North Korea Conducts Third Nuclear Test

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

North Korea Conducts Third Nuclear Test

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @01:44AM from the practice-makes-perfect dept.

First time accepted submitter WolfeCanada writes "North Korea apparently conducted a widely anticipated nuclear test Tuesday, strongly indicated by an 'explosion-like' earthquake that monitoring agencies around the globe said appeared to be unnatural." North Korea has confirmed the test, according to the Washington Post, in an article that touches on its political context. Among other things, the Post notes that this "is the first under new North Korean leader Kim Jong Eun and the clearest sign that the third-generation leader, like his father and grandfather, prefers to confront the United States and its allies rather than make peace with them." Adds reader eldavojohn "KCNA news claims that the test was safe and cited the threat of the U.S. for conducting the test, saying 'The test was carried out as part of practical measure of counteraction to defend the country's security and sovereignty in the face of the ferocious hostile act of the U.S. which wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes.' RT is posting a feed of the many condemnations from governments and organizations."

187 of 270 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Making Peace? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 01:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?
1. Re:Making Peace? by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-02-12 01:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?
  OK, what possible harm can these "economic hit men" do? It is not like it is possible to make the economic situation in North Korea any worse than it already is.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
2. Re:Making Peace? by MozeeToby · 2013-02-12 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They could dump a bunch of cheap consumer goods on the public, connect everyone to the internet, make sure everyone is fat and happy. Then, after that is the situation for... oh 2 years, they could make real demands from the NK government. A well fed, well informed population who is used to having what they want is not going to stand for going back to the way things were, not abruptly at least.
3. Re:Making Peace? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Have you been paying any attention to what the economic hit men have just done to the west. Each western government has mortgaged their nation for the next 20 years to bail out 'the system'
  I say we should send all the hit men to Korea and leave them there.
4. Re:Making Peace? by theVarangian · 2013-02-12 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?
  OK, what possible harm can these "economic hit men" do? It is not like it is possible to make the economic situation in North Korea any worse than it already is.
  North Korea will not be economically reformed unless the northern reigime collapses and the country is re-united wiht South Korea. That would create a united Korea in the same position as Germany after the curtainwent down, spending a huge amount of it's GDP rebuilding half the country from nothing. The 'economic hit-men' would probably mostly be South Korean industrialists and bankers who would migrate a lot of jobs up north to take advantage of the cheap labour creating social strife down south as a large number of southerners alluvasudden would find themselves unemployed and having to compete for jobs with northerners willing to accept a way lower standardof living. Judging from the German experience there would also be a feeding frenzy as anything of any value in the north is would be privatized with the resultant corruption and nepotism as the governing political parties try to ensure that anything of value ends up in the hands of party loyalists or it's cheif financial supporters. One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.
5. Re:Making Peace? by rmdingler · 2013-02-12 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  +1 Insightful. No Mod Points. Apparently riding the troll like a rented mule is frowned upon in this establishment.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
6. Re:Making Peace? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 02:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Just like it ruined Germany.
  Oh wait....
7. Re:Making Peace? by the+gnat · 2013-02-12 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.
  Perhaps, but Germany's economy today is one of the strongest in Europe, and the East Germans aren't worse off then they were under Communist rule (and my guess is in purely economic terms they are significantly better off). Among other things, they're actually allowed to leave the country if they don't like it - surely that counts for something.
8. Re:Making Peace? by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-02-12 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  By what definition would this be harm?
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
9. Re:Making Peace? by jythie · 2013-02-12 02:54 · Score: 2
  
  I am not sure reunification would be the only path the could take. I could see NK taking a page or two out of China and Russia's playbook by privatizing industries internally then opening up trade. NK has a slave workforce that makes china look enlighted, thus thus could probably get a lot of initial captial through being able to undercut labor costs right off the bat.
10. Re:Making Peace? by khallow · 2013-02-12 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.
  Germany didn't see a similar drop in its economy. To the contrary, it's done very well compared to the rest of the EU.
11. Re:Making Peace? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They could dump a bunch of cheap consumer goods on the public, connect everyone to the internet, make sure everyone is fat and happy. Then, after that is the situation for... oh 2 years, they could make real demands from the NK government. A well fed, well informed population who is used to having what they want is not going to stand for going back to the way things were, not abruptly at least.
  By what definition would this be harm?
  By the conventional standard that condemns such actions as "Western imperialism" and insists that change must come from the people of Korea, and that the Juche monarchy is the sole legitimate form of such democratic change. In other words, by the standards of pretty much everybody.
  There is also an economic argument that product dumping would harm native NK industries. There aren't many other than food and guns, but dumping food could hamper food production unless people keep producing with guns to their heads.
  Finally, the plan could be harmful if backfires, which could happen if the government continues controlling speech and people come to credit the government for their newfound wealth, and blame the US etc when they threaten to take the benefits away. For precedent, consider the response to the US sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, though in that case it was the Westerners who blamed the US for taking away their imports while the people of Iraq generally blamed Saddam.
12. Re:Making Peace? by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-02-12 03:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Someone else had already addressed the comparison to the German economy (hint, reunification took the wind out of the sails of the German economy for considerably less than two decades). I was going to address several points to what you said. However, ultimately the gap between the economic situation in North and South Korea is so much greater than what existed between East and West Germany that it is hard to say how the Korea experience would compare to that of Germany.
  That being said, my point remains, no matter how much like carrion crows "Western" (most likely South Korean) industrialists might be if allowed to intervene in North Korea, it is hard to imagine them making things worse than they already are.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
13. Re:Making Peace? by swarsron · 2013-02-12 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  That would create a united Korea in the same position as Germany after the curtainwent down, spending a huge amount of it's GDP rebuilding half the country from nothing.
  
  They wouldn't be nearly in the same position as Germany was after the reunification. The DDR can't be compared to NK at all. The DDR had quite a few problems but they were not even close to the problems NK has. As a starter nobody starved to death in the DDR.
14. Re:Making Peace? by MozeeToby · 2013-02-12 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, from the standpoint of the average NK citizen, it would probably lead to a long and bloody revolution against a government which has shown to have no issue doing absolutely horrid things for it's own ends. That may, or may not, be preferable to the current situation, depending on A) who wins, B) how quickly, and C) just how far said government is willing to go to preserve itself.
  More importantly, the harm to the NK power holders is obvious, which is exactly why those power holders do what they can to keep western influence out of their country.
15. Re:Making Peace? by nbert · 2013-02-12 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  I don't agree that Korea would be in the same position as Germany. A Korean reunification would be far more challenging for a number of reasons. First of all the population ratio is more in favor of the north (2:1 compared to 3.5:1 in Germany). It's also noteworthy that East Germany was an industrialized country with educated workforce and a functioning agricultural sector. The GDR wasn't great but compared to North Korea it was highly developed and the standard of living was at least similar to that of the western population. Apart from the economical differences the societies didn't have so much time to drift apart and the GDR was more open to external influences (people had Radio/TV from the west, relatives were allowed to visit etc).
  Based on the way the unification went in Germany I'm not really sure South Korea could cope with a collapse of the NK regime in the same manner.
  
  --
  I don't read replies by ACs.
16. Re:Making Peace? by HaZardman27 · 2013-02-12 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Probably by Kim Jong Un's definition.
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
17. Re:Making Peace? by tsj5j · 2013-02-12 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.
  Perhaps, but Germany's economy today is one of the strongest in Europe, and the East Germans aren't worse off then they were under Communist rule (and my guess is in purely economic terms they are significantly better off). Among other things, they're actually allowed to leave the country if they don't like it - surely that counts for something.
  I would also like to remind that the gap between East and West Germany is not even remotely close to that of the gap between North and South Korea.
  Neither was the East as brainwashed, poor and so disconnected from the times as the North.
  The North lacks electricity, education, basic necessities, and is essentially frozen at the point of the split, aka 1960s-style living.
  Just think how different your town/city/country was 40 years ago, and how long it'd take (even on an accelerated path) to reach the present.
18. Re:Making Peace? by the+gnat · 2013-02-12 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Just think how different your town/city/country was 40 years ago, and how long it'd take (even on an accelerated path) to reach the present.
  Well, I'm an American, so it wouldn't actually be that difficult. I take your point about NK being far more backwards than East Germany was, and I agree that fixing their economy would be a total clusterfuck. I was mainly objecting to the idea that German re-unification was so awful - it's just not a very good comparison, and the East Germans at least did very well in the end.
19. Re:Making Peace? by phantomfive · 2013-02-12 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe the government would sell that food and cheap goods and use the extra money to build more weapons. It's not like that kind of thing hasn't been tried before.....
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
20. Re:Making Peace? by alexander_686 · 2013-02-12 03:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No - Germany did see a drop for 2 decades.
  Is Germany one of the strongest economies in Europe today? Yes. Was West Germany one of the strongest economies in Europe just before integration? IIRC the growth in GNP drastically slowed. Were a lot of jobs created by building new infrastructure? Yes – but Germany had to take out a lot of loans to do that. (fortunately they took out the loans at the right time and paid them off.) The general consensus is that West Germany would be further ahead of where it is today if it did not have to integrate East Germany. (We are ignoring the cost of maintaining the cold war)
  During integration Germany was kind of like Kobe Bryant playing basketball with 20 bound ankle weights – off the peak game but still impressive.
21. Re:Making Peace? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  A well fed, well informed population who is used to having what they want is not going to stand for going back to the way things were, not abruptly at least.
  
  Wouldn't that depend on which side has all the guns?
22. Re:Making Peace? by theVarangian · 2013-02-12 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Someone else had already addressed the comparison to the German economy (hint, reunification took the wind out of the sails of the German economy for considerably less than two decades).
  
