Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Threatens US With Preemptive Nuclear Strike

jppiiroinen writes "North Korea threatened the United States on Thursday with a preemptive nuclear strike, raising the level of rhetoric while the U.N. Security Council considers new sanctions against the reclusive country."

61 of 727 comments (clear)

  1. First strike! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You dead, yankee scum!

    1. Re:First strike! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      US responds with 300 unmanned DRONES ...

      Holy Moly, we successfully cloned Dennis Rodman 300 times?!?

    2. Re:First strike! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that NK has an army of mostly soldiers, even HORSES still. That means they will be spread all over the field, so bombs and drones won't be very effective.

      They don't stand a chance of WINNING, but they will make a terrible mess of the South because the South has 100x more value of factories, industry, business, people than the North does. Any war is just going to be a slugfest the North trying to break as much as they can, while the South defends and bombs "dirt" because that's all the Norths got.

      The biggest problem is that the North will assuredly try to provoke China... That could put US and China troops accidentally shooting at each other...

    3. Re:First strike! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm pretty sure that the last time Korea's togetherness issues really came to the surface, the shooting between US and Chinese troops was hardly accidental...

    4. Re:First strike! by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not likely. China is growing tired of Peyongyang's shenanigans. It was cute when China was a fervent marxist state and a major exporter of revolutionary insurgence. But China's come of age, is a major world power. They're finding N. Korea's crap annoying lately. China and the US' s economic futures are entwined for the near term, going to war over N. Korean nonsense doesn't seem likely to me. What's far more likely is the US getting involved in a dust up between Japan and China.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    5. Re:First strike! by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is sabre ratteling and nothing more. The US still has the mutualy assured destruction plan to prevent the use of nukes. An attack whould be the end of N Korea and they know it as destruction is assured. This is what kept the US and Russia from trading barbs for a long time during the cold war and eventualy led to peace. We watched each other carefully, then figured each other was worried someone would do something stupid. It never happened.

      It would be unfortunate if N Korea did something stupid and triggered the assured destruction portion of the plan.

      The US is not going to drop nukes first. A pre-emptive strike won't prevent a return due ot the run silent run deep capibility.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    6. Re:First strike! by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

      MAD only works when both parties are sane. DPRK seems less sane by the day.

      --
      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...
    7. Re:First strike! by durrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MAD also only works when both sides can actually destroy eachother. A NK nuclear strike could at best kill a few million people, after which their entire nation would go up in smoke(or by invaded on every front at the very least, nuking NK might not be a very popular option as fallout would drift out over japan(ironic isn't it that everything nuclear somehow end up affecting japan) and south korea.

    8. Re:First strike! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, if you look at the behavior, it's pretty rational. Their behavior has been pretty standard in the last few years. Before a big conference: ratchet up rhetoric -> During conference: ratchet down rhetoric in exchange for food and other random guarantees -> rinse, repeat. There are two ways out of this: ignore NK rhetoric, which only works to a point. Once they put their missiles on ships for exports, their doing more than just talking big. The other way is to take NK at their word, which also only works to a point - are we really going to nuke NK? NK knows both limits pretty well, because they've been playing them quite astutely.

      Now, could NK actually be crazy and do something stupid? No one really knows - another beauty of the NK foreign relationship game. Personally, I would ignore NK completely, cut them off from the world, and make it clear to China that they're risking their harmonious society because one of their buffer zones is the equivalent of a schoolyard bully with a gun. The only way we're going to "solve" NK is by making it China's problem. And then that brings up the question of how SK will look at NK essentially becoming a Chinese territory.

