Slashdot Mirror


Update — Sensors Do Not Pick Up North Korean Radioactivity

Update: 02/19 20:49 GMT by S : The story below has been retracted upon further examination of the research. There has been no detection of radioactivity.
gbrumfiel writes "A global network of sensors has picked up faint traces of radioactive gas that probably seeped from last week's underground nuclear test by North Korea. The detection of xenon-133 in Japan and Russia provides further evidence of the nuclear nature of the test, but offers no hint as to the type of weapon used. Atmospheric modelling by the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna shows that the gas likely seeped from North Korea's test site on 15 February, three days after the original test. That indicates that the test was well sealed deep underground."

132 comments

  1. Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know, guys, after watching this video from KCNA news I'm kind of concerned. I mean the United States' air force is being overrun with cost and we've only built 63 F-35 aircraft. How can that stand up to the DPRK's 40 Chengdu F-7s?! And defending Pyongyang they have 40 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29s! 40 + 40 = 70 and 70 > 63!!!

    In the video, you can see the pilot explain that they will reduce me to ash! TO ASH! And they only need six minutes! Look at how hard he must have studied to learn how to fly a jet fighter, clearly he knows what he's talking about. Apparently I'm guilty of state sponsored terrorism against the North Koreans and I didn't even know it! Welp, I'm withdrawing all my savings and spending it on hookers and blow, for in six minutes we all might be ash. Catchy tune at the end too, that's a real earworm, I'll be whistling that one all the way to the firestorm they are going to unleash on me.

    Oh great and powerful Korean People's Army Air Force, please have mercy on my electricity having soul! I knew not what I was terrorizing!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      How can that stand up to the DPRK's 40 Chengdu F-7s?

      Indeed, a Chinese copy of a Soviet airplane that was good in the 1970's would scare a Hornet or Eagle pilot shitless.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by eksith · · Score: 1

      F-35s won't be nearly in enough quantity or with enough distribution to make an effect and even if they were, I think we've pretty clearly established throughout the history of the U.S. technology alone don't win wars. And I do mean "win" I.E. conclude with no further conflict and the unconditional surrender of the enemy.

      Only the North Koreans will win against North Korea.

      --
      If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
    3. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh great and powerful Korean People's Army Air Force, please have mercy on my electricity having soul! I knew not what I was terrorizing!

      Indeed. Even this slashdot story is obviously a cover-up by the Western Powers. It is not radioactivity from their recent peaceful bomb test... it's simply the latent power emitted from the mind of the Great Leader.

    4. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by sheehaje · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we are working on some advanced ballistics capabilities of our own!

    5. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It didn't scare anyone. In fact the MiG-21 is the F-15's only gun kill.
      The Hornet too, is the only aircraft o have demonstrated self-escort capability, with two hornets shooting down a pair of MiG-21's that were intercepting them. The Hornets kept their bombs onboard and proceded to complete their mission.

      Scared shitless your ass :D

    6. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1, Funny

      Any radioactivity detected must have been from some dirty westerner farting.

    7. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe if our military leaders had hats that were as big as that guy's hat, we wouldn't be lagging so far behind North Korea in air superiority. And democracy. I mean, we don't even have "Democratic" in our country name!

    8. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by RDW · · Score: 1

      Catchy tune at the end too, that's a real earworm, I'll be whistling that one all the way to the firestorm they are going to unleash on me.

      It's OK, but really not in the same league as Excellent Horse-Like Lady:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5tkXgw2OMY

    9. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catchy tune at the end too, that's a real earworm, I'll be whistling that one all the way to the firestorm they are going to unleash on me.

      It's OK, but really not in the same league as Excellent Horse-Like Lady:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5tkXgw2OMY

      Goddamn that made me wanna buy a loom and produce fabric for pennies on the dollar.

    10. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

    11. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair if they fly anywhere near a lightning storm the F-35s are screwed.

    12. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's not quite that comical IRL, at least not according to Wiki. They have several hundred craft, mostly Chinese and a few dozen Soviet. At this point the Chinese might be willing to give us the "root password" but not say they did so publicly. We can handle the MiGs, we've done it before. Sidewinders from 50km and we won't even have to look at their ugly pusses At some point, China may very well reason that a united Korea is much less of a worry than the loose cannon that is the DPRK.

    13. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And well they should. A united Korea would buy twice as many Chinese parts as South Korea does currently.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    14. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      They'd love you over at http://reddit.com/r/Pyongyang

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    15. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the hornet and eagle pilots are going to run out of ammo at some point, the planes are going to break down, the pilots will have to sleep, long before the Chinese run out of cheap aircraft... The Soviet T-34 was vastly inferior to the German panzers as well. But to some extent it is very much a numbers game. If you feel that technology assures victory where is the Roman empire today?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Man, that's a big hat.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    17. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Clearly he is unable to escort himself through the wilds of Slashdot. Where is his wingman?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      How can that stand up to the DPRK's 40 Chengdu F-7s?! And defending Pyongyang they have 40 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29s! 40 + 40 = 70 and 70 > 63!!!

      Traditionally, we've always thought that 40+40 = 80.

      Or were you using NK math?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Soviet T-34 was vastly inferior to the German panzers as well.

      Umm, no.

      The T34/76 was considerably superior to any panzer then extant in 1941, when they were first encountered.

      It wasn't until 1944 that the Germans reached the point that the overwhelming majority of Panzers were better than the T34/76.

      And at that point, the Russians were building the T34/85, which was rather better than the latest version of Pzkw-4 (which was about half the German panzer inventory), though somewhat inferior to Pzkw-5 (the other half).

      The only real weakness the T34 series of tanks had was lack of proper communications equipment (only the company commander's tank had a radio, for instance, until late in the war).

      Plus that gawdawful commander's hatch on the earliest T34s....

      If you feel that technology assures victory where is the Roman empire today?

      If you think that the Roman Empire dominated the Classical World due to superior technology, you know even less of history than your comments about T34 suggest.