  Sorry did't notice that and ....true but North Korea is in way, way, way worse shape than East Germany ever was.
23. Re:Making Peace? by theVarangian · 2013-02-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.
  Perhaps, but Germany's economy today is one of the strongest in Europe, and the East Germans aren't worse off then they were under Communist rule (and my guess is in purely economic terms they are significantly better off). Among other things, they're actually allowed to leave the country if they don't like it - surely that counts for something.
  That actually depends on who you talk to. There is this perception in the USA that if you just switch to democracy and a capitalist market economy and privatise absoloutely everything, life instantly gets way better for everybody than it was under communism, tralala, sun shining, birds chirping, pink unicorns prancing down mainstreet, manna rains from heaven, etc. but that isn't always the case. Criminality for example has skyrocketed and areas that used to have industry are now destitute because the labor may be cheaper in E-Germany but it is even cheaper in the Czech Republic and Poland.
24. Re:Making Peace? by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-02-12 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  As I said, the difference is so great that using the German reunification as a model does not provide much useful information. There is one important difference that is often overlooked. East Germans had a fairly accurate understanding of West German lifestyle and expected to rapidly attain it after unification. It is unlikely that North Koreans have any idea what the South Korean lifestyle looks like and thus is less likely to harbor expectations of reaching it quickly upon reunification. Personally, I have no idea what a post reunification Korea would look like, except to believe that the improvements for North Koreans (except for those who are among the elites there currently) would be much greater than the losses for South Koreans.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
25. Re:Making Peace? by Opportunist · 2013-02-12 04:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Germany did see a drop in its economy. Hauling the East on board took a giant's effort and they were "lucky" enough to be one of the strongest economies on this planet so they could pull that off. That doesn't mean that everything in the East was "bad" or outdated, but a lot of corruption was going on as well, leading to a big loss where actually competitive companies were sold off cheaply and the state being stuck with the duds. Crime and unemployment are currently a serious problem in the East (with unemployment rates as high as 20-25%), and it's not really likely that this is going to change soon.
  If anyone, it wasn't the population that really won in the unification. It was mostly a win for big business. Sadly, that doesn't automatically translate into a windfall for Germany's economy. It mostly means that the country is now forced to deal with a lot of unemployed people while the assets of the East were squandered to "friends" of the government that was in charge back then.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
26. Re:Making Peace? by theVarangian · 2013-02-12 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, the difference is so great that using the German reunification as a model does not provide much useful information. There is one important difference that is often overlooked. East Germans had a fairly accurate understanding of West German lifestyle and expected to rapidly attain it after unification. It is unlikely that North Koreans have any idea what the South Korean lifestyle looks like and thus is less likely to harbor expectations of reaching it quickly upon reunification. Personally, I have no idea what a post reunification Korea would look like, except to believe that the improvements for North Koreans (except for those who are among the elites there currently) would be much greater than the losses for South Koreans.
  That is also true but you can still learn something from the German experience even if it isn't a 1 to 1 mapping. Take for example the American decision to completely ignore their own experiences with the occupation of Germany in WWII. This experience wasn't directly applicable to Iraq but you sure as shit could have learned a few things from it anyway, starting with the fact that preventing any maltreatment of the occpuied population (Abu Graib etc.) and rebuilding the infrastructure and economy are complete musts. Similarly the US re-employed German soldiers and police after weeding out the worst nazis to maintain internal security and they did this right off the bat. Even before WWII ended the US and the British were doing what-if scenarios vis-a-vis the post war world and possible conflicts with the Soviet Union. All of these scenarios involved at least a dozen rebuilt and denazified German panzer and mechanized divisions. In iraq, however, the USA decided to disband the Iraqi army which was an act of galactic stupidity.
27. Re:Making Peace? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  The difference is that E. Germany was the industrial hub of E. Europe. N. Korea isn't anything like that.
  What needs to happen is that the rich parasite class of the US stop threatening the N. Korean people with annihilation, and then N. Korea can divert some of the money trying to defend against US aggression into feeding the population.
  And, lift the sanctions, as they only serve to punish the population.
  Really, every American for not overthrowing their own government of and for rich parasites is responsible for the suffering of the N. Korean people.
28. Re:Making Peace? by HornWumpus · 2013-02-12 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  It should have been a huge win for the USA as we withdraw our troops.
  But that would have turned it into a huge lose for France, or should I say western greater Germany.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
29. Re:Making Peace? by the+gnat · 2013-02-12 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest you go to your local government office or branch and "demand" that you have better health care, "demand" that the TSA ban their backscatter x-ray machines from airports. See how long it takes some off duty cop or LAPD officer to shoot and taze the shit out of you for being a "terrorist."
  Americans complain about this stuff all of the time, often loudly and rudely, both to government bureaucrats and anyone else who will listen, and they're not usually shot. North Koreans, on the other hand, get shot if they want to leave the country.
30. Re:Making Peace? by sqrt(2) · 2013-02-12 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It counts for something, but not a whole lot. I'm "free" to leave the USA, but only insofar as I am not actively forbidden from leaving. In practice I don't have the freedom to leave any more than a NK citizen has the freedom to leave their country. I certainly enjoy more freedom and comfort while I'm hear, the borders I'm allowed to roam within are vaster, but actually leaving isn't an option even if I am technically "free" to do so. Almost all humans exist in this state. Freedom of movement is largely a matter of philosophical and academic concern since most people lack the material wealth necessary to exercise that freedom to any meaningful degree.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
31. Re:Making Peace? by CaptainLard · 2013-02-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  1960s-style living
  That's pretty generous. Wild speculation here but I bet if you compared most of the world's major cities' 1960's era night time satellite images (assuming they exist) with present day NK it would still look oddly dark. Perhaps rural-agrarian 1960's style living?
32. Re:Making Peace? by femtobyte · 2013-02-12 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Keep in mind, German unification wasn't exactly an example of Helpless Commies rushing to the loving embrace of Unfettered Capitalism. The West German state already had strong worker protections, unionization, a fairly egalitarian public sector --- in other words, many of the "good parts" of Communism (without the authoritarian central planning bureaucracy), so East Germany wasn't thrown headfirst into the vortex of capitalist exploitation. Countries that follow the US "economic hit men" trajectory for economic development tend to end up quite differently from Germany's slow-but-steady absorption of the lagging East into a functional social-democratic society. The US prefers to mold countries more like Mexico --- a few mega-billionaires scattered between swathes of massive poverty in a privatized state, providing a pool of profitably cheap labor and extractable resources for Western investors. Korean unification guided by South Korean industrialists and Wall Street investors is likely to me much more "Mexico" than "Germany" twenty years down the road.
33. Re:Making Peace? by bkmoore · 2013-02-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  ...Honestly Pyongyang can be mistaken for Seoul , Tokyo, or Washington DC....
  Only when the photo's taken from the right angle. Otherwise it looks just like a Hollywood set, or the empty mid-rises in Kijong-dong.
34. Re:Making Peace? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's a difference between, "I can't just up and leave the USA and go to Canada, because the Canadian government won't let me stay," and "I can't just up and leave North Korea, because the North Korean government won't let me leave."
35. Re:Making Peace? by poofmeisterp · 2013-02-12 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest you go to your local government office or branch and "demand" that you have better health care, "demand" that the TSA ban their backscatter x-ray machines from airports. See how long it takes some off duty cop or LAPD officer to shoot and taze the shit out of you for being a "terrorist."
  Americans complain about this stuff all of the time, often loudly and rudely, both to government bureaucrats and anyone else who will listen, and they're not usually shot. North Koreans, on the other hand, get shot if they want to leave the country.
  You're right, they're not usually shot. That's ridiculous.
  They're just given carbon-copied "I care" letters that their staff lackeys send out. I've seen it tried with a group of three people with completely different opinions, and each one was answered with a letter stating that the representative completely agrees with them.
36. Re:Making Peace? by couchslug · 2013-02-12 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  Modern Germany would be regarded as "Socialist As Fuck" by many Americans if they bothered to learn anything about it.
  BTW it was a pleasure to defend West Germany during the Cold War.
  The US concept of economic assistance is no longer a Marshall Plan. Those ideas are long dead along with ideals of "statesmanship" , while the business elites which run the US are pure predators and enemies of their own public.
  Of course they'll loot everyone else.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
37. Re:Making Peace? by radtea · 2013-02-12 10:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Freedom of movement is largely a matter of philosophical and academic concern since most people lack the material wealth necessary to exercise that freedom to any meaningful degree.
  I was going to mod you "Funny" because this is so hilariously stupid, but thought I'd reply instead, and point out that fully 1/3 of the population of Canada was born elsewhere, and the US isn't that far behind in this regard.
  Want to tell me again how 30% of the population here isn't "really free" by some stupid definition of 'free' you just pulled out of your butt? Or that the greater part of the rest of us couldn't change nations just as easily? "Minor practical barriers" are in a different category from "illegal under the laws of the nation I am currently living in."
  "Free" does not mean "effortless", which seems to be the construction you are putting on the term.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
38. Re:Making Peace? by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-02-12 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  And furthermore, East Germany, while underdeveloped compared to the West, was not so drastically far behind as DPRK is behind ROC. I mean, in the latter case we're talking about gas generator trucks, rice rations, and catastrophic famines resulting in thousands of deaths and people eating grass. All the nuke stuff is mostly for show - the country itself is halfway into the stone age, especially outside the capital. East Germany, on the other hand, had well-developed industry and infrastructure, and standard of living above your typical average third word country.
39. Re:Making Peace? by jedwidz · 2013-02-12 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Integration of North Korea into China might be a more plausible way of the current pickle, than would be Korean reunification.
  That's considering the current alignment of the three countries, and also FWIW the lengths of their borders, and a hunch that almost no-one would be worse off than currently if this were to happen.
  The way this could happen is China invites NK into the fold, with UN backing, and cuts Kim Jong Un and his pals a really sweet deal.
  Feel free to point out the obvious flaws in my suggestion...
40. Re:Making Peace? by Dan1701 · 2013-02-13 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, the main arbiter of what happens now will be China. China is the local large power, with ambitions to be the local super-power which it will be by default if the Americans can only be persuaded that setting up more of a presence in the neighbourhood is a waste of money. North Korea, which was long kept as a sort of pet of many Chinese administrations as it was vaguely Communist as long as you didn't look too hard, has just done the pet equivalent of crapping on the carpet after being repeatedly told not to.
  North Korea isn't a Communist state. Communist states strictly separate the military from the political, and make sure the military is subordinate. Communist states also don't have much trouble retaining power in the ruling group when the original boss-man dies or is deposed, but this is a problem in North Korea. The best political model for North Korea is a feudal Royal one, where an usurper has taken power a while ago and only now are his descendents approaching a steady state of power.
  The net political effect in NK now is that everything is unstable. The new king isn't secure; his barons who control the armed forces are restless and uncertain as to how much they think of the new king but nobody wants to break ranks and rebel in case everyone else attacks the rebel to cement their reputation as loyal followers of the king. North Korea right now is a Game of Thrones in a modern world.
  This is what the nuclear test was all about: this was partly a show of strength and partly a provocation, so the new king can demonstrate to his barons that the entire world is out to get them, so unity is the only option. Only problem here is, the barons ain't completely daft and probably don't buy it, but as the only real alternative is inviting in China and spending one's retirement in a cell somewhere, they ain't complaining.
  Like I said before, China is the arbiter here. If the NK leadership has any brains at all, this will be the last nuclear test (and the last ballistic missile test) for a very, very long time. If they carry on raising the pressure, they're going to get invaded by China simply to get rid of America's main excuse for being in that area, and also for international brownie points for removing a known mad dictator from power. The only thing is, I have grave doubts as to the intelligence and indeed the sanity of the current NK leadership; I am not at all certain that they know just how close to an invasion they are pushing China.
41. Re:Making Peace? by jonadab · 2013-02-13 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  > It is not like it is possible to make the economic
  > situation in North Korea any worse than it already is.
  