      The only foreign policy problem that's worse than the NK question is the Palestinian question. And not by a huge amount.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:First strike! by ninjagin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you're right that it's an uneven match-up, but no device that the DPRK has tested has been very powerful -- not even to the level of the US nuclear armaments in the 40s -- and what they've managed to put together has been inefficient (even the most recent one) and dirty. Depending on the location of a detonation, casualties could be heavy, but nowhere near a million people. Truth be told, while they ramble on about what they'd do to DC, they could never get a device near it. I think that they'd probably hit a US base near Seoul, if they could. That said, they'd be kicking a hornets nest. Their greatest tactical threat comes from several hundred artillery positions they have spread along the DMZ, and those can easily strike Seoul, even for the ones that are positioned furthest back. The US has bombs, tested in Iraq against tank divisions, that would render most of those artillery pieces unusable within hours. Logistically, the DPRK would run out of fuel for trucks in a matter of months (perhaps weeks) and run out of food in about the same timeframe. Assuming that the US would leave Pyongyang untouched for the first few weeks (unlikely) they'd be trying to support a front line with starving soldiers and prisoners with pack-bikes by then, and that would not last for long. At the same time, the DPRK has created lots of dug-in defenses, and there will be a ton of dead-enders to deal with. At the longest, I think the DPRK might last six months. The US would never have to retaliate with nukes. Even if we did, our arsenal has pretty clean weaponry, so the impact of drifting fallout would not be that big. Still, there's no need for the US to use nukes. China, if they played their cards correctly, could seal their border with the DPRK, flood the place with humanitarian aid to prevent a mass exodus of refugees, and wait for the US to eliminate resistance. I wonder what kind of weirdos would step into the vacuum left by a KJ-U defeat, though.

      --
      .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
    10. Re:First strike! by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Their missiles can maybe, possibly reach San Francisco with a bit of luck and almost certainly Honolulu. Of course, that means praying the US doesn't have any sort of missile defense or the missile gets through by freak chance... not a good bet when you only have a few nukes.

    11. Re:First strike! by Xest · · Score: 5, Funny

      "But China's come of age, is a major world power. They're finding N. Korea's crap annoying lately."

      I like the idea of China's leaders putting it to Kim Jong Un exactly like this in a text message or something. Like a pair of teenage lovers that grew up together and grew apart.

      "Dear Kim, we're finding your crap annoying lately. Grow up."

    12. Re:First strike! by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Chinese have been itching to get back Japan. Specifically those aged 50 and older (whom have politically climbed to the top within the rank and file). Many younger Chinese don't "hate" the Japanese. But they are very nationalistic due to a boost in confidence from growing economic conditions. Of course, that generation has yet to feel the real impact war on the home front. Then again, same could be said of the US or Japan. Also worth mentioning is that the younger Japanese generation are also becoming nationalistic too. It's a giant recipe for a disaster that ought never happen. I believe war will breakout between China and Japan and we will get politically sucked into it if not out-right militarily.

      Two things need to happen.
      1. Japan needs to grow a pair and acknowledge their past unjust aggressions toward China, the invasion and make amends to the raping of nanking.
      2. China needs to just drop the pride thing and move on.

      I have a feeling none of that will occur.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:First strike! by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you raise your children only hearing your insanity, they too will share it but unlike you they will believe it.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    14. Re:First strike! by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure China would step in and make sure NK behaves going forward, and reprimand and remove the current power structure.

      Retaliation would then mean war with China, as they claim NK as a new semi autonomous region within their borders.

      China would love the excuse to outright take NK.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:First strike! by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not likely. China is growing tired of Peyongyang's shenanigans.

      I think as diplomatic policy the US should start referring to their tricks as pyongyanigans.

    16. Re:First strike! by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Official US position is that use of weapons of Mass Destruction against the US homeland, US troops or allies protected by the "nuclear umbrella" will result in nuclear retaliation.

      MADD can only work if you are willing to retaliate in kind. It would be foolish of the US NOT to retaliate with nukes as it would empower enemies with the idea that we won't attack. Al Queda sprang from that very idea after the bombing in Lebannon and the lack of US retaliation along with half a dozen other instances where the US did essentially the same thing when confronted with attacks.

    17. Re:First strike! by JimCanuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Realize the capital of South Korea is an hour drive from the DMZ. If war starts NK WILL hit it out of pure spite...

      Do you know what the South Koreans and North Koreans both share?

      Disdain for the American's meddling in their country from before the Korean War, because remember a American puppet Dictator started to kill off anyone who was deemed centralist to left wing before the Communist Party of Korea declared war due to those actions.

      Followed by this never ended state of war, that multiple South Korea Dictatorships have kept up, working for the Americans. And even the current "Democratic" South Korea, who is feeling the American's pressure at every turn to keep this "conflict" going.

      Remember Psy's Anti-American songs? That is just the tip of the iceberg for most South Koreans. A single death and lack of prosecution due to a American Imposed Status of Forces Agreement in Korea. Want to see what the South Koreans will do if a second American caused war happens? It won't be like the first time.