      Hint: the Legions' doctrine was far more important than the Legions' technology (which was basically the same as everyone else's (iron swords, spear, torso armor and helmet) and considerably inferior to that used by the Persian cavalry at the time (yes, I've always been rather fond of the Persian composite bows as weapons of war - it's really too bad the Romans worked out a counter to it).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      And even though this is a country "of the people, for the people, and by the people" nowhere does "people" appear in "the United States of America."

      I propose we change the name of this country to "the Democratic People's United States of America." Or better yet, to "the United Democratic People's States of America."

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    21. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by VAXcat · · Score: 2

      Commenting on the reported much higher quality of the Nazi's armaments, Stalin is reported to have said "Quantity has a quality all its own".

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    22. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's why they need long range nukes. The US has the most powerful conventional military in the world and they know they couldn't win if an invasion came, so the only solution is mutually assured nuclear annihilation. Well, the US would survive, but probably won't risk millions of deaths and contamination. Probably.

      This is what happens when you label a country part of an "axis of evil", play war games off its shores and go around invading other countries you don't like.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they need long range nukes. The US has the most powerful conventional military in the world and they know they couldn't win if an invasion came, so the only solution is mutually assured nuclear annihilation. Well, the US would survive, but probably won't risk millions of deaths and contamination. Probably.

      This is what happens when you label a country part of an "axis of evil", play war games off its shores and go around invading other countries you don't like.

      LOLOLOLOL yep, this is entirely the US's fault and we should be glad these bat shit insane dictators have nuclear weapons. Jesus fucking christ, where did you come from? 4chan?

    24. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think we've pretty clearly established throughout the history of the U.S. technology alone don't win wars.

      Actually, we've established that US technology alone NEVER wins wars.

      What we've established that wins wars is US production - we didn't win WW2 with superior technology, we won it because we could do things like build a military up from "small" to "fricking huge" while still having enough production surplus to provide weapons/supplies/whatever to everyone else in the world.

      Note that one of the most interesting bits of trivia about WW2 is that the USA, during the war, built more aircraft carriers than existed in the entire world before the war.

      And, more importantly, we built more transports (Liberty ships, anyone) than existed in the entire world before the war.

      In the mid '30s, a German general, doing an analysis of mechanized warfare concepts noted that the USA had ~75% of the world's production capability in internal combustion engines. And quite properly concluded that that meant that going to war with America would be suicidal for Germany.

      Too bad (for Hitler) that Hitler didn't read that sort of report.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    25. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by PPH · · Score: 0

      China may very well reason that a united Korea is much less of a worry than the loose cannon that is the DPRK.

      I don't think China worries about that at all. What they do worry about is the flood of refugees into China during the 'reunification' process. Which is certain to be orders of magnitude worse than the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    26. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the hornet and eagle pilots are going to run out of ammo at some point, the planes are going to break down, the pilots will have to sleep, long before the Chinese run out of cheap aircraft...

      \

      Well no. No they won't. Have you seen our military budget? Have you seen our military technology? Are you not aware that the USA is the world's largest arms dealer? If we need extra aircraft all we have to do is stop selling them to everyone else.

      to some extent it is very much a numbers game.

      Yes, that's true. They can afford more losses, but we can deal out more losses.

      If you feel that technology assures victory where is the Roman empire today?

      Wishing they used less lead in their cosmetics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviet T-34 was vastly inferior to the German panzers as well. But to some extent it is very much a numbers game. If you feel that technology assures victory where is the Roman empire today?

      Sometimes you can't win a war even with superior numbers and technology. Some wars just don't make sense.
      For others the weather decides.

      And it wasn't exactly war that destroyed the Roman empire, but rather a gradual decline. Yes, the Goth did invade Rome but this was just one point in a much larger process.

    28. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, when you do the correct math, 40 + 40 = 80, and 80 is even >er than 63!

      WE ARE SCREWED!!!!!

    29. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by PPH · · Score: 1

      They'll scramble any time now. Just as soon as those spare parts for their MiGs arrive. Currently back-ordered with the Soviet Union.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    30. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That indicates that the test was well sealed deep underground

      At least they think about our safety when obliterating some of our collective asses into ash. I knew the Pyongyang only has our safety in mind! For the children of the Party, etcetera etcetera!

    31. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am 100% certain Kim is quaking in his boots at the comments of masturbatory teens posting on Slashdot from mom's basement

    32. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is his wingman?

      He went home with the hot chick.

    33. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Don't know what you are talking about, Rome fell when the republic died, and kings took power again.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    34. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Afghanis did it with bent, rusty rifles.

      Lord help you guys up against somebody with >= 16th century tech.

    35. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they just employ a shitload of chinese to stand shoulder to shoulder as a literal great wall of china around NK until the reunification process completes? Added bonus: Target practice to prepare their army for the eventual world war they have a decent chance of winning :D

    36. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (yes, I've always been rather fond of the Persian composite bows as weapons of war - it's really too bad the Romans worked out a counter to it).

      Yeah; it's called "wet weather"!

    37. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Never read much history about N. Korea have you.

    38. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good post. Since you do know your history, here's a very interesting set of comments on the other shortcomings of the T-34 by a Soviet tanker who used the Sherman. (HVSS 76mm)
      http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html

      Please note I'm not saying the T-34 was 'bad' either. This isn't that sort of post, just a sincere 'more information you'd like'. I'd only add you might want to look further into the ability of the 85mm (more like middle range contemporary HV 75mm), since too many people think it's stronger than it was. But you may have already done that. Cheers.

    39. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're full of shit. the t34 tank was a joke compared to tanks of the day.

      It's one feature was THEY BUILT A FUCKTON OF THEM!

    40. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by DuranDuran · · Score: 1

      False - you have absolutely no evidence that that's the case. DPRK is by and large poor and hungry. South Korea is the opposite.