  Oh, it's *possible*. (Fundamental law of human existence: no matter HOW bad things are, they can ALWAYS be made worse.)
  
  Just for starters, the inflation rate for the won is only high if you're comparing it to more or less stable currencies and in its entire history has only been "revalued" once (in 2009), and the ratio was only 100-to-one, which is just about the lowest currency reissue/reevaluation ratio I've ever heard of. (1000-to-one is more common, and in severe cases higher powers of ten have been used: ten thousand to one, a million to one, etc.) Admittedly, the DPRK's limit on how much of the old currency any given family was allowed to exchange, effectively wiping out everyone's savings if it was in cash or a bank account, was a devious touch, but, again, they've only done it once. There's no economic situation so dire that it can't be made more severe with a nice round of hyperinflation. I'm thinking six-digit or maybe seven-digit inflation rates (as opposed to two-digit ones seen now), so that the currency can be "revalued" 3-5 times in the space of a couple of years, at ratios of a thousand to one or higher. (This tends to happen automatically when a government is actively and imminently in danger of no longer existing at all due to war, but it can also be caused by mismanagement of monetary policy. For historical precedent, see the monetary history of Zimbabwe.) I'm not sure how the US could *cause* this situation (or why we would want to), but that's just details. In theory, it is certainly possible for such a thing to happen, and if it did, it would most definitely make the economic situation in North Korea worse.
  
  Getting China to cut off their foreign aid would also do the trick. (That's where most of North Korea's economic resources come from, currently.) That's a tall order that might require a lot of political wrangling, but again the details of how to get it to happen are just details. There's no question but what it's theoretically possible.
  
  Introducing high-interest credit and getting most of the upper and middle classes (which isn't that much of the population) in debt up to their eyeballs would also exacerbate the situation.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
42. Re:Making Peace? by Smauler · 2013-02-19 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Just for an example... these are some of their posters translated by themselves into English here.
  I would like to take this subject seriously, I really would... but I cannot watch this video without crying with laughter at the translations still.
  I don't quite understand what problem the DPRK has with the USA specifically - I mean that they seem to ignore the UK entirely, despite our colonial history in the area and our participation in the Korean war. Perhaps we're not important enough to worry about any more.
  People here have to bear in mind that poster like these, and ideas like these are the _only_ media some people in North Korea are exposed to, officially. That's one reason why I'm absolutely 100% against the current diminishing of the BBC world service, but that's another issue.
Even China is getting tired of their shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 01:55 · Score: 1

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has summoned the North Korean ambassador to the country, saying he was "strongly dissatisfied and resolutely opposed" to the test. The top official also urged the DPRK to "stop any rhetoric or acts that could worsen situations and return to the right course of dialogue and consultation as soon as possible," Reuters reported.
Kim is running out of allies.
1. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 02:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But China will never abandon North Korea, unless NK attacks China directly. They'll continue to support them in any way possible, within reason, to ensure the communist stronghold on the peninsula. Further, the entire world will continue to provide support to NK via humanitarian aid and appeasement, as long as the North signs a piece of paper that says they won't do anything. We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
2. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 02:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What the article is not able to articulate is the "wink wink nudge nudge" the Chinese Foreign Minister was gesturing at the NK Ambassador.
  Make no mistake at all. China is 100% all for NK having nuclear weapons.
3. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  China doesn't really want NK to have nuclear weapons, but they prefer that option to the alternative of having a US puppet state right on their border, which would have happened by now if NK didn't build nuclear weapons.
4. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by ShanghaiBill · 2013-02-12 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
  The leaders of two of these countries (Iraq and Libya) gave up their WMDs. They are both now dead. If we want the leaders of rogue nations to give up their nukes, maybe should stop killing them when they do.
5. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Rockoon · 2013-02-12 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think NK wont turn into a US puppet state anyways, only now with nukes?
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
6. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by schwit1 · 2013-02-12 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  China likes NK just the way they are. It scares China's neighbors, specifically Japan. This will make Japan come hat in hand to China asking that they please keep the pit bull leashed.
7. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by the+gnat · 2013-02-12 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  If we want the leaders of rogue nations to give up their nukes, maybe should stop killing them when they do.
  We didn't kill Qaddafi, the Libyan rebels did, and that was after he had threatened to exterminate them like "cockroaches" (his word, not mine). I'm not happy with the way it ended - I would have preferred a trip to The Hague and a small jail cell for the rest of his life - but his death was not a foregone conclusion, and it was certainly not precipitated by his abandonment of WMDs. All of these despots have sufficient resources and wealth to escape and live happy, indulgent lives elsewhere; Qaddafi was simply too arrogant and bloodthirsty to recognize that he couldn't hold on to power indefinitely.
8. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by X0563511 · 2013-02-12 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They are not getting killed because they had WMDs, they are getting killed because they were fuckheads. They had WMDs also because they were fuckheads.
  If they want to stop getting killed, perhaps they should stop being fuckheads?
  
  --
  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...
9. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jythie · 2013-02-12 03:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And that gets to the heart of the issue.. countries with nukes have a lot less to fear from the 1st world then countries without them. While not quite MAD, it changes the whole political equation. I know if I was running a nation that was on America's shit list, getting a viable nuclear weapon would be pretty high in my priority queue. If you can not actually hurt the US, US foreign policy is pretty nasty... even when international rules should curtail the US's behavior, we usually ignore them unless they other country has some kind of bargaining chip or power to push back.
  
  Which is why the US is so adimiment about countries it doesn't like not having nukes.. not because there is any belief that rouge nations will go around attacking people, but because (naturally) we want to be in as strong of a position as possible and others as weak as possible, so anything that means we can not unilaterally push them around is something we want to prevent.
10. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jythie · 2013-02-12 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  That and they do not want a joint US/SK military force on their direct boarder. If NK collapses many of the outcomes would result in having to deal with that again.
11. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by cffrost · 2013-02-12 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think NK wont turn into a US puppet state anyways, only now with nukes?
  
  Can you give an example of a realistic scenario in which that might occur?
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
12. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's very rare that any country, nowadays, is able to exert enough might to push another country around, simply because the internet and on-demand information delivery makes it too costly for a free society to exert its will at ease. In the days of slow news delivery, and frankly, a much more conservative news industry, the US would have been able to exert pressure covertly, but today, any leak of information regarding drone usage, incursions to a foreign country, or other punitive measures, will be met with protests, gnashing of teeth by the media and blogosphere, and half of Congress calling for immediate resignation of the military commander in charge of the operation. Of course, that's the exact same thing that happens when an attack does occur, that could have been prevented via use of the military, but that's more indicative of the 'Chicken Little' mindset of people, these days.
13. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by darkstar949 · 2013-02-12 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Except if North Korea collapses then the US doesn't have reason to stay in South Korea any more and would most likely give up most if not all of the bases there just to save money. Or for that matter, since the Status of Forces agreement is likely contingent upon the contination of the Korean War (remember, the Korean War never offically ended) the collapse of South Korea would require a new Status of Forces agreement which means the South Korean government could just decline to sign again.
14. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
  Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
15. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by runeghost · 2013-02-12 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just that the Chinese prefer having an ally (no matter how crazy and tyrannical) to a U.S. puppet on their border. They're not idiots, and they really, really, don't want to be forced to deal with the humanitarian disaster that a N. Korean collapse would create.
16. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to the humanitarian disaster that is most of mainland China???
17. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by j-turkey · 2013-02-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I see what you mean...not that N. Korea isn't a humanitarian disaster right now - I personally find (what I know of) the conditions in N. Korea absolutely deplorable. I understand that China is not stuck with it entirely (at the moment), but they're certainly kicking the can down the road by providing the political and financial support to N. Korea that they are...not to mention providing tacit approval of N. Korea's activity by their actions. Do you think that China sees regime collapse as an eventuality? What kind of bad behavior would N. Korea have to exhibit to provoke China to abandon support?
  Further, could S. Korea still be considered a "puppet" of the US if there were no longer a threat from the North, under declaration of war? If unification happened, how long would the US military bases in (future-former) S. Korea remain? I do not think that it's in America's best interests (or within the scope of the mission) to maintain those bases after we are assured peace.
  