      You'll be far more likely to see South Korea joining the North Korean side then North Korea using a nuclear weapon on Seoul.

  2. How long before.. by scsirob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long will it take before an 'unfortunate accident' at one of these nuclear sites makes an end to their aspirations?

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:How long before.. by m.ducharme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only as long as it takes to convince China that they need our purchasing power more than they need to protect the twerps in Pyongyang.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    2. Re:How long before.. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China knows that....allies is a stretch...China would jettison N Korea in a heart beat if they could.

      Right, China needs the USA for economic strength. However, if North Korea was attacked, or some other disaster happened there; China would be inundated with millions of Korean refugees, which would also hurt China's economy.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:How long before.. by shadowrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      would china really notice a million more people?

    4. Re:How long before.. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only as long as it takes to convince China that they need our purchasing power

      China's buyers aren't going anywhere soon. NK could nuke Seattle and we'd still be salivating for the latest iPhone, big-screen TV and salad shooter.

    5. Re:How long before.. by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, they will notice them.

      They would be concentrated in a relatively small area: the area just north of the border. Of course slowly spreading out.

      They arrive all in a very short time.

      They don't have homes.

      These people speak most likely only Korean, so it's pretty much impossible for them to get jobs (knowing Mandarin or the local version of Chinese is a must for that). As a result, you can expect many to turn to crime just to survive. Thefts, robberies, pickpocketing, prostitution. Later organising themselves to become a "Korean mafia" or so.

    6. Re:How long before.. by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China voted for the U.N. sanctions today. So apparently they are okay with at some messing. NK pissing in the oatmeal with their nukes means SK and Japan might decide they need nukes as well. The Chinese do not want to see that because it make it more difficult to swing their dicks around the S. China sea, now that they have claimed all of it.

  3. The president should do an address by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Funny

    The president should make an address and announce the following message for Kim jong Un "Come at me bro".

    1. Re:The president should do an address by dintech · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe more like "go and boil your bottom you son of a silly person" which is appropriate given that a North Korean nuclear strike against the US has as much chance as a "fart in your general direction".

    2. Re:The president should do an address by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't know many Asians or do you mean to escalate? Ignoring them is good enough.

      For decades now, the US troops in the DMZ have been there to keep the south from going north. As someone else pointed out, N.Korea is a fucking mess.

      This could take another 40 years to work itself out without nuking anybody. N. Korea will eventually return to sanity.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Nope by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They said that if the US is about to start a nuclear war they reserve the right to make a pre-emptive strike, just like all nuclear armed countries do. There is no threat of action, merely a warning to the US that NK will defend itself.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, they said that SINCE the US is about to start a nuclear war, they ARE going to make a preemptive strike. That sounds like a threat of action to me, regardless of the fact they make such statements every week or so.

    2. Re:Nope by m.ducharme · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, they are at war. There's a cease-fire in place, there's no fighting to speak of, but the Korean war hasn't actually ended.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    3. Re:Nope by hamburger+lady · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Defending" yourself by striking first whenever you fabricate arbitrary threats is not defense, that is offense.

      how ironic that NK has adopted the Bush Doctrine.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    4. Re:Nope by mjr167 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe they want us to invade so we will rebuild their country like we did in Iraq?

    5. Re:Nope by godefroi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, your assertions regarding the French language are not supported by the evidence. As a fluent French speaker, trust me, you can be just as ambiguous in French as in English.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    6. Re:Nope by 0101000001001010 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They said that if the US is about to start a nuclear war they reserve the right to make a pre-emptive strike, just like all nuclear armed countries do. There is no threat of action, merely a warning to the US that NK will defend itself.

      Actually, they are at war. There's a cease-fire in place, there's no fighting to speak of, but the Korean war hasn't actually ended.

      Correction to two posts above:

      1. Not every nuclear nation reserves the right to a pre-emptive strike. Russia for example has a no-first-use policy. The U.S. on the other hand changed to a more aggressive stance under Bush II, where it may use ("mini") nukes to attack targets not reachable by conventional weapons.

      2. N.K. has quit the armistice with an effective date of March 11. So ever so technically we'll be back to an active war.