      --
      "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    41. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      The Roman expansion seemed to have stopped whenever they ran into cavalry-heavy enemies. They got to Asia Minor, but not into the steppe beyond. Enemies not fighting ordered battles might have been somewhat detrimental to Legion tactics. Hit and run, deny an orderly battle - asymmetric warfare of the ancient world if you like. Not that they ventured often into those territories, but if I recall correctly, whenever they did, it was without significant success.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    42. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      Yeah, except Rome fell about 400 years later. You could argue that the decline of Rome began with the end of the Republic, but that decline was a drawn out process. It's more of an ideological point. The economically most prosperous years probably were under the Emperors...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    43. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by nobodyknowsimageek · · Score: 1

      I think you could make the case that the Allies won the war in large part due to superior cryptography. If the British (and later the US) had not been breaking the German and Japanese naval codes for most of the war, things might have turned out very differently.

    44. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are probably also regretting using lead as a sweetener in their wine for all the big parties. Nothing like the wealthy people all going loco.

    45. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      What we've established that wins wars is US production - we didn't win WW2 with superior technology, we won it because we could do things like build a military up from "small" to "fricking huge" while still having enough production surplus to provide weapons/supplies/whatever to everyone else in the world.

      Not to worry you with actual history, but if any one nation won WW2 it was the USSR.

      Note that one of the most interesting bits of trivia about WW2 is that the USA, during the war, built more aircraft carriers than existed in the entire world before the war.

      It's trivia because very few aircraft carriers had been built before WW2. They were not seen as important, incorrectly.

      In the mid '30s, a German general, doing an analysis of mechanized warfare concepts noted that the USA had ~75% of the world's production capability in internal combustion engines. And quite properly concluded that that meant that going to war with America would be suicidal for Germany.

      Too bad (for Hitler) that Hitler didn't read that sort of report.

      Hitler did not initiate war with the US.

    46. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Wow it's North Korean Laverne and Shirley. Amazing. Guess that makes the fearless leader "Squiggy". Quite apropos.

      http://youtu.be/mRmKzxhMzwo

      And an episode with a horse in it:

      http://youtu.be/-8_GSk2ptMo

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    47. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      The Roman expansion seemed to have stopped whenever they ran into cavalry-heavy enemies.

      The Romans conquered the Persians at one point. Couldn't make it stick for more than a generation, but they managed.

      They also conquered Spain and France. Against those barbarians that you think beat them.

      The Romans did NOT successfully defeat the Germans, of course. Teutoberger Wald wasn't actually a case of "asymmetric warfare", since it involved a large Roman Army and a larger German Army (and a stupid Roman General, which was the real cause of the Roman defeat).

      Of course the Romans never made a serious effort to conquer Germany. Why bother? The place was a worthless hellhole. Even Big Julie (who led punitive expeditions into Germany a couple of times) didn't think it was worth conquering. And the later Roman generals who led punitive expeditions into Germany whenever the Germans bothered the Romans living in France at the time didn't think Germany was worth bothering to conquer.

      Not that they ventured often into those territories, but if I recall correctly, whenever they did, it was without significant success.

      You don't recall correctly.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    48. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who built the only reliable supply trucks the Soviets have ever had and stocked them with food and ammunition? Aircraft flown across the Bering Straight from Alaska? The USSR provided the meat, but they would have needed a lot more than they had if they'd been on their own.

    49. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by SillyHamster · · Score: 2

      Hitler did not initiate war with the US.

      Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

      Granted, it's not like the US was completely neutral up to that point, but changing it into open warfare was completely on him.

    50. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      You are being funny but the sad fact is the F-35 is yet another techno turkey like the F-22, and it'll spend more time on the ground than it will in the air. It also is so damned expensive we'll never be able to afford to replace our aging fleets with these super expensive techno turkeys so we really are gonna be at a disadvantage when you can flyaway a SU27 for less than 40 mil and a MiG29 for less than 60 mil.

      We need to kill the techno turkeys, kill the Ford carrier or at the very least make it the last one we build for a couple decades (we have 11 the next largest possible threat country has ZERO so its beyond overkill and into total fucking waste by now) and as the Israelis have shown the F-Teen series are still seriously ass kicking planes and you can buy several F-15s or F-16s for the price of just one techno turkey Hell if you want Stealth they already have plans for a Stealth Eagle that will lower the radar footprint by something like 80% while still having longer range and better firepower than an F-35.

      We are making the same mistakes the Germans made in WWII, expecting a handful of "super planes" to do ALL the work and as the Germans found out what you get IRL is planes that spend more time being worked on than they do in the air and the cost makes losing even one plane seriously hurt. Its obvious to anybody with a brain that any future wars with technologically equal enemys will be facing off against Russian and Chinese planes and their much lower costs mean they can spam us out of the sky. When you figure in the fact that the Chinese have developed sea skimmer missiles that can turn a carrier group into scrap without ever getting into range of the F-35 its pretty obvious are current plans only enrich the defense contractors, they don't do shit about keeping our Air Force flying.

      Cancel the F-35, build teen series, check into how much it would cost to build more Warthogs as we have seen those are worth their weight in gold against terrorist enemies, and then you'll have a plan that will carry America into the future. If we ever face off against anybody but goat herders we are gonna end up in serious trouble, we have bet the farm on techno turkeys that have yet to show they are anything but money pits.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    51. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (yes, I've always been rather fond of the Persian composite bows as weapons of war - it's really too bad the Romans worked out a counter to it).

      It catapulted the Roman civilization into the 21st Century.

    52. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they do worry about is the flood of refugees into China during the 'reunification' process.

      But they're figuring on losing about 200,000,000 - 400,000,000 Musilims to the west when they march out..

      Let me think, 4 comments @ (0) = a cumulitive score here at Slashdot 4.0 OR 4(0), right (?) that's not bad

    53. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      As nice as the warthog is, they are obsolete. Modern SPAAGs are designed to blow planes like the A-10 out of the sky and their cannons out-range the GAU-8. It is only useful against opponents that have no modern AA weapons.

      The solution is far cheaper aircraft in greater numbers. A turboprop gives far better efficiency below Mach .6. There was supposedly a 3 barrel version of the GAU-8 for such an aircraft, but it was canceled. The slower speed allows the aircraft to operate from very small airfields and also allows them to fly at lower altitudes, hugging the terrain. Something lik e a EMB 314 Super Tucano would work great, but they cost a lot, the AT-6B Texan II may be far more cost effective and just as versatile..