  --
  
  -Turkey
18. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by nitehawk214 · 2013-02-12 04:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
  Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
  Spoken like someone that does not understand mid-east politics. Of course Iraq had chemical weapons at some point. Before 1990 Iraq had chemical weapons with the intent to USE them on Iran. They were at war for 8 years. Chemical weapons were used multiple times. Iran has the capability of making their own chemical weapons. There are many far worse groups that could have this stuff.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
19. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft - hah, like all those NATO airstrikes had nothing to do with Qaddafi's fall. Yes, the West did kill Qaddafi after pretending to have buried the hatchet with him following 9-11. He was even being feted in Western capitals upto that point.
  Sorry, but saying that "We didn't kill him, the rebels did" is no better than saying "The rebels didn't kill him, blood loss did"
20. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by undeadbill · 2013-02-12 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Chinese-American task force to liberate NK from its leaders, anyone? Oh, wait, that would make DPRK the Browncoats... that is just so wrong.
21. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you know he had WMDs because you sold them to him.
  And if he had them but gave them away, in what way did he still have them?
  PS you know why there were no independent and suprise inspectors? Because the USA refused to allow them since these inspectors would ALSO be allowed to make suprise inspections on US chemical factories.
22. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by BasilBrush · 2013-02-12 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately.
  Then you are ignorant of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. That was the reason for Gadaffi developing chemical weapons in the first place. To use agaist Iran. If he still had them in the period before GWII, the very last place he'd have sent them would be Iran.
  The mostly likely thing he would have done is to bury them in the desert. That's what he did with his air force fighters after all. But given that they still haven't been found, the chance of them still existing at the time of GWII are negligible.
  For sure he gave a great big "Fuck you" to the US and their allies. But that is neither morally justified, nor a rational reason for a country to be invaded. Neither NK, Cuba, nor any of the countries of Africa that say "fuck you" to America get invaded. Iraq was invaded as a US power play in the oil states of the middle east. No more and no less.
23. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by zixxt · 2013-02-12 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  But China will never abandon North Korea, unless NK attacks China directly. They'll continue to support them in any way possible, within reason, to ensure the communist stronghold on the peninsula.
  Neither China nor North Korea are Communist in any way, shape or form.
  
  --
  ---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
24. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by realityimpaired · 2013-02-12 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, we've already tried giving them food and humanitarian aid. The situation in NK isn't because we're not trying to help, it's because the regime hoards everything we send them for themselves.
  The only way to resolve that would be to get rid of the regime, but that's unlikely to happen because China doesn't want US forces on their border.
25. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by chemicaldave · 2013-02-12 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  Why would Saddam give anything to Iran? Part of the reason the intelligence community was convinced that he has weapons was because Saddam was a master of denial and deception. Ever since the Iran-Iraq war Saddam has been trying to convince his neighbors that he had WMDs while simultaneously trying to convince the west that he had none. One is difficult to do, both is nearly impossible.
26. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by HornWumpus · 2013-02-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Japan has all the parts of nukes. They just choose to not assemble them.
  Japan with nukes really worries China.
  My buddy was stationed on the DMZ 20 years ago. Even then he said they weren't there to keep the north from coming south. They are there to keep the south from going north. The south Koreans aren't over it and they know the north is less ready to fight every year. They are patient.
  Yeah, 1000 artillery batteries trained on Seoul. They haven't been moved in decades. I'm betting their are barrage rockets zeroed in on each of those batteries and F-15s ready to pound any that get off a shot.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
27. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-12 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Riiight. The US has been invading or otherwise compromising countries' sovereignty right and left for the last forty years. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two big, recent, ongoing examples.
  Regardless of whether you think it's justified or not (and some are pretty hard to justify, such as Iran in the 70s), the OP is spot on - if you're a country the US doesn't like your choice is pretty much between developing nukes and doing whatever the US tells you to.
28. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Princeofcups · 2013-02-12 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They are not getting killed because they had WMDs, they are getting killed because they were fuckheads. They had WMDs also because they were fuckheads.
  If they want to stop getting killed, perhaps they should stop being fuckheads?
  Actually, since we are usually responsible for putting them in power and selling them the weapons, I think the real fuckheads are closer to home.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
29. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Lord+Apathy · 2013-02-12 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  The only way to resolve that would be to get rid of the regime, but that's unlikely to happen because China doesn't want US forces on their border.
  There is another way. Feed the people of N. Korea directly. Ignore the government an the little crazy man with the bad haircut. Take high flying aircraft and drop food bundles all over the country. Hell, drop MRE's so they scatter making it hard to gather them all up. This way the army can't just impound them, but they will be every where. Make sure written on the package is says where and who they are from. Put those little digitized voice chips in there that say where they are from in the Korean language.
  Make sure everything is open to inspection. Let China inspect the packages at will so they will know its a humanitarian mission and not clandestine cold war type bullshit. Put some Chinese observers on the planes too so they can supervise the drops. That way N. Korea might think twice about shooting them down.
  
  --
  Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
30. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, Saddam was posturing and puffing his chest out. But you're missing something - he was posturing to IRAN. He was worried about appearing weak and vulnerable to IRAN. At the same time he was publicly posturing, he was attempting to use back channels to assuage the US. Where Saddam miscalculated was that Bush & Co. wasn't actually interested in whether Saddam had WMDs, but rather just wanted an excuse to invade and were willing to lie to themselves and the country in order to get that justification.
  The US wasn't Saddam's worst enemy. Iran was Saddam's worst enemy. The notion that Saddam was in bed with Iran is completely laughable.
31. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-12 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  if you're a country the US doesn't like your choice is pretty much between developing nukes and doing whatever the US tells you to.
  Developing strategic WMDs may be the cheapest way to prevent the US from interfering in your affairs, but it is certainly not the only one. Another option is to simply build up conventional forces to a level that would result in unacceptably high losses for the American side.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
32. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-12 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  And if they don't think twice about shooting them down? Flying over NK airspace without their permission for any reason is what I consider to be a very, very bad idea. And good luck getting the Chinese to agree with your plan.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
33. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jackbird · 2013-02-12 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's what the DPRK has been doing for 60 years. Hasn't prevented the US from "interfering".
34. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by nelsonal · 2013-02-12 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah that's effective, Saddam Hussein had the 7th largest army in the world prior to the Gulf War, it caused 148 deaths while suffering 30,000 over a month (100 hours on the ground). No conventional army is big enough to cause the US meaningful losses (especially as drone tech improves). It's WMD or bust.
  
  --
  Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
35. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Saddam giving his chemicals weapons to iran is comparable to the US giving nukes to the russian. They were at war from 1980-1988!
  And how the hell are you going to prove he gave something up he didn't have?
36. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-12 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Where were Saddam's aircraft carriers parked off the coast of the US? Where were his submarines parked off the US coast with short range ballistic missiles with conventional warheads capable of actually hitting their targets? Saddam's army was a joke and did he have any navy at all? Any kind of serious air force? Without a navy and large air force or effective ICBMs he had no way to strike back at the US directly. We could hit him but he couldn't hit back. What I'm saying is you need a way to hit back. The capability to bomb US cities. Just park hundreds or even thousands of warships and submarines in international waters a few hundred miles off the coast of the US. You don't need nukes. They are just a bluff anyway. No one uses them anymore.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
37. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by X0563511 · 2013-02-12 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not arguing against that. I happen to agree...
  
  --
  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...
38. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by radtea · 2013-02-12 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
  Except Iran does not have nuclear weapons nor has it ever seriously pursued them, despite Israeli accusations to the contrary for the past twenty years.
  How do we know this?
  Because after 20 years, if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons it can only be because they are not seriously pursuing them. They are simply not that hard to build. Even the North Koreans can do it, and they are nothing like as technologically adept as the Iranians.
  It took less than five years to go from "nuclear weapons might really be possible" to Trinity, and that was inventing the basic tech along the way, computing with human computers and timing with mercury switches and tubes. Today, with a budget of a billion dollars and a team of competent high school students you could build a nuclear bomb within five years.
  So Iran doesn't have the bomb because Iran is not trying to build one. If they were, they would have had one long ago.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
39. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by cavreader · 2013-02-12 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  In 1991 Iraq had the 4th largest standing army in the world. They had the best air defense systems you could buy from Russia, China, and France. Both Russia and China were a little chagrined about how easy their top of the line systems were converted to scrap. Iraq got beat the first time because of good old fashion stupidity from Saddam and his military leadership. They allowed the coalition forces to mass on their borders for 2 months without any harassment. They then applied WW1 era war strategy using trench warfare. The buried their troops and tanks in the middle of the fucking desert which just made them easy targets. Did they envision a modern military racing across the desert Rommel style? The Arab military establishment make all of their non-Arab opponents look like the God's of war.
  Getting rid of all nuclear weapons would lead to another world war in a very short time. Nuclear weapons have kept the strongest militarises on the planet from waging full scale WW2 style warfare. The absence of nuclear weapons will also mean every country will rush to arm themselves with every non-nuclear weapons. Take away nuclear weapons and sure as shit some one will begin to think a non-nuclear war between super powers could be won with acceptable loses. The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to eliminate all military hardware more lethal than an assault rifle. The world is stuck with nuclear weapons and I have no doubt that someone will use one in the future. The real threat today is that a country like NK could sell their nuclear technology to anyone with enough cash. They only have to do that once and the MAD fail safe is rendered mute. The NK only has 2 ways to generate money and that is by selling weapons to anyone with the money and providing money laundering services to any one who needs it.
40. Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-13 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Your assumptions belie your assertions. Just because Iran hasn't conducted a public test, doesn't mean they don't have one. Further, it IS hard to develop a nuclear bomb. The physics package, fusing, as well as obtaining the necessary fissile material, is difficult to design and manufacture. Very difficult. The US was able to do so, because they were thrown a tremendous budget, no outside interference, and had some of the top minds that mankind has ever known working on the project. Simply putting fissile material into a bomb casing and detonating high explosives near it is not a nuclear weapon, it's a "dirty" bomb that will spread radioactive particles over a relatively localized area. Getting the detonation sequence correct, using the proper configuration of explosives, manufacturing the charge that will set off the reaction - that's difficult.
  Also, Iran has received a tremendous amount of materiel and human support from Russia throughout the years, as has China, India, Pakistan, and pretty much every other ass backwards country in the mid-east or Asia. To think that they've never transferred any nuclear material, know-how, or designs to Iran isn't just naive, it's downright foolish.
All for the revolution comrades... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 01:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