  5. Rodman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whelp, guess obama and Jong Un aren't gonna have that lovely conversation about basketball I was oh-so waiting for. /sarcasm

  6. Well That Escalated Quickly by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    I didn't see any quotes from DPRK in the article so ... They're trying to influence a UN vote that happens today on the new set of sanctions (harshest yet) that the US has proposed and will most certainly be ushered in days after they were proposed. North Korea's statement:

    The statement said North Korea "strongly warns the U.N. Security Council not to make another big blunder like the one in the past when it earned the inveterate grudge of the Korean nation by acting as a war servant for the U.S. in 1950."

    It's their standard MO and I hope it doesn't affect the UN's resolution. Another quote from North Korea:

    "Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to a preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest," said the statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.

    More details from reuters on what the new sanctions mean as well as South Korea's push back.

    And I'm pretty much done with any Slashdot discussion on this since the apologists and "MAD is good" folks have been mighty thick on these past few news stories. We have entered into the era of "Hey everybody, we have nuclear weapons now do what we say or we will nuke you!" Like a teenage gang member who found his first handgun ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Well That Escalated Quickly by dmbasso · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow, that's so easy! I hope you become general!

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:Well That Escalated Quickly by poofmeisterp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, that's so easy! I hope you become general!

      Yeah, that's a great idea. Attack them only when they're threatening with words so they have an excuse to say "YOU ATTACKED FIRST".

      Snap out of video game world and think about real life logic, please, when it comes to war.

    3. Re:Well That Escalated Quickly by jbolden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I assume by "you guys" you mean the United States.

      1) The USA was not the one that invaded in 1950, the North did.
      2) The USA ain't the one that is maintaining tensions. We've had lots of problems with countries since 1950 and most of them haven't lasted this long.

      I know you think its chic to be critical of the USA for everything. But given that neither South Korea nor China can bring North Korea up to even basic levels of decency like feeding their own population, maybe this isn't the best example case. By and large North Korea has acted provocatively trying to create military conflict in the years since the Korean war, to which the USA has not responded forcibly. North Korea is a good example of what the world would look like when the USA does not "bomb everyone".

    4. Re:Well That Escalated Quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The harshest sanctions yet? Are the UN planning to make a *gasp* sternly worded phone-call?

    5. Re:Well That Escalated Quickly by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 4, Informative

      "North Korea is a good example of what the world would look like when the USA does not "bomb everyone"."

      Eh, I'm from a country that the US hasn't bombed recently and we look nothing like North Korea, luckily.

      And while I agree with you that North Korean leadership is just using this 'war' with the US as an excuse, the US is giving them a pretty good excuse to use. If only by maintaining the sheer number of military force you have been in the last few decennia. It's quite rediculous, compared to the military force of any other nation in existance today.

      Moreover, the US has shown a history of bullying nations. For example, I am from the country that is officially sanctioned to be invaded if an American soldier is ever incarcerated by the ICC for warcrimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

      And we're officially allies!

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    6. Re:Well That Escalated Quickly by realityimpaired · · Score: 3

      And I'm pretty much done with any Slashdot discussion on this since the apologists and "MAD is good" folks have been mighty thick on these past few news stories. We have entered into the era of "Hey everybody, we have nuclear weapons now do what we say or we will nuke you!" Like a teenage gang member who found his first handgun ...

      MAD actually *is* good... when the nuclear weapons are in the hands of rational people. It worked during the cold war because the Soviets had enough to lose, and were intelligent about it. It's worked in the India/Pakistan conflict because the leadership in both countries is intelligent and rational. It'll work in Israel/Iran for exactly the same reason (which is why I'm not worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons: Israel being the only nuclear power in the region is actually destabilizing things, and there needs to be an opposing nuclear armed state to restore the balance of power). Historically, we've enjoyed more world peace since the development of nuclear weapons than ever before. Even with all the clusterfuck going on in the world today, we're still better off than we were 100 years ago by a very wide margin.

      North Korea, on the other hand, has nothing to begin with, and they have an irrational despot calling the shots. Even China backed the last round of sanctions (rather than abstaining like they usually do)... that says it all.

    7. Re:Well That Escalated Quickly by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm the troll and you're insightful for anonymously advocating mass murder? Oh my...