    54. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      "We have these things called Aircraft Carriers. Planes land on them."

      One of the more ascerbic utterances of last year, I still laugh when I hear it.

      Quantity does indeed have a quality all of its own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    55. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about Spain, France or Germany. Those weren't exactly horsemen, no? I was talking about their encounters with nomadic horsemen around the lower Danube.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    56. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      The Romans did NOT successfully defeat the Germans, of course. Teutoberger Wald wasn't actually a case of "asymmetric warfare", since it involved a large Roman Army and a larger German Army (and a stupid Roman General, which was the real cause of the Roman defeat).

      But the Germans were not trained to face three Roman legions in a head-on battle. Their winning strategy—formulated by Hermann/Arminius, who was a German hostage raised as a Roman, and conversant with Roman tactics—was to engage the legions while they were strung out in marching order in wooded, marshy country. I would think that in terms of fighting power, this was an "asymmetric" battle, with the Germans being the weaker, and using tactics that negated the Roman's superior training and customary fighting doctrine. As for Varus being stupid...well, taking advantage of stupidity is one of the mainsprings of asymmetric warfare. Also, Varus thought Hermann was his buddy.

      Of course the Romans never made a serious effort to conquer Germany. Why bother? The place was a worthless hellhole.

      I beg your pardon. How was the region occupied by the Germans any less desirable than that of the Gauls? Or was it that the Roman did not appreciate women who can bring large numbers of beer steins at once? (Give me a ten stein girl any day!). I think I catch a whiff of sour grapes (or is it malt?) here.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    57. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Frankly what we need is another super tweet, cheap, small, and able to carry plenty of firepower and with long loiter. And if you have ever seen the pics the Warhogs can take just insane amounts of punishment and keep on flying but you are right that it would probably be cheaper to build something around the Texan and then supplement it with the AC130 for when you need the heavy ground pound.

      But frankly we are still acting like its the cold war, we are building all these stealth based techno turkeys and we have seen time and time again that to have stealth you have to pretty much cripple the aircraft's ability to fight. I mean how many Sidewinders can the F-35 carry in that little internal bay...2? You send in the f-35 and it'll quickly be just twiddling its thumbs because with stealth requiring everything be mounted internally the firepower just isn't there.

      At the end of the day we are gonna end up with more "pilots in name only" because our aging fleet is wearing out and the F-35 like the F-22 costs too damned much to make it our only plane so our pilots are gonna end up having to take turns just to get into the air! Between that and our building carriers like it was WWII which thanks to sea skimmers would just end up a chance for enemy target practice I honestly don't have much confidence in the way our air force is shaping up. I would argue the only reason it hasn't bit us in the ass already is we have only been going to war against frankly primitive enemies, if we ever have to face off with an enemy that doesn't live in caves we'll be SOL.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    58. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go see what initiated means please.

      Also US was already at war siding with the allies because of pearl harbour when hilter declared war.

    59. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      Go see what initiated means please.

      Go see what being at war means.

      Also US was already at war siding with the allies because of pearl harbour when hilter declared war.

      US being in a state of war does not mean that the US is at war with Germany. Japan is not Germany, and had no authority or ability to initiate a war between Germany-US on Germany's behalf.

      The US did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war first. That's pretty much the definition of "initiate".

    60. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Did you really just try to pull the "US evil, North Korea sane" card? I applaud your skills.
      Please, for your next trick, tell me why Hitler wasn't such a bad guy. THAT would be brilliant bit of work.

    61. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      beg your pardon. How was the region occupied by the Germans any less desirable than that of the Gauls? Or was it that the Roman did not appreciate women who can bring large numbers of beer steins at once? (Give me a ten stein girl any day!). I think I catch a whiff of sour grapes (or is it malt?) here.

      Germany was less desirable than Gaul largely because the rivers ran in the wrong directions - large-scale trade pretty much required water routes (leading to Rome, if you were Roman), and the Germanies didn't have too much of that sort of thing.

      Unlike, say, France and Spain, which had direct access to the Med and rivers flowing into same.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    62. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      I have to ask, what was the Roman's counter to composite bowfire? They seem to have struggled with mounted archers like the parthians, persians and hun.

    63. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Heck, you can mount rocket pods on just about anything that can physically carry them. Some ultralight aircraft could manage to carry a few if you really wanted to. Slap some rocket pods on a light aircraft and you'll have a functional light duty attack aircraft at fraction of the cost. Fabric covering makes repairs easy and minimizes the radar signature.

      Even on ground stuff we have troops using TOW rockets at $20,000 each instead of $250 106mm HE shell from a M40 recoiless rifle. Yea Yea, the sustained rate of fire is only 1 round per minute, but it can do 5 rounds per minute for the first minute, which is faster than a TOW can be fired. Not to mention you can have several M40's for the price of one TOW, even more when you consider ammo. There have been several instances where the heavy weapons of an outpost, like the TOW were taken out early in a battle. having several M40's gives redundancy.

      Of course another problem is the Russian Shtora system is making the TOW obsolete. From what I can find, the Shtora countermeasure system has somewhere between a 95-98% chance of jamming the guidance system of a SACLOS missile like the TOW. That tech is going to get better and smaller. Javelin is too expensive and too dammed heavy for soldiers to actually carry it and not be slowed down so much that the insurgents can outmaneuver them or simply run away. It also apparently has problems locking on if the enemy has taken even basic attempts to IR camouflage their vehicle, it gets lost in the background clutter.

      We should be issuing our troops M3 Carl Gustav recoiless rifles like Arabs issue RPG-7s. (OK perhaps not THAT much, but you get the idea.) How many times do I need to see shaky cam of US solders firing at someone hiding in a clay hut that 5.56 can't punch through? A single 84mm round would instantly solve the problem, yet we see troops firing a $75,000 missile at that person, if they even bothered to drag it along.

