't seem so different from today. Yes, the Kim family knows about some advances that have been made. They know about the internet, for example, and they have at least a passing awareness that cell phones exist; but those are just specific examples of a much larger trend, a trend they very well might not be aware of at all. Like I said, if they did understand this stuff, it's unlikely that they would be running the country the way they are. I would lay odds ten to one that Kim does *not* realize that low-income six-year-olds around with hand-me-down cellphones over here, and even if he did find out this fact, he would not understand its socioeconomic significance.
  
  Bring it around to warfare, we're so far beyond Hiroshima that we consider that kind of weapon primitive, and I would bet money that Kim doesn't understand this. Even as nukes go it was primitive (we developed H-bombs just a few years later, then submarine-launched nukes, and so on and so forth), and even the most advanced nuclear weapons have been thoroughly obsolete (as an indicator of real military power) for about a quarter of a century now. If we actually thought North Korea was considering launching a nuke at us, we would not respond with nukes of our own, because that would be clumsy and ineffective and old-fashioned and politically unpopular and have unnecessary civilian casualties, among other things. No, we would respond with much more precise and effective methods of warfare that have been developed in the intervening decades. We wouldn't do Shock and Awe the way we did in Iraq, obviously, because that was ten years ago, and limiting yourself to ten-year-old military technology isn't how you get to be the most powerful military on the planet. To you as a first-world citizen this is so obvious it probably wouldn't have occurred to you to even mention it; but to think that way you have to have a feel for how fast technology can develop, and you don't really get a feel for that when you live as a hermit, never leave your house, and barely ever receive any visitors.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
16. Re:A strange game.... by circletimessquare · 2013-01-24 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The main difference seems to be European acceptance.
  you can do absolutely anything you want in the world as long as your allies agree. because the will of the world is the will of the world. nothing has been violated if a thug like osama bin laden is taken out, no one serious on the world stage stands with this thug. pakistan can go fuck itself, because pakistan had elements of its government protecting bin laden
  and the reason north korea is so advanced nuclear wise is because of a pakistani scientist who copied dutch technology when he was in the netherlands, then sold it to north korea, iran, libya, and other regimes. this scientist is seen as a hero in pakistan. so fuck you again, pakistan
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
  "thanks" pakistan
  why are we allied with this country?
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
17. Re:A strange game.... by Minwee · 2013-01-24 07:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Dropping pr0n instead would certainly make them change their minds about the US.
  "These poor, capitalist women cannot even afford clothes! Glorious Leader would never allow this to happen here!"
18. Re:A strange game.... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-24 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The stateless Al Queda managed to hurt the US just by hi-jacking a few planes. Most certainly NK could hurt the US. Just not necessarily with an ICBM.
19. Re:A strange game.... by tranquilidad · 2013-01-24 08:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
20. Re:A strange game.... by bkr1_2k · 2013-01-24 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Evacuated where, exactly? We're talking about 20+ million people. That isn't just 20 million able-bodied people, it's young, old, sick and healthy alike. Hell, we couldn't even get New Orleans (population 1.3 million) evacuated properly before Katrina and the ones that did had hellish experiences for weeks.
  Be realistic. Even if you got half of Seoul evacuated (very unlikely) you'd still have no place to house them.
  
  --
  "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
21. Re:A strange game.... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-24 08:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Did you forget already that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
  But there were. Of course, they were inoperable (and all stamped "made in USA"). And Iraq had a working WMD program. Though the output was solely propoganda to make people think he had them because if he was shown to be as impotent as he actually was, there would have been a revolt without US intervention. And Saddam had "links" to al Quaeda because Osama called and asked to train in Iraq, and Saddam told him "no". That is an "association," even if Saddam didn't help.
  
  What gets lost in the news is that everything is true or false based on perspective.
  
  What I can't get is that Clinton told the truth under oath (causing no harm, truth or lie) and got impeached, and Bush lied to kill millions, including Americans, and that's ok, he was obviously too stupid to know what he was doing.
  
  It all goes back to the anti-intellectual slant in the US. The dumb aren't responsible for their actions, but the smart should be held to a higher standard.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Test just for show by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-01-24 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

If they really wanted to deliver a nuke, they'd ship it in on a tramp freighter or submarine, land on some remote area of the coast, and walk the thing in somewhere. The whole missile thing is a national prestige exercise for domestic and regional consumption.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. Re:Test just for show by h4rr4r · 2013-01-24 05:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Their nukes are the still huge. Think old 40s nuclear test stands. You aren't walking that anywhere. It would never fit in a sub.
Good idea. by MachineShedFred · 2013-01-24 05:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Good idea. by yurtinus · 2013-01-24 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The more I observe, the more I come to the conclusion that all of politics is a tragic high school shouting contest. North Korea is just somebody's obnoxious eight year old brother that nobody wants to claim.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
2. Re:Good idea. by Arrogant+Monkey · 2013-01-24 06:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "which is essentially an immortal ally." Damn, I'd heard their health care was good... I had no idea!
Pointing it the wrong way by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

The potential power to reach the stars, yet all anyone wants to do is point it at their neighbor and make threats. We will never escape these "Dark Ages" we're all living in.
The new, friendly leader by Sponge+Bath · 2013-01-24 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

When Kim Jong-Un came to power, I was soundly modded down for expressing skepticism about his being a reformer. I was insulted for being an "old man" stuck in a cold war mentality. Now he is dancing Pyongyang Style.
1. Re:The new, friendly leader by medcalf · 2013-01-24 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Youth always discounts experience.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Kill the Virus in Pyonyang by samkass · 2013-01-24 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