Good for NK. The US will not even think of invading.
Now, can you commies give 1 or 2 nukes to Iran so all this charade about the US invading goes away ?
1. Re:All for the revolution comrades... by HornWumpus · 2013-02-12 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's why you give them a dud. Imagine the embarrassment.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:All for the revolution comrades... by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-12 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you say that Iran hates Israel? Do you have any evidence of this? Persians are not Palestinians.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Peaceful Satellite? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

They just demonstrated the intended payload of that "satellite".
1. Re:Peaceful Satellite? by localman57 · 2013-02-12 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. In other news, Elon Musk just announced that he's decided to develop a nuclear warhead. Not that he particularly wants one, but he gets a kick out of sending Instagram photos of the stuff he does to Kim Jong Un.
Heh by benjfowler · 2013-02-12 01:58 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I guess North Korea is what happens when an entire country gets Assburgers Syndrome
1. Re:Heh by Lucas123 · 2013-02-12 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Holy crap! NK has a nuclear weapon!?! As of last year, the United States owned 5,113 nuclear warheads. Care to play, NK?”
2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's what China's hoping for - keep US bogged down and focused on North Korea, thus allowing China to have a free run.
"Wantonly violated?" by scotts13 · 2013-02-12 02:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

"...wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes"
I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites. What the hell are they talking about?
1. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Albanach · 2013-02-12 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think they may be linking the launch of an unmanned US military shuttle shortly before the North Korean satellite launch and the fact their satellite unexpectedly (to them at least) failed to make a stable orbit.
2. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  That is their propoganda bullshit excuse for why the satellite isn't blasting the Leader's theme song from space, as was promised.
  You think Kim Jong Un is going to announce to the people that one of his projects failed?
3. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Richard_at_work · 2013-02-12 02:21 · Score: 2
  
  Both Japan and the US are on record as saying they wouldn't hesitate to shoot down anything NK launches, and have had UNSC resolutions assed that bans NK from launching anything at all. I don't personally agree with the UN being able to ban a country from having a space program (I'm making no comment as to whether NK have a legitimate program tho).
4. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 02:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "...wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes"
  I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites. What the hell are they talking about?
  I trust you're being sarcastic, but for completeness, they are talking about United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 which states that "North Korea must 'not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile', 'suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme' and 'abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner'".
  By voting for this resolution, the United States (and China and 13 other countries) are "wantonly violat[ing] the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes".
  Sort of like how United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 violates Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear technologies.
5. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2013-02-12 02:28 · Score: 2
  
  Here's the deal. They do have a "legitimate right" to launch satellites. However, all their "satellite" launches under the previous Kim's government were fairly transparent attempts to test ICBMs. UN sanctions do not give them the right to test ICBMs. So what they do is insist that they are launching satellites and use that as an ICBM test. They may have actually gotten a satellite into orbit on the most recent launch, a first for the country, but everybody knows that the real purpose is to test more powerful missiles.
6. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by ShanghaiBill · 2013-02-12 02:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites.
  What makes you so sure that we didn't shoot it down?
7. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2013-02-12 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  and the fact their satellite unexpectedly (to them at least) failed to make a stable orbit.
  Huh? The orbit is stable and quite an impressive example of slewing elevation during launch.
  "Spinning in an orbit" != "unstable orbit"
8. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by localman57 · 2013-02-12 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  They were actually pretty open to their own people about the previous rocket's failure to make orbit. This was a bit surprising to the West (the admission, not the failure).
9. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by guttentag · 2013-02-12 03:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  When North Korea makes announcements it often comes off sounding schizophrenic. Before the "satellite" launch, it announced that it was merely a peaceful satellite. After the launch, it bluntly announced that it was actually a cover for an ICBM test to help it one day deliver a nuclear weapon to the U.S. Now it's back to calling it a peaceful satellite. I suspect three possibilities:
  
  when you are as accustomed to crafting a manufactured reality as North Korea is, it's easy to lose track of what you claimed before. I have found that one of the most effective ways to catch a person lying is to ask for details until the person contradicts himself, indicating that rather than remembering what actually happened, he lost track of what lies he fabricated earlier. That may be what we are seeing here from the propaganda machine.
  
  North Korea's propaganda machine changes the message as often as necessary to suit its needs of the moment. Think of Orwell's 1984, where "The Party" would say it was at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia, and this had always been the state of things, except Winston knew that four years ago it was not the case. And by the end of the book it switches back again, with the people accepting that it had always been that way. When it suits North Korea's purposes to tell its people that it is making scientific progress, it is launching a satellite. When it suits The Party's purposes to show that it is standing up to its "evil" sworn enemy (the U.S.), it is an ICBM test. When they have no data from their "satellite" to show, they claim the U.S. shot it down, which conditions people to be more accepting of an ICBM test in the future.
  
  North Korean leadership is far from monolithic. There was actually speculation that the young new leader did not want to escalate tensions with the rest of the world, having been educated in Switzerland. However he might have to bow to the pressure of the military that was already in power. So analysts were waiting to see if he would truly depart from the confrontational stance his father took. If there were still any lingering doubts, this test shows that he is either unwilling or unable to deviate from that course. The changing messages from the propaganda machine may be an indication of internal conflicts: one group tells the propaganda machine to announce it has peaceful intentions, while the other bluntly announces it is preparing to nuke the U.S. The more extreme the contradictions, the more likely it is that you have two factions fighting over the same mouthpiece.
10. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  If I recall correctly, the reason they gave for the malfunction was tampering or destruction by westerners. That's not an admission of culpability, that's passing the blame to create a people more ingrained to hate westerners.
11. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by DigiShaman · 2013-02-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Next time NK launches a rocket, shoot it down. If there's an "end game" to this regime, we are only delaying the inevitable. War. We shouldn't have to live as hostages to their demands. It's our call as nations. Wait for them to get an ICBM, or take out the regime. Most likely, they will use a nuke against a nation and call that a "warning". Is that what you guys want?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
12. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by gtall · 2013-02-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  They probably won't use a nuke, but they'll have no problem giving them to Islamic nutjobs who wouldn't hesitate to use it. Or feed the nuke research to Iran so Iran can have a big dick too in the Middle East, thus spawning a nuclear arms race there. That would further their aims of causing the U.S. grief.
  Those are the real problems N. Korea presents. And there is no way to stop them short of war. No amount of kissy, kissy for that little sawed off runt's ass is going to satisfy them. They'll simply interpret that as evidence of a successful strategy. They still aim to win the Korean War against the U.S. It is the only reason their regime exists.
13. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Bomazi · 2013-02-12 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Rocket technology is dual-use, it can be used to deliver warheads or launch satellites. It is quite reasonable to be interested in both applications. Just because they are emphasizing one or the other depending of the circumstances doesn't mean there is a contradiction.
14. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by moeinvt · 2013-02-12 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  The President of the USA labeled Iran, Iraq and N. Korea as an "Axis of Evil" and you think WE are living as hostages to their demands?
  Iraq has been invaded and occupied, Iran is getting a steady diet of USA and Israeli politicians threatening military action against them.
  I think these countries have one major demand. "Don't F*** with us!" Seems like obtaining nuclear weapons is the only way of guaranteeing one's safety from the sociopaths controlling the USA government.
  Neither N. Korea or Iran has anything to gain by a nuclear attack on the USA. Despite the media propaganda about them being "insane", they are not going to commit national suicide for the sake of damaging the USA.
15. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-12 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  There is basically no difference between a satellite launching rocket an an ICBM. In fact early satellite and person launching rockets used by both the USSR and US were simply converted ICBMs.
  You can't ban ICBMs without banning the peaceful use of rockets as well, since they are 90% the same thing with either a satellite or warhead on the top as required.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-12 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  You recall incorrectly. They admitted the failure but said they had learned from it, which turned out to be true since the next one got into orbit.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
17. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by jd.schmidt · 2013-02-12 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't be so sure that this belligerence is really a sign that NK isn't going to change. It is better to watch what a country does rather than what it says, objectively NK is really no more or less of a threat than they were 5 years ago. NK is not able to produce a single nuclear missile, much less produce enough to do anything. Remember if they simply want to kill a bunch of people, followed by being wiped off the map, they could just shell Seoul. Plus I think NK is much more concerned with their immediate neighbors than the U.S. Frankly the U.S. is just a useful "enemy" to rail against because that kind of rhetoric doesn’t really offend anyone in the area.
  The Schizophrenic nature of NK statements are almost certainly all due to internal conflicts. Watch and see, things are rarely as they appear and U.S . positions about NK are more about what we find useful for our foreign policy than they are about reality.
18. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Muad'Dave · 2013-02-12 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  What makes you so sure that we didn't shoot it down?
  Because these guys have observed and photographed it.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
19. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Lord+Apathy · 2013-02-12 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with just shooting down their shit is they will start shooting at S. Korea. I read that N. Korea has thousands of cannons pointed at Soel. If they fired all of them off they could effectively remove the S. Korean capital before we could do a thing about it. N. Korea as it stands is not a threat to the United States to any real degree. What they are is a major threat to U.S. allies in the area.
  That being said, I think that I must agree with you. There is going to come a time, unless there is a major political change in N. Korea, that we will have to deal with this idiot sooner or later. It would be better to deal with him now than wait till they got a real nuclear capability.
  Of course if we do decide to remove the little man with the funny hair cut with extreme and righteous force, its going to honk the Chinese off to no end. Maybe if we let them have Taiwan in exchange for us being able to eviscerate the N. Korean government? Don't think that will fly.
  