    64. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Germany was less desirable than Gaul largely because the rivers ran in the wrong directions - large-scale trade pretty much required water routes (leading to Rome, if you were Roman), and the Germanies didn't have too much of that sort of thing.

      Unlike, say, France and Spain, which had direct access to the Med and rivers flowing into same.

      Thanks, that certainly makes sense (much more so than "hellhole"). I'd never considered this explanation. I believe the Romans held on to the Rhine and used it for military communications and, I must suppose, for trade; but it's the last North to South river for quite a while as you go eastward. So I can see that the German lands weren't worth the price the Romans would have to pay to take and hold them. Despite the uniquely talented beer-bearing women.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    65. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is why I think we need to build a modern version of the M50 Ontos as it was cheap, reliable, and could pack a serious punch. Today we could probably make a 4 barrel autocannon instead of having it single shot, build them on the Bradley or M113 and you'd have a cheap reliable unit that could punch holes in just about anything you wanted.

      But sadly just as our planes get "replaced" with vaporware so too will we keep right on building techno turkeys and betting on the missile to save us, but as you rightly pointed out with new tech like Shtora and reactive armor the days of the missile being a one shot kill no matter what you are facing may well be coming to a close. Frankly our entire strategy (if you wanna call it that, i call it defense contractor payoffs) just makes no sense, we seem to be stuck in a cross between a WWII mindset with regards to carriers (which the latest sea skimmers would make short work of) and a cold war mindset with regards to our air force and neither reflects the shape on the modern battlefield.

      At the end of the day we'll just have to hope that the USA only fights goat herders with AKs from now on because if we faced off with a well trained enemy with the latest Russian tech we'd be SOL.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    66. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Ontos was such a wonderful concept. For a first try it was remarkably capable, further development could have improved it.. Sad that it was trashed after Vietnam because the military was only interested in stuff that would bust tanks at 2 miles.

      I believe a 3 round autoloader for the M40 was developed, but never adopted.

      Another option is to simply mount 70mm Hydra rockets in place of the TOW on the Brady and on the M113 (Though ditching the Bradly would be a great thing too.) Or perhaps built an Ontos like vehicle that uses the Hydra rockets instead of the M40. You could completely develop such a vehicle for a fraction of the cost of the uber-planes they keep trying to build.

    67. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry I don't know the name of it, you probably do, the new APC with the triangle bottom that diverts blasts from IEDs away from the crew while looking kinda like a big truck? I always thought THAT would be a better platform to build on than the Bradly as its pretty obvious that future wars will end up more in urban areas than in the middle of the desert and that thing had plenty of armor. It also probably wouldn't be a bad idea to come up with a new M113, just give it a beefier powertrain and thicker armor instead of the thin aluminum its got now that forces troops to pile sandbags in the floorboard as the M113 has shown itself to be a pretty reliable unit.

      But if you read the reports of the Ontos from the guys actually manning the thing in firefights and they loved it, wide tracks meant it could go anywhere without getting stuck, 6 barrels pretty much made it a guaranteed hit on the first try and it was useful for suppressing enemy troops as well as killing tanks. I agree 100% if they would have spent a little time on R&D that could have been a truly great weapons system. And the Hydra would probably work great as well without blowing the crazy money per shot that the TOW costs. I'll never forget an episode of Dogfights were they read a report from a Phantom pilot who was given the task of testing the first gun mount in combat on the Phantom, it went something like "Splashed 4 MiG 17s, first 2 with missiles and the last 2 with the gun. Cost per MiG with the missiles was $29,000, cost per MiG with the gun was $518 worth of rounds".

      But the problem sadly Crosshair is NOBODY gives a shit about actually defending the country because just as Ike tried to warn us the MIC has become this giant money sucking beast which only cares about dragging a project out for as long as it can and milking as much cost overruns as possible. I mean look at the last 3 big projects, the F-22, the F-35, and the stealth destroyer, the F-22 is more of a threat to our pilots than the enemy is, the F-35 in the words of one analyst "can't run, can't fight, can't turn against the latest Russian and Chinese designs and is SEVERELY undergunned compared to the most likely threats and has an extremely limited range" and finally the stealth destroyer that ended up scrapped after several billion down the shitter because it was found to be at risk of rollover in heavy seas and its horribly unreliable gun system would cost more per shot than the harpoon missile!

      Frankly all we can hope is that the USA just remains a bully and only picks on goat herders with AKs because if we faced anybody with weapons made in the last 15 years we'd be in trouble. And our reliance on stealth so damned much is really gonna bite us in the ass, its already becoming obsolete as the Russians and Chinese develop ways to track without radar and of course they were able to down an F117 in Bosnia (which if rumors are true that F117 is sitting in a hangar in China along with the stealth drone that came down in Iran) just by going through the entire spectrum until they got lucky. We are falling into the same trap Germany fell into with the V-projects, we are betting the farm on super expensive craft that aren't reliable for shit and will be too expensive to send more than a handful up at a time and will be facing the SU27 and MiG29 which are so cheap just like we did to Germany a future enemy could just fill the sky and spam us off the map.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    68. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly sure which one you're talking about either as there are several that fit that description. Wheeled vehicles have their place, but tracks are the way to go in urban environments because you can climb over obstacles that stop wheeled vehicles..

      As for an improved M113, you'd want to take a look at the MTLV sometimes known as the M113A4. A longer chassis gives greater troop and cargo capacity. I'm not quite sold on the diesel electric drive, but at least they're trying something that has a reasonable chance of working.

      As for the floor armor on a M113, it's an inch and an eighth of 5086 ballistic grade aluminum. It stood up to mines just fine. Ordinarily the M113 has ground pressure too low to set off heavier AT mines, you don't want infantry setting them off, but command detonated IEDs were a big problem in Vietnam. (Yet the "leaders" act all surprised when we ran into them in Iraq and Afghanistan.) It was for protection against the larger IEDs that the troops sandbagged the floor, sand does a very good job of stopping shrapnel. They were also easy to remove if the vehicle did become stuck and could be used to build defensive positions.