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
  7. Why is it always the little guys? by Looker_Device · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Glorious Whatever,

    Look, little fella, I know you have something to prove and all, but really hope you didn't buy into your father's bullshit. Believe it or not the U.S. has absolutely no interest in restarting the Korean War. Frankly, we're kind of warred out right now. So please stick to playing basketball with Dennis Rodman and leave us out of your grandstanding and dick waving. We've already got enough of that at home.

    We'll be happy to keep sending you D-list celebrities if you'll just STFU.

    Yours truly,
    The American People

    P.S. I would point out the obvious fact that the U.S. will bomb your country back to the stone age if you try to attack anyone with nukes. But, looking at a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula at night, I'm not sure that would amount to much of a threat.

    --
    Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
  8. Re:Ignore them by MatrixCubed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many children do you know bear a racial hatred for Western culture that is bred and drilled into them, or are armed with nuclear warheads?

    It's exactly that arrogance that they are standing up against, however misplaced their aggressions are.

    There's no easy solution here; disarming them is impossible, making peace with them is impossible, talking sense into them is impossible, treading lightly and carrying a big stick seems to be the only safe alternative that doesn't cause us to descend into full military operation against them.

  9. Will by mybeat · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Nuclear launch detected!" be followed by: "Battle-cruiser operational"?

  10. Iraq for less by cosm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We went to iraq on a much looser pretext.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  11. The only thing to worry about... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...is if they're truly feeling suicidal or not.

    If you think that they could get through anything like that alive you're smoking something.

    It's not only the US or NATO that would strike either, it would be Russia and their buddies in China as well. There would be nothing left.

    Go read Dune. When one family uses "atomics" then everyone else combines and destroys them.

  12. Has he learned nothing from Saddam Hussain by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would have thought that even the looniest dictator would think twice before threatening "weapons of mas destruction", "a mother of all battles", and so on.

  13. Re:Ignore them by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anything can be a race; it's a purely social construct.

  14. Re:Iraq for less - Whatever by PseudoCoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems the FUD on oil and the Iraq war has proven to be quite sticky. Fact is, there are many other oil-rich countries that would have been a hell of a lot easier and convenient to take over than Iraq. Seeing as how the accusation is that the U.S. fabricated a case, it would have been just as easy to fabricate a case against any of them. If I had to plan such a thing, Venezuela would be the first to come to mind, but it's not the only one I would consider.

    The war in Iraq was about one thing; Iran. Stabilizing the Middle East by reducing the amount of megalomaniacs by one. By calling Saddam's bluff (which was aimed more at Iran than the U.S.) the coalition slowed down a Middle-East arms race that was just getting started, but was going to speed up quickly once Iraq rebuilt its military capacity. One of the stated goals of the first Gulf War was to reduce their military capability for 10 years. Did the U.S. go about it the right time? Not optimal, but necessary, since it had been roughly 10 years since the first Gulf War. Did the U.S. go about it the right way? Definitely not. Rumsfeld screwed up the war strategy big time, starting with using half the troops that would have been needed for securing the borders. Nation-building and long-term occupation? No thanks; trying to quit.

    North Korea presents a decent enough military threat overall, only because they've starved their people in order to pay for their military capability and have thoroughly indoctrinated them into fighting to the death to stay enslaved, but their tension with Japan and South Korea still does not amount to megalomaniac A vs megalomaniac B.

    --
    "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
  15. the wtc was taken out with box cutters by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    do not underestimate the motivation, determination and creativity of those who intend you harm

    false alarmism is a well understood concept here on slashdot

    unfortunately, false complacency, equally dangerous, is not

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  16. Re:It is interesting, isn't it? by samkass · · Score: 3, Informative

    This skips the possibility they will launch at a US carrier group, barren island or other non-continental target to induce terror but not civilian damage. We don't want them to have nukes for lots of reasons.

    You're a few years behind. They already have sunk a SK Navy vessel and killed SK civilians in an artillery barrage within the last few years. The only question is if they try the same thing with a nuke.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  17. Re:Blame your government by fuzzybunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, you mean 70 years ago, five years before North Korea started the Korean War?

