Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Conducts Third Nuclear Test
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."
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
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.
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.
"...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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
Just like it ruined Germany.
Oh wait....
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.