      The advantage of the M113 is that it provides a good base with which you can tailor to the environment, since it's basically a giant aluminum box. Need mobility over protection? Standard M113 works fine. REALLY need mobility? Slap in a souped up engine and drivetrain. Need more armor? At least half a dozen kits available, everything from basic aluminum plates, to bar armor, to ERA. Need to land troops on rough surf? Slap on a Arisgator kit. Need a stabilized weapons platform and are willing to sacrifice troop capacity? Add a sharpshooter turret. Want heavy firepower, but you also want to carry 11 troops? ASP-30 30mm autocannon mounts to anything that can mount a 50 caliber M2.

      The M113 is like the AK-47 of APCs, yea the basic design is old, but it's cheap and does its job so well there's not much you can do to improve it. Anything you do to it is simply customization to fit your unique need.

    69. Re:Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry I can't remember the name, i think it was an animal name, cougar or panther or something. The only reason i mention it was because I saw a video where the enemy set off a hell of an IED under one and while it trashed the tires and caused serious (but fixable) damage every single soldier walked away with nothing worse than a bruise or two from bouncing around inside.

      But if they can do the same thing with an M113? great, all for it, the M113 is like a Ford truck, nothing fancy but reliable as hell and gets the job done. You compare it to the AK but it always reminded me of the way my grandfather described the "ma Deuce" 50 cal, cheap, reliable, and always ready to go. he said in WWII they stuck those things everywhere and on everything just because they were so dependable and affordable, just as we've had a ton of variants of the M113 because its such a reliable base to build upon.

      But again sadly Ike was right nobody cares about affordable or reliable because its all about milking the contracts. Frankly we haven't built anything past the F-Teen series that wasn't insanely over budget and underperforming, this is no accident because the MIC can milk the cost overruns and get paid even if the thing never goes into production. i believe it was you that pointed me to the excellent "Failed Tanks" series (great show BTW, watched every episode) and in every one of the failed American designs it was obvious before it even left the drawing board these things were gonna suck (like sticking an aircraft radar on the Sgt York) but it didn't matter to the MIC because they got paid anyway. What few products they DO deliver end up like the F-22 and F-35, insanely expensive techno turkeys that look great on paper but IRL spend more time in the shop than they do in the air and when you look at how much abuse the Russian designs can take (because in their rough climate they have no choice but to build rugged planes) and its really a bad joke. It reminds me of the AK VS the M16 in Vietnam, they changed powders which fouled and caused the guns to jam like crazy while the VC could drag an AK through the mud, shake it off and start firing.

      Frankly we need to go back to the pre WWII way of doing things, where we set out a request and they don't get a check until they can provide us with a finished product. Because as it is they can build the biggest POS on the planet and actually make more money than if they build something cheap and reliable so we are sending the entirely wrong message, what we need is to make it clear we won't put up with these overbudget POS designs anymore, they either provide a working product or they don't get paid PERIOD.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Xenon Released? by Y-Crate · · Score: 3, Funny

    This means we can finally get new Mac Pros!

  3. An improvement from 90's by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

    When they had their accident above ground.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  4. I know what the bomb was made with by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

    Isn't it obvious? The NKoreans are all over THIS WEBSITE buying as much Uranium as they can!

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:I know what the bomb was made with by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Customers Who Viewed This Item Also Viewed

      The 2009-2014 Outlook for Wood Toilet Seats in Greater China
      Looking For-Best of David Hasselhoff

      I am now concerned.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:I know what the bomb was made with by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Good reviews for the Toilet Seat book as well.

      Actually, "Better than Twilight" may not be a compliment.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:I know what the bomb was made with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just worry about what evil they plan to do with that Tuscan Whole Milk

    4. Re:I know what the bomb was made with by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The only thing left to cause a full blown panic is a search to hear Shatner rapping and Nemoy crooning.

  5. Re:Nuke North Korea! by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    Are we sure someone DIDN'T already nuke North Korea? From everything I've seen or heard about that country, you'd be better off living in the Fallout universe than North Korea.

  6. WTF is up with the flag? by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Funny

    A story about North Korea and you guys put a Japanese flag up?

    1. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by tgd · · Score: 1

      A story about North Korea and you guys put a Japanese flag up?

      The summary did mention Japan, and if a Slashdot editor actually read a summary, we should be positive and encourage him or her, not fault the missing of the whole point of it. We need to reward improved behavior.

    2. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by DFurno2003 · · Score: 0

      Eh, same time zone...

    3. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by PRMan · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Aren't they all the same? I mean, I can't tell them apart...
      </American>

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

      Hell no, and it's not over now!

    5. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Japan is rightfully part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's World. Dear Leader allows them to think they're independent, that's all.

    6. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they're the same, they're both Chinese.

    7. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's possible the slashdot editors believe the Korean peninsula to still be a part of the Japanese Empire.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      You mean it's not? They'll have to fix that.

    9. Re:WTF is up with the flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1940's called. Imperial Japan wants their invasion back.

  7. Faint traces detected ... well sealed ... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    If a 'well sealed' nuclear test releases 'faint traces', let's be thankful that it wasn't a 'badly sealed' one. I mean, wouldn't a 'well sealed' one mean no traces at all?

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Faint traces detected ... well sealed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because murdering 25M citizens who are fed government propaganda like it's food and food like it's the middle ages is a fair way of dealing with the hundred or so party members who are keeping them under foot.

    2. Re:Faint traces detected ... well sealed ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Figure out how to kill one group without killing the other, cause those 100 must be some serious job creators, wouldn't make sense to kill those ones that's for sure!

    3. Re:Faint traces detected ... well sealed ... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of evidence that people in the middle ages ate far better than the people of the DPRK. We have several bookshelves of medieval recipes and documentation to that effect. (Research-heavy SCA household)

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  8. Why is this important data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For those interested, the reason security forces are trying to determine the content of the gas is that everyone is very interested in whether U or Pu was used to construct the bomb. If U was used, it is possible that they are receiving the materials and/or know-how from Iran, and that Iran may be using NK as a proxy for testing in exchange for food/tech items which Iran can purchase using gold through Turkey to get around sanctions.