    Please tell the Germans they'd better announce the right for pre-emptive strikes on France in case that pesky Napoleon comes over the border again.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  18. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    NK threatened this about a decade ago when we were getting ready to invade Iraq for no plausible reason, but apparently no one gave a shit. No one's going to give a shit this time either since NK still doesn't have a credible delivery system. People will suddenly start giving a shit by the time they DO have one.

  19. communism, schmommunism... by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why do you think China's building all those ghost cities? Simple speculation run amok? pshaw!

    If the DPRK's leadership would let the peasants go, China could probably accommodate them in the spare guestroom while they invest in remodeling NK on a China model. Once they're all safely chained to their workbenches building eyephones and have enough to eat, Bob's your uncle.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  20. New UN Sanctions Were Unanimously Approved by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Six minutes ago it was announced the new sanctions are approved. To those of you still following or interested in this, Reuters even updated one of the links in my original comment that you can now find here to read:

    UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council has voted unanimously for tough new sanctions to punish North Korea for its latest nuclear test, a move that sparked a furious Pyongyang to threaten a nuclear strike against the United States.

    The vote Thursday by the U.N.'s most powerful body on a resolution drafted by North Korea's closest ally, China, and the United States sends a powerful message to North Korea that the international community condemns its ballistic missile and nuclear tests — and its repeated violation of Security Council resolutions.

    The new sanctions are aimed at making it more difficult for North Korea to finance and obtain material for its weapons programs.

    I apologize for making it sound like the United States was the sole proposer of the new resolution -- I actually got that vibe from the DPRK press releases. I didn't know until I read this that China (at least is reported to have) co-authored them with the US.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  21. Scandinavia by WilyCoder · · Score: 4, Funny

    A Scandinavian country should invade and conquer North Korea. Then we can call it Norse Korea.

  22. Troops in Korea by coyote_oww · · Score: 3, Informative

    US: ~28,500
    SK: ~639,000 active duty
                    ~2,900,000 reserves
                    ~300,000 paramilitary (possibly partially overlapping with reserves)
    NK: ~1,106,000 active duty
                    ~8,200,000 reserves

    So, the US has 1/30 of SK, roughly, and 1/60 of NK, not counting reserves.

    The US presence is more a physical manifestation of a guarentee that the US will assist SK in event of war than a serious threat. Its along the lines of the US presence in Europe during the Cold War - not nearly enough to stop a Soviet assult, just there to reassure the people there that the United States was serious about assisting with European defense. The real plan, in both cases, is that the troops in place will delay the advance of invading forces till reinforcements can arrive.

    Data summarized from multiple Wikipedia articles.

  23. They aren't crazy by rabtech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The North Korean regime is based on several odd pillars.

    One is that the Korean people are racially superior to others; their naturally superior, child-like nature is why they've been repeatedly conquered in the past. Kim is their mother-protector who gently guides them while sheltering them from the evil, corrupt world outside. They are encouraged from a young age not to think about things, merely to embrace their instincts and emotional reactions; as the naturally most superior race, their instincts are pure and right and thinking too much can lead them astray.

    A corellary to that is Americans are inferior half-breeds who can't help but be aggressive war-mongers and Korean baby-killers. Not even American women and children can be spared or trusted because their nature precludes it. Korean mothers are told if they leave their kids alone with American children, the American children will attack or kill theirs because of their nature. That isn't treated as a weakness by the way... Merely a result of the natural state of Korean innocence. In fact the Chinese, Europeans, Africans, et al are all inferior races, naturally untrustworthy, and beneath contempt.

    Second is that the NK population is well aware they have a reduced standard of living, but it is a sacrifice they must all make to ensure they aren't conquered by a foreign power again... Necessary to preserve the superior race of the Korean people. It's the military first policy. The information firewall has been down for some time - that's why they came up with the military first policy as a way to explain the discrepancy. Think Germany in January 1945. They've obviously lost the war, yet they fight on... Some even fanatically so. Why? Why bother showing up to build tanks? Why volunteer for suicide missions? To protect the homeland (and what else can you do anyway?)

    So without an ever-present enemy threatening to massacre the Korean people in a genocidal rage, an enemy that can't be reasoned or negotiated with, the reason for the NK's existence is removed.

    Remember: they have been repeatedly promising that when the US is vanquished from the penninsula, the one true master race will finally be united.

    When you understand these things, NK's actions make plenty of sense.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)