  --
  Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
20. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by Lord+Apathy · 2013-02-12 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? When South Korea recently launched a satellite the world was quiet, like nobody noticed that SK is an aggressive puppet regime occupied by tens of thousands of US troops. DPRK was condemned by the so called "international community" for their launch. Double standards.
  Seriously. Are really this stupid or do you have to work at it?
  
  --
  Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
21. Re:"Wantonly violated?" by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-12 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Is it really so easy to shoot down their rockets? If that's the case then obviously we have nothing to worry about.
  As far as I can tell North Korea is all talk and no action. Or at least very little action. The leaders are comfy and super-rich. Why rock the boat by actually doing anything?
  The North Korean leaders won't gain anything from actually going to war and a war with the US (their sworn enemy) is one that they would almost certainly lose with or without nukes and the leaders are not unaware of that. And even if they actually managed to win the war against the US and the mainland US became a territory of North Korea that wouldn't seem to gain them very much. Particularly if they had already nuked all the major population centers.
  If North Korea actually tried to invade South Korea or China or Japan that would change everything. Then the rest of the world would start taking them seriously and the world would have another major war on its hands, but does anyone really see that situation as plausible?
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The scary part... by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 02:07 · Score: 5, Informative

The scariest part about this whole test scenario is that while the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb. Further, they're focusing on miniaturization of the physics package, which allows them to mount the warhead on a missile. If they're ever able to engineer (or buy) a working delivery mechanism, South Korea, Japan, and even US interests, are at risk of nuclear escalation and bombardment.
I know South Korea is actively pursuing upgrading their AEGIS Destroyers with the US Navy's Ballistic Missile Defense technology, and Japan already has it, but this is a really scary scenario.
1. Re:The scary part... by rmdingler · 2013-02-12 02:33 · Score: 2
  
  12.6 times more energy.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
2. Re:The scary part... by TheNinjaroach · 2013-02-12 02:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb.
  No, it means the earthquake had four times the energy as the last artificial earthquake. As far as I know, there's not a 1:1 relationship between the power in the bomb and the power of the earthquake it creates.
  
  --
  I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
3. Re:The scary part... by FirstOne · 2013-02-12 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  If they're ever able to engineer (or buy) a working delivery mechanism, South Korea, Japan, and even US interests,are at risk of nuclear escalation and bombardment."
  It's not the threat of bombardment that worries me, it's the threat of an EMP attack you should be worried about..
  The loss of our grid infrastructure would inevitably lead to multiple Fukishima like meltdowns in the USA.
4. Re:The scary part... by DerekLyons · 2013-02-12 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  The scariest part about this whole test scenario is that while the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb.
  Cargo cult commenting at it's finest... while "four times the energy" certainly sounds scary - looking at the actual numbers means they've likely developed a 10kt bomb. Dangerous, but pretty puny so far as strategic weapons go. 10k is pretty useless for anything but holding un-reinforced area targets at risk, and even then requires a fairly accurate delivery mechanism as the radius of significant damage (anything more than breaking windows) is barely a mile across.
  
  Further, they're focusing on miniaturization of the physics package, which allows them to mount the warhead on a missile.
  More self-panicking courtesy of Captain Obvious of the Cargo Cult. Who here thinks that any nuclear weapons state wouldn't focus on miniaturization? (If you answer "but bombs on [container ships|trucks|some other far fetched Hollywood inspired delivery mechanism], you're so far off base you're not even in the same city.) Pretty much every nuclear power goes for missiles - they're the most effective deterrent system available.* And in a dictatorship, they're really desirable because you can keep them close to home under the control of trusted troops (with the warheads under the control of a different set of trusted troops).
  
  Did you learn your rhetoric at a DHS sponsored school, or just soak it up naturally? (The latter is quite prevalent as the 'net lends itself to sensationalism.)
  
  * The South Africans didn't, but they weren't designing a deterrent system in the conventional sense.
5. Re:The scary part... by DerekLyons · 2013-02-12 02:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  As far as I know, there's not a 1:1 relationship between the power in the bomb and the power of the earthquake it creates.
  There isn't. It depends on the type of rock, the local seismic conditions, and how well the weapons energy couples to the local rock (which depends on test chamber geometry, the presence or absence of stemming, etc...). Predicting yield from earthquake strength is a very inexact science. (Heck, even determining the exact Richter measurement involves a certain amount of assumptions and black art.)
6. Re:The scary part... by cffrost · 2013-02-12 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know, there's not a 1:1 relationship between the power in the bomb and the power of the earthquake it creates.
  There isn't. It depends on the type of rock, the local seismic conditions, and how well the weapons energy couples to the local rock (which depends on test chamber geometry, the presence or absence of stemming, etc...). Predicting yield from earthquake strength is a very inexact science. (Heck, even determining the exact Richter measurement involves a certain amount of assumptions and black art.)
  What is "stemming" in this context?
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
7. Re:The scary part... by Hentes · 2013-02-12 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  But the energy of the earthquake is still a lower boundary for the energy of the bomb.
8. Re:The scary part... by Liquid+Len · 2013-02-12 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  True. And I have a hard time convincing myself that these guys are doing it alone. For sure, they get some help. China ?
9. Re:The scary part... by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that Little Boy and Fat Man were rated at 16 kt and 21 kt, respectively, 10 kt is not something to just ignore. Those two bombs did a pretty good number on Japanese citizens and buildings, given a rough Wikipedia estimate of 150,000 - 250,000 dead. Given a few more years of development time, it's conceivable, however unlikely, that they could work to increase the yield of the weapon, while simultaneously reducing the size and weight.
  Regardless of that, what rhetoric did I spout, and why is your response so full of ridicule over my 'sensationalism'? Simply stating facts and opining on possible future outcomes isn't panic, it's commenting on a Slashdot article.
10. Re:The scary part... by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  All I know is that after the Soviet Union fell, there were a lot of scientists and engineers looking for work. It's not inconceivable that a significant number of these people defected to any number of hostile states, bringing their knowledge of weapons, delivery systems, etc.
  Now, granted, North Korea is kinda like the kid down the street that tries hard, postures, but never really developed any muscles, but regardless, they've got some amount of technology that could be transferred to a terrorist network with relative ease. Hell, they'd probably sell it just so that any discovery of it could be traced back to them so they're injected into the international discussion, again.
11. Re:The scary part... by DerekLyons · 2013-02-12 04:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sorry, I forget the audience I'm writing for sometimes... :)
  "Stemming" is the process of filling in the borehole used to reach the test location/chamber and emplace the test device. This prevents the release of radiation from the test, this both protects the environment (of concern to the Atmospheric Test Ban signatories) and denies exterior observers access to the bomb's waste products (which can be examined to determine the bombs yield, composition, and design).
12. Re:The scary part... by DerekLyons · 2013-02-12 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that Little Boy and Fat Man were rated at 16 kt and 21 kt, respectively, 10 kt is not something to just ignore.
  Had I said it was something to ignore, you'd have a point. Instead, I did what you failed to do - I placed the yield in context rather than simply pronouncing it 'scary'.
  
  Regardless of that, what rhetoric did I spout
  Did you even read my reply?
  
  Simply stating facts and opining on possible future outcomes isn't panic, it's commenting on a Slashdot article.
  Spinning facts and phrasing them as something new, unusual and unexpected is sensationalism. Duh.
13. Re:The scary part... by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, and assuming that in a couple years, they're able to demonstrate a technology with an additional gain of 400%, that would be 40 kt. After another couple years, perhaps 160 kt.
  Nothing that I said spun facts or rephrased them. Methinks you're just trolling for fun.
14. Re:The scary part... by daveschroeder · 2013-02-12 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  No, but North Korea's nuclear device yields are getting bigger:
  Here’s How Geology Shows North Korea’s Nukes Are Getting Bigger
15. Re:The scary part... by nitehawk214 · 2013-02-12 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  It was in a James Bond movie, so it must be true!
  Oh it is quite true.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
16. Re:The scary part... by mrsquid0 · 2013-02-12 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  > 12.6 times more energy.
  I get a factor for four (actually 3.981) times more energy, but it has been a long time since I took a geology class. This assumes that the energy scales as the amplitude to the 3/2 power. From what I remember the scaling can depend a lot on various geological conditions.
  