    1. Re:Why is this important data? by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

      This may be a stupid question, but how do we know that North Korea didn't simply drill a hole, say 1000 meters deep, fill it with 7,000 thousand tonnes of chemical explosives and a liberal amount of electric detonators and blow that up to make it look like they have nukes?

    2. Re:Why is this important data? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      That should be 7,000 tonnes, not 7,000,000.

      I believe the latest test was estimated at close to 7 kilotons, which should be totally possible to do with chemical explosives.

    3. Re:Why is this important data? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      That's rather the point of trying to detect radioactive byproducts. It could very well be they used purely chemical explosives. Now that the first claim to detection of radioactive byproducts has been retracted, the probability that they faked it using chemical explosives goes up.

      And the world's intelligence agencies and nuclear watchdogs will keep poking around. It's rather important to find out if they really did or if this is more of the usual fakery.

  9. Re:Nuke North Korea! by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1, Troll

    China and Russia will not agree. Also innocent people... asshat.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  10. Blight rights by Carnivore24 · · Score: 1

    Kim Jong Un is growing!

    1. Re:Blight rights by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      By the looks of it, he's growing outwards, not upwards.

  11. Re:Nuke North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are innocent people in North Korea?? wtf?? They PK me all the time in every MMO I've ever played.... :-/

  12. And Fresh Whole Rabbit by Dast · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/Cloverdale-Fresh-Whole-Rabbit/dp/B00012182G/ref=pd_sbs_indust_3

    I guess that's better than rotten half rabbit.

    --

    This sig is false.

  13. Quibble about last sentence of TFS by idontgno · · Score: 1
    From TFS:

    ...the gas likely seeped from North Korea's test site on 15 February, three days after the original test. That indicates that the test was well sealed deep underground."

    My quibble is with the word I highligted: "well sealed". The Nature article (TFA #1) puts it like this:

    The delay between the test and detection of the radioisotopes is likely to indicate that the nuclear weapon was well-buried deep underground....

    The original German announcement (TFA 3) is... well, it's in German. But the equivalent of "well-sealed" or "well-buried" is "gut 'contained'":

    ...dass der Test sehr gut "contained" wurde, also nur eine sehr geringe Menge an Radionukliden ausgetreten ist.

    Yeah. The English word "contained", in quotes. So maybe TFS could have used "well-contained"?

    "Well-sealed" is gratuitously non-literal. "Sealed" is an absolute. Either something is sealed or it isn't. "Poorly sealed" is a needlessly verbose synonym for "unsealed". "Well sealed" but "leaked radiation" just hurts my head.

    "Well-buried" is a fair description. Very literal, and doesn't carry any paradoxical implications.

    And. C'mon, folks. The Austrians actually used the word "contained". It's a good word. It must be, if someone's going to borrow it from English for what is otherwise all German. It's an appropriate word. "Containment" never implies absoluteness, so it is everything "Sealed" isn't.

    Executive summary: Submitter makes poor word choices in paraphrasing multiple sources which made perfectly good word choices, and damages the credibility of TFS in the process. ("Well sealed but leaky. Riiiiight.") And Slashdot editing is... Slashdot editing.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Quibble about last sentence of TFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to nit, sealed is not binary. The olden Roman times lead to three terms related to this*. Open, sealed and Hermetically sealed. At the time, it was believed that only a priest of Hermes could seal something so perfectly that there was no contamination with the outside world.

      *from my brief understanding of the Greek dominance that preceeded this, there were around 45 terms having to do with the state and quality and timing of something potentially having had been sealed eventually

    2. Re:Quibble about last sentence of TFS by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      OK you two, knock it off. This is Slashdot, not the Oxford English Dictionary forums.

      Have some sympathy for the rest of us illiterate slobs.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Quibble about last sentence of TFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I _am_ an illiterate slob, you inconsiderate clod.

    4. Re:Quibble about last sentence of TFS by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Have some sympathy for the rest of us illiterate slobs.

      No.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    5. Re:Quibble about last sentence of TFS by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      It's "insensitive clod". You illiterate slob.

  14. Never underestimate crazy by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    It's hard telling what NK will do but when you are that small, have little left to loose and a couple axes to grind, extreme becomes an inviting option. Especially if you've evolved in a bubble of your own manufactured reality. It might be funny to see them puff-up about their "military might" but we underestimated them once before and it didn't go well. In fact it REALLY didn't go well - for 15 years.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Never underestimate crazy by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      but we underestimated them once before and it didn't go well. In fact it REALLY didn't go well - for 15 years.

      Which 15 years are you talking about?

      1950-1953, perhaps? During the Korean War (note that we annihilated the NK Army in the first year of that war, then spent the rest of the war fighting the PLA)?

      In any case, that's only four years. Where are the other eleven?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Never underestimate crazy by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      In any case, that's only four years. Where are the other eleven?

      Sorry, typo on my part. You're correct. I was thinking about Vietnam but typing about Korean. I'll show myself the door...

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    3. Re:Never underestimate crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it went well until we got to China's front door and were told to stop.Wikipedia

    4. Re:Never underestimate crazy by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Given your reference to "15 years", it appears that you don't know the difference between Korea and Vietnam.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  15. Not How Nuclear Stuff Works by Iskender · · Score: 2

    If a 'well sealed' nuclear test releases 'faint traces', let's be thankful that it wasn't a 'badly sealed' one. I mean, wouldn't a 'well sealed' one mean no traces at all?

    This is not the case, and the reason likely is that we're dealing with nuclear instead of chemical measurements.

    IANA chemist or physicist, but from what I understand it's like this: while we can do pretty damn accurate measurements of chemicals, it's nothing compared to how well we can measure radioactive isotopes. They emit radiation by definition and therefore broadcast their presence. What's more, some specific radiation signatures only appear after nuclear tests.