The only way the civilized world is going to limit the cost of dealing with the ultimate war with N. Korea is to prepare S. Korea, with the help other friendly countries, to do a massive surgical strike to take out the entire N. Korean military and its facilities and have S. Korea able and supplied and armed with its own people who can move in to supplie staples and organization to the society.
I am not convinced the military which is ultimately in control of everything, will ever give up its power, no matter what the "Glorius Leader" says or does, as he can be replaced.
You let the cancer grow or you cut it out and deal with the consequences. Of course this could never happen within the next 4 years because of leaders in power now who have no vision other than their own personal power.
We certainly have battle plans ready that would allow us to militarily unify Korea under the south. There would be nothing "surgical" about it, though. North Korea has massive numbers of troops, rockets, artillery, etc., and South Korea's capital is only 35 miles from the border, within range of the larger NK guns. Here's a map of what could happen. Seoul would be a pawn in the battle, and it would destabilize the entire area for some time.
I think the fundamental question here is whether this is a show of strength being done because North Korea wants to talk but has nothing else to negotiate with. If so, perhaps you meet them, acknowledge their big scary threats, trade around for some perks (maybe make Kim Jong Il the equivalent of the British Royal family in the new Korea, with a figurehead role), and unify them peacefully with everyone coming out ahead. On the other hand, maybe they want to remain independent and hold a nuclear threat over the United States' head... in which case better to strike sooner, before they have the capability. I don't have any of that information, so I'm not going to second-guess the decisions.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Lets just cut off the food aid by PraiseBob · 2013-01-24 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

But it is worth keeping in mind that starvation is why North Korea started rattling its sabres in the first place. A starving populace needed an enemy to blame, so the leadership started blaming foreigners for everything going wrong. They started down the nuclear path specifically to get attention from the US and other countries and basically using extortion to get food aid from their "enemies".

Do we want a completely desperate nuclear power? Will the people turn against the leadership, or will they vent their rage against foreigners leading to millions of deaths?
Re:Kill the Virus in Pyonyang by guttentag · 2013-01-24 06:17 · Score: 4, Informative
The only way the civilized world is going to limit the cost of dealing with the ultimate war with N. Korea is to prepare S. Korea, with the help other friendly countries, to do a massive surgical strike to take out the entire N. Korean military and its facilities and have S. Korea able and supplied and armed with its own people who can move in to supplie staples and organization to the society.
It's a tempting thought, but it's not going to happen unless a nuclear attack on S. Korea, Japan, or the U.S. is imminent. The people of North Korea may be impoverished, but the country has the fourth-largest active military in the world:

China 2.285M
United States 1.458M
India 1.325M
N. Korea 1.106M
Russia 1.027M
(Everyone else in the world has a military roughly half the size of N. Korea's or smaller. Other members of the security council listed below)
France 0.353M
United Kingdom 0.198M

If you look at military reserve, which would be called up in the event of a strike against N. Korea, you add 8.2M people to the fray. That's nearly 10 million people who have been cut off from the outside world for generations and taught that the world is out to get them and their glorious leaders protect them. A lot of people will die, on both sides, and no one has the stomach for that -- and rightly so. Alternatively, saving our side casualties by using nuclear weapons would be unthinkable. So the people in power (the military) sabre rattle to maintain their grip on the country and to try to force aid from the rest of the world. It's not in their interest to attack us, because we would stop feeding them. But we can't afford to let them get in a position where a nutjob or nervous, clumsy individual accidentally launches a nuclear strike. Our job (as the rest of the world) is to ensure they don't gain the ability to threaten us with nuclear weapons, even if that means cutting back our aid to their poor impoverished citizens who think the aid comes from their leaders and don't know any better.

But don't think for a moment that we're going to send two helicopters full of seals into Pyongyang, dump the glorious leader's body at sea and suddenly N. Korea will become a sunny land of welcoming people with a big rainbow over it. If the military leadership ever fails there, it's going to be chaos, and the people won't want our help.

The real news here is this:
- They're taking a confrontational stance with China, which is incredibly dumb, but may be an indication of increasing desperation within N. Korea's leadership. China doesn't see N. Korea as a favorite nephew. It maintains its relationship to assert its power in the region, because it fears that millions of refugees would spill over its border in a crisis, and because it believes it's the only superpower in a position to keep N. Korea on a leash. By being confrontational, N. Korea is threatening China's understanding of their relationship, and telling the world it's willing to bite the hand of everyone who feeds it. It's saying "we're crazy and out of control, so you'd better keep feeding us."
- They're acknowledging that their "peaceful space program" was just a cover for ICBM testing. Which we already knew. But telling the world it lied about its peaceful intentions says, "don't trust us, you don't know what we might do." More sabre-rattling, ratcheted up to the point where they're hoping we'll have to give them more aid to stabilize them.
Re:Lets just cut off the food aid by ducomputergeek · 2013-01-24 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

They'll starve. There was a documentary made when some western doctors went to NK a few years ago to do things like cataract surgeries. After they got their surgeries and could see again, the first thing they did was turn to the closest picture of dear leader and begin praying to it. Literally praying to the picture as it being the representation of their Dear Leader who is a Man-God.
I've since known people who have had dealings with NK as part of the UN. I've asked many of them if what we saw in the documentary was even remotely true and the answer was astoundingly yes. That among the population of the cities at least, that is how the leaders of the country are seen by the "loyal political" class. Even in the country side where there is mass starvation there is at least the appearance of that belief.

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
They wont automatically disperse like a gas by reluctantjoiner · 2013-01-24 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

It will be 2 million people needing food, shelter, and likely medical attention. In one place, at the same time. I'd expect that it would test the logistics of any well organised country.

--
Plan My Week for iPhone