  --
  Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
17. Re:The scary part... by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-12 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  They won't use nuclear missiles to attack South Korea or Japan, there would be no point. The fact is neither of those countries would attack NK either, because China would become involved. The only reason they want nuclear ICBMs is to create Mutually Assured Destruction with the US.
  Look at it from their point of view. The US is right on their southern land border, and right off their coast. They were named as part of the Axis of Evil (TM), and two of the other countries on that list have already been invaded with a third being actively attacked with drones and cyber weapons. Hell, Pakistan has nukes and can't seem to stop the US flying drones over it or secret black ops missions within its borders. NK can't rely totally on China if push comes to shove. The US has killed large numbers of people in east Asian countries in various wars over the years, and shown little regard for the lives of the people living there. Most importantly (from their point of view) the US is the only nation that has shown itself willing to nuke other countries.
  Like Iran they find themselves threatened by the most powerful military on earth, and the only thing guaranteed to stop it is the threat of nuclear annihilation of the homeland. I often see the argument that MAD preserved the peace during the cold war made on Slashdot, so presumably we should now be thanking NK for preserving it for the next 50 years.
  
  --
  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:The scary part... by Donwulff · 2013-02-12 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  I was really confused where the claim "4 times" came from, I'm guessing now, but let it be said the original claim is based on so many erroneous assumptions it really doesn't matter.
  First of all, "Richter scale" has not been used in most of the world for decades. Everybody uses Moment Magnitude scale nowadays, and the quoted values are the Moment Magnitudes. Also, USGS almost immediately re-classified the latest as M5.1 as more information came in from seismic stations.
  The Moment Magnitude scale is still logarithmic, with a base of 10. This means the difference between 4.5 and 5.1 is 10^(5.1-4.5). This is 4.0, coincidentally. However, this is ONLY the difference between the Moment Magnitudes. This is a measure related to the amplitude of the waves. The difference in energy (mechanical work) required for said amplitude change is 10^1.5 or about 32 per magnitude.
  Thus it follows the comparative difference in energy released is 10^(1.5*(5.1-4.5)). This is 7.9. As others have pointed out, the earthquake is not neccessarily directly equivalent to the yield of the bomb, however in this case we know the test was seemingly conducted on same test-range. We can also hypothesize the test conditions, or coupling to the eart, have been similar in nature. Thus it would not be completely unreasonable to assume this is about 8 times as big as the 4.5 one.
  This means North Korea's latest test was equivalent to maybe $2,400,000 dollars worth of Ammonium Nitrate, or about 19.2 kilotons if you want to keep it to "normal" units and CTBT estimations. This would put it between the levels of Hiroshima's Little Boy and Nagasaki's Fat Man. Western nuclear missiles have been counter in 100's of kilotons, per nuclear warhead. South Korea is currently calling it at 6 to 7 kilotons. Of course, nuclear test yield doesn't in any way relate to what is the largest they can make.
I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by acidfast7 · 2013-02-12 02:10 · Score: 3, Funny

they hardly have any infrastructure or resources and somehow manage to both demand foreign aid (and have it delivered) and stay relevant on a global stage (well above where they should be based on peaceful accomplishments). Well played DPRK, my hat is off to you!
1. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  ... conveniently ignoring the fact that the rest of the world simply wants them to come back into the world community, and not manufacture weapons of mass destruction (which they promise to use South Korea, Japan, and the Unites Sates).
  Rather soon we are going to get fed up with their shit and conduct business in a much more abrupt and absolute manner.
2. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by acidfast7 · 2013-02-12 02:20 · Score: 2
  
  I assume that you mean "we" in the sense of the US, which isn't going to do anything because it's essentially bankrupt, devoid of EU/NATO allies and "super scared" of China. The US is just going to verbally condemn the DPRK's actions. Unless you mean "we" in a different context, in which, I don't see China doing anything, Japan is too busy with China, Russia couldn't care less and the EU never does anything. What I am missing in your "hollow threat?"
3. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by i_ate_god · 2013-02-12 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  Canadians
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
4. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by acidfast7 · 2013-02-12 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  horseback? hmmm, interesting tactical option.
5. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by Talderas · 2013-02-12 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking Australian Cane Toad bombardment.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
6. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They used slave labor to purchase nuclear weapons technology from a Dutch-trained Pakistani physicists in the 1970's. This isn't home grown technology.
7. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by kestasjk · 2013-02-12 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  A few million people would die of starvation, but hey..
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
8. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by gtall · 2013-02-12 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, lately they've been demanding but no one is delivering, unless you mean China which sent them the trucks for their mobile missiles, among other necessary and vital resources for the regime's survival.
9. Re:I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... by romiz · 2013-02-12 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the page you cite is utterly broken: Combined European GDP is below the sole German GDP. The value for the EU should be $17 Triillion, not the puny $3.6 trillion shown on the data.
Kinda scary... by holiggan · 2013-02-12 02:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

... to see some countries still stuck in the "cold war" mindset. Worse, to see some countries trapped in the "middle ages" mindset...

--
"A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
1. Re:Kinda scary... by the+gnat · 2013-02-12 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  i think your use of "stuck" and "trapped" demonstrate a good bit of ignorance
  Actually, they're very appropriate for this context, since North Koreans are simply not allowed to leave their country - unlike the citizens of nearly every other country in the modern world. They're also not allowed to do a lot of other things we - socialist Europe included - take for granted, but the use of force to keep people in the country is nearly unique. They are serfs in every way that matters.
2. Re:Kinda scary... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-02-12 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  The DPRK aren't "communist" in any ideological sense of the word. They are a totalitarian autocracy keeping the citizens in a state of primitive servitude. Which funnily enough is exactly where communism tends to lead in the real world. I mean think about it - step 1) give us all your stuff, step 2) we'll redistribute it. Is anyone even slightly surprised that it never gets past step 1.
I'm just waiting... by bleh-of-the-huns · 2013-02-12 02:19 · Score: 1

For them to launch something.. in the name of whatever (satellite, defense, radio broadcast, telecom., etc), and have it fail and rain debris over a populated area of some other country.. Then the shit will hit the fan.. I doubt even China would sit by idly while shit rains down on them (and if it ends up being radioactive in any way, it would be even worse).
Posturing only goes so far, and then someone will steamroll through..

--
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
1. Re:I'm just waiting... by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-12 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's highly unlikely. Populated areas are pretty sparse, where the planet is concerned. And downrange of North Korea is the Pacific Ocean. If they were extraordinarily unlucky they might drop something on Japan, which is also mostly rural or undeveloped.
  It's not like countries haven't dropped space debris on others before.
This would work... by grimJester · 2013-02-12 02:23 · Score: 1

Honestly, this is not a bad idea. The sanctions can work if the population sees real effects of the governments actions.
I wonder by sycodon · 2013-02-12 02:26 · Score: 1

They seem to do this whenever they feel "threatened", which is whenever someone says something mean apparently.
So, we just keep saying mean things to them and they'll keep blowing up their nuclear stock underground. They have to run out eventually.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by rmdingler · 2013-02-12 02:39 · Score: 2

Nerds live side-by-side persons of merely average intelligence and are equally affected by evil governmental regimes and happenstance. We don't all write code for a living or live in our mother's basement. Hell, I think two or three of us even have women. Sit back, pipe down, and let the number of comments sort this out.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I can almost see their point... by Builder · 2013-02-12 02:49 · Score: 1

Look at Iraq - would America really have invaded if they honestly believed that nuclear retaliation was a real option ? By having nukes (and being moderately batshit insane), Kim ensures that he can run his dictatorship without outside interference.
1. Re:I can almost see their point... by 0111+1110 · 2013-02-12 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Moderately batshit insane? I can't tell if you are serious. So both the old leader and the new leader are both insane? Bullshit propaganda. Too improbable. The current leader is almost certainly sane.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:US did that too ... by Virtucon · 2013-02-12 02:58 · Score: 1

Double? Not really but since our last nuclear test was in 1992, I suggest that we start up testing again. Nothing bootstraps an economy like large weapons projects however I submit that Nevada is not really suitable for this anymore. First, The Mortgage Crisis has left most of Nevada more barren and empty than before, so if you set off a Nuke there, would anybody notice? Second is potential fallout to Utah and points East of the Test area.
Now, I propose at least one new test area, frankly we really need two because under my administration I would designate certain areas as common test areas for all nations to test their nuclear weapons capabilities. I'd start in an area just North and East of Saudia Arabia on the other side of the gulf. The other area I'd suggest for comprehensive Nuclear testing would be just North of South Korea. By doing this all nations of the world (including Israel, South Africa etc.) could test their weapons there and have all the other world powers actually come and see the show. Testing is critical because everybody's Nuke stockpile is getting older, and frankly that computer simulation math thingy that the do in the labs really doesn't prove to me and the rest of the retards on the planet that they do work. So, I think we should begin testing in one or both of these selected areas to demonstrate that our Nukes still work.
Weapons unused are useless deterrents.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:It's different! by spiritplumber · 2013-02-12 03:03 · Score: 1

East Germany was a lot better off than NK is. In addition, the two countries were separated for less time -- the Koreas had time for a full human lifespan to pass with the countries divided. That is very hard to undo.