    Basically, there is an absurd amount of atoms all around us, and all of them get into everything. When you get close to the level of measuring single atoms you see the truth: there isn't really any such thing as "sealed" (if there are actual experts here you should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

  16. Other possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could well be that they had (or produced) the Xenon 133 that they leaked so that everyone would think they had a nuclear detonation rather than just an earthquake.

    What I don't get is how all this happened. Didn't we tell NK that we wouldn't "tolerate" them having nuclear weapons?

    Was our leadership just talking out of its ass, or is there intent to do something?

    Is all our bluster anything more than the threat? Is our government saying, "STOP, or I'll say 'stop' again"? Our leadership needs to make good on their so-far empty threats. NK wants nukes SO bad, maybe we should just give them some. We can save money on the deliver too, by simply dropping them from passing aircraft, or using the built-in delivery rocket systems.

    Seriously though, the idea that we don't want to fight a country because our bone of contention is with their government, and the people have no real control, isn't working. Their people support the government because they don't know any better, they must. We could try to educate them, except we'd have to invade or infiltrate to do it, which of course we can't do because for one thing, China is right there, and we've been stupidly funding their rise to power for the last couple dozen years. China wants NK to exist as a border between it and SK, but why? They have more in common with SK than maybe they want to admit. WTF?

    We may simply have to blow NK off the face of the earth as a warning to anyone else, and to halt their program, but our government doesn't have the balls to do something like that, so I guess we'll just make more empty threats until they (inevitably) achieve the capability of threatening our friends in the region, global stability and security, or US. THEN we'll do something. The sad thing is that we don't do something BEFORE they go and kill a bunch of innocents somewhere like Japan, for example.

    They flew a missile OVER Japan a few years back, which means they can hit Japan, and they have, it would seem, the ability to produce nukes. What happens when they say, "give us food or we're going to nuke Tokyo"?

    Their people starve because they have to feed their military that they keep built-up against the threat of what? Invasion by the South? What are they afraid of, prosperity? NO! Not prosperity! We don't want to be able to feed ourselves, NO!

    The longer other countries provide humanitarian relief for them, the longer they can prop up their failed, stupid, backward economic system (if you can call it that,) that only promotes mass-suffering, and for what? To prove Communism can work? It doesn't and can't, and it's been demonstrated again and again that the ideal of share-and-share-alike, lovely as it is, doesn't scale, and command-directed production is inherently inefficient, so much so that that country doesn't seem to be able to feed itself.

    It's time to put up, or shut up. We need to do something about their government, or be prepared to watch the increasingly heavily armed thug in the region terrorize their neighbors and others around the world.

    1. Re:Other possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the amount of artillery that can hit Seoul within 15 minutes, if we are going to do something, that something is going to happen very very suddenly.

      Like the entire DMZ going BOOM all at once, every single piece of hardware and every little hidey hole blown to smithereens. That will be the only way to hit NK militarily, you can't have a big build up to war, it has to happen suddenly and decisively. We have a president who is familiar with said tactic.

  17. I still am not sure I'm convinced by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure I'm convinced that DPRK even HAS nukes.
    0) the Ryongchon disaster - a truly enormous conventional explosion of mysterious origin, variously assigned 'colliding trains with LNG', 'train of ammonium nitrate', and other really explosive stuff suggests that DPRK could have been shipping colossal amounts of explosives for years.

    1) the 2006 nuke test was rated at 1 kt, and 'some' radioactivity was detected. Pretty much sounds like a great pile of explosives interleaved with old Fiestaware dishes would give about the same result.

    2) the 2009 test was likewise not much more than a fizzle, nuclearly-speaking, rated at 2-4 kt. Still well within the range of "giant frikkin' minecraft-style pile of explosives".

    3) the 2013 test has now been estimated at 5kt. Huge, yes, but still doable. (One 50-car train of explosives = 5kt explosives. The DPRK could easily assemble 50 boxcars of explosives over 4 years.)

    (tinfoil hat/)
    4) it fits the narrative; with AlQaeda a pathetic rump of an organization reduced to bombing girls schools in remote Afghani provinces, we need an "enemy" to justify ongoing defense spending and 'alertness'.

    (/tinfoil hat)

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I still am not sure I'm convinced by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Minecraft is now being used in an explicative simile. I love it.

    2. Re:I still am not sure I'm convinced by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be 5 kilotons of explosives. It just has to be equal to 5 kilotons of TNT. I dare say modern explosives get you more bang per unit mass.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  18. I wonder by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    how high up in the chain of command you have to be to realize how hopelessly outclassed you are in North Korea?

    As in, do the fighter pilots know? How about their immediate superiors? How far up does one have to be before you really know the truth?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:I wonder by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      And is awareness a bell curve. As you get past a certain seniority, does reality again fade into propaganda.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  19. Or this was a lie and there is a bit of radioactiv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are terrified of nuclear anything, so this helps calm them down. There's nothing the average joe can do about nuclear war so why get them all frightened?...except for the fact that scared people buy more stuff.

    nukes aren't that hard to make. I have little doubt that Korea has some... but big deal. A single bullet is enough to kill me, and those are everywhere.

    Isn't Russia still missing some of their KGB suitcase nukes?

  20. Retraction? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain the retraction here? The Nature link just gives a 404, while the other link just goes to a logon page and there doesn't seem to be any other content on the site.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Retraction? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It seems like the page was up at some point:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/category.html?code=archive_news

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  21. Re:Or this was a lie and there is a bit of radioac by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that people who were uncertain about the future (e.g. existentially afraid) spend less, and that it's one of the reasons why a recession is difficult to get out of.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  22. Re: Retrieved Samples Without DPRK's AF Scrambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rome fell? So you're telling me that a single person based in Rome doesn't have power of millions of people throughout the developer and under developed world?

    And now that he's had enough, he's going to retire and let someone else take over, appointed by a bunch of people that he put in place in the first place.

  23. Re:Nuke North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Kim Jong Un's treatment of his citizens is utterly unacceptable. Therefore we have vapourised them."