--
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
What ferocious act? by Dishwasha · 2013-02-12 03:09 · Score: 1

What ferocious act is NK claiming the US did against it? Are they claiming we shot down their satellite?
1. Re:What ferocious act? by poofmeisterp · 2013-02-12 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  What ferocious act is NK claiming the US did against it? Are they claiming we shot down their satellite?
  That's valid.
  What do stupid idiots do when they do something that effectively destroys their reputation? Blame it on someone else and threaten them openly, then make sure they act on said threat to prove that it wasn't just a personal image defense.
  Fits that model perfectly.
  Well, then there's the more simplistic development of a false scenario in order to have a semi-valid excuse to execute an action that would be otherwise 100% scorned and retaliated against. I digress.
You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by mark-t · 2013-02-12 03:10 · Score: 2

Because certainly he must realize the severity of retaliation that would occur if he were to actually make an aggressive move against another nation.
And given that... is it really so naive to think that they really just wanted to launch peaceful satellites? Although I know that the recent nuclear testing doesn't exactly help their case in that regard, it's easily conceivable that it is naught more than posturing... an attempt (not necessarily an effective one) to try to intimidate other countries into letting them practice what they wanted to do.
Like I said... if their underlying intent were genuinely to launch an ICBM against another country, I'm pretty sure that the nation's leader realizes that there won't be a nation left for him to lead afterwards. Doesn't it then follow that, by course of the instinct for one's own survival, that he might, just might, actually be telling the truth?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by matty619 · 2013-02-12 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I really wonder if any other nuclear nation has the stones to launch a retaliatory nuclear response if PRNK were to nuke another country?
2. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by phantomfive · 2013-02-12 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  And given that... is it really so naive to think that they really just wanted to launch peaceful satellites?
  Yes. They have every reason to want to build a strike capability against the United States, for all the same reasons the USSR and China wanted to.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by Psyborgue · 2013-02-12 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  They stopped denying the "peaceful satellites" line the other week. North Korea’s National Defence Commission said: "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." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Why do they do it? It's very simple, and very rational. They behave badly and naive bleeding-heart parties on the world stage give them humanitarian aid and shit to calm down. If they didn't behave badly, they would get nothing. What we could do is stop rewarding them, but if we did that, the people would suffer. Personally I think all we're doing is prolonging their suffering by propping up the regime.
4. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by DigiShaman · 2013-02-12 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe that's the point. The regime is so locked into a state of perpetual and self-reinforced oppression that "suicide by cop" is the only option (war against the US). Basically, they want us to defeat them in a twisted fucked up way.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
5. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by gtall · 2013-02-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not aware of the U.S. or S. Korea giving them anything recently. In fact, the N. Koreans got all pissy when the U.S. stopped and then S. Korea also decided to stop.
  You could argue they are doing it because the feel the stoppage was because they weren't being nasty enough. My own belief is that they ultimately figure to win the Korean War. The regime has no other reason to exist.
6. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by MiniMike · 2013-02-12 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think that if the response were not nuclear, it would be out of consideration to the proximity of China, Japan, South Korea, or the North Korean civilian population. But I would be surprised if there was even a single North Korean military target not destroyed within a day or two by conventional weapons, and it would absolutely be the end of North Korea as it is now.
7. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by Psyborgue · 2013-02-12 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  It takes a dog quite some time to stop begging at the table if you've ever fed it there. You're right that things have changed recently, but I still think it's what they want. Unless Kim has actually swallowed his own bullshit, he cannot possibly think there is chance of posing a serious threat to SK. He's been outside NK. He knows how it is. If they ever did invade, and the NK army saw how the people of SK were living, there would be serious morale problems, to say the least. If there is any secondary motive, I think it has more to do with internal propaganda than anything else.
8. Re:You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? by ceoyoyo · 2013-02-12 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. North Korean military targets in the countryside that were big enough, hard enough or important enough to make it worthwhile, including their launch and nuclear facilities, would likely be hit with tactical nukes. Anything close to a population centre would probably get pounded flat with conventional weapons.
  Using nukes doesn't have to mean exterminating cities. The sophisticated nuclear powers have generally designed their arsenals for military targets.
Re:It's different! by alexander_686 · 2013-02-12 03:16 · Score: 2

And, IIRC, East Germany was about 1/4 the size of Germnay. North Korea is 1/3.
From what I have read, the reintegration of N. Korea is going to be a bigger deal then East Germany.
Re:US did that too ... by Merk42 · 2013-02-12 03:19 · Score: 1

As sited earlier, there is a United Nations Security Council Resolution saying DPRK can't conduct nuclear tests. Is there a resolution that applies to the U.S.?
Re:Flawed plan - Nukes won't save them by jacknifetoaswan · 2013-02-12 04:09 · Score: 1

The issue isn't about whether they can completely disable a country, rather, it's about them being able to impact a country in a profound enough way to change their way of life, or cause enough harm to make them fear you. I assume, since you're on Slashdot, that you've seen Iron Man 2, specifically, the line that MIckey Rourke delivers to RDJ - "If you can make God bleed, people will stop believing in Him."
That's really what they're after, as well as all other terrorist countries and organizations. Look at the impact that the 9/11 attacks had, even though only about 3,000 people (roughly 0.00000953% of the US population). It spawned two wars, drone campaigns, the Patriot Act, a global recession, a housing crisis, high unemployment in the US, etc, etc, etc, and this is coming from someone who supported both wars (and still supports the invasion of Iraq).
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by RandomFactor · 2013-02-12 04:14 · Score: 1

Awww, Nukes (Science! + BIG explosions.) is definately nerdnip for some.
Oh, and playing Rocky& Bullwinkle to Glorious Leader is fun and vaguely nerdy too.

--
--- Mercutio was right.
It is North Korean version of ... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-02-12 04:21 · Score: 1

Chinese New Year Fireworks!

--
New Economic Perspectives
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by j-turkey · 2013-02-12 04:27 · Score: 1

IMO, this is on /. because some of the Slashdot discussion has a shot at being more insightful than mainstream coverage does.

--

-Turkey
Re:It's different! by Alioth · 2013-02-12 04:33 · Score: 1

Yes, it'll be approximately a 1/12th bigger deal than reunifying East Germany...

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:It's different! by tipo159 · 2013-02-12 04:35 · Score: 3, Informative

And, IIRC, East Germany was about 1/4 the size of Germany. North Korea is 1/3.
East Germany was about 108000 km2 and West Germany was about 248000 km2. Population in the east was around 16 million and in the west it was around 63 million. In the east, per capita GDP was about half what it was in the west.
North Korea is about 128000 km2 and South Korea is about 100000 km2. Population in the north is about 24 million. Population in the south is about 50 million. In the north, per capita GDP is less that a tenth of what it is in the south.

From what I have read, the reintegration of N. Korea is going to be a bigger deal then East Germany.
It certainly seems that way.
eh?, GDP of EU is larger than the GDP of US by acidfast7 · 2013-02-12 04:45 · Score: 1

half way down on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
1. Re:eh?, GDP of EU is larger than the GDP of US by acidfast7 · 2013-02-12 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
2. Re:eh?, GDP of EU is larger than the GDP of US by acidfast7 · 2013-02-12 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Facepalm (must I always spoonfeed you). Click on his hotlink and you will see why I responded. Also, the one nation (US with 50 states) versus one continent is totally asinine, at best, and was not the point of my response.
3. Re:eh?, GDP of EU is larger than the GDP of US by acidfast7 · 2013-02-12 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  this may help as well ... http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_08-SEvm16XA/TJ-WcoY5_AI/AAAAAAAAAM8/riku7rYP76c/s1600/Texas-Europe.JPG
Re:It's different! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 04:51 · Score: 1

Germany has the fucking EU as their captive market to export everything to - thus keeping their own people employed, while everyone else goes into mega-debt and bankruptcy. Not sustainable longterm, but it did finance the reconstruction of East Germany.
Korea won't have that.
China is NoKo's Main Patron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 05:02 · Score: 1

China uses North Korea and Pakistan as its twin fists or pit-bulls, to keep regional adversaries Japan and India on the back foot. If China didn't do this, then they'd have the burden of facing Japan and India more directly. The Chinese don't want that, so instead they back rogues. Likewise, the Chinese were the main backers of the genocidal Khmer Rouge, and were their main weapons suppliers while the Killing Fields were going on, because the Khmer Rouge were China's weapon to oppose Vietnam.
So saying "even the Chinese are fed up with NoKo" is nonsense - just like it's nonsense to say that China is fed up with supporting Pakistan or the Khmer Rouge. China likes to back rogues, and finds them to be an easier tool for bullying others.
What kind of nuclear test was this? by MobyDisk · 2013-02-12 05:45 · Score: 2

How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?
How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.
1. Re:What kind of nuclear test was this? by MobyDisk · 2013-02-12 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Just to clarify: I am not aware of any coal trains that collided with ships. :-) I meant coal trains colliding, and also ships colliding.
2. Re:What kind of nuclear test was this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-12 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Iran is trying to build a gun type device. You cannot use plutonium with gun type devices because it undergoes more frequent spontaneous fission and will 'fizzle' mid detonation so you have to use enriched uranium, hence the centrifuges. North Korea is supposedly using implosion type devices which can be made with plutonium, which is transmuted in nuclear reactors, not enriched in centrifuges and the process is much faster and cheaper. The reason Iran is going with the gun type device is because it's easier to engineer, there is a chance North Korea doesn't need to go that route because they somehow got a hold of a Soviet implosion device design or were given a Chinese design.
3. Re:What kind of nuclear test was this? by TheSync · 2013-02-12 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
  Here is a picture of 100 tons of TNT set off before the Trinity shot to calibrate equipment.
  The NK shot was 7 kt, so imagine 70 times that amount of TNT.
  That's a lot of TNT....
4. Re:What kind of nuclear test was this? by poofmeisterp · 2013-02-12 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
  What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?
  How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.
  Good point. I don't see any measurements of fallout.
Nope by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-02-12 06:26 · Score: 1

But China will never abandon North Korea, unless NK attacks China directly. They'll continue to support them in any way possible, within reason, to ensure the communist stronghold on the peninsula.
Communism? Seriously? No. The main reason is that China doesn't want all those hungry, huddled masses streaming North over the border.

A darker reason: we in the West tend to think 'asians' are homogeneous (ironically, due to our racism), but the various Chinese ethnic goups are just a tribal as us White Devils, if not more so, and would prefer to keep the Koreans at arms reach in perpetuity.
What Happened to Hans Brix? by tmjva · 2013-02-12 09:45 · Score: 1

From Team America World Police:
Hans Brix the former U.N. Weapons Inspector making threats: "Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are."

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT