Slashdot Mirror


United States Begins Flying Stealth Bombers Over South Korea

skade88 writes "The New York Times is reporting that the United States has started flying B-2 stealth bomber runs over South Korea as a show of force to North Korea. The bombers flew 6,500 miles to bomb a South Korean island with mock explosives. Earlier this month the U.S. Military ran mock B-52 bombing runs over the same South Korean island. The U.S. military says it shows that it can execute precision bombing runs at will with little notice needed. The U.S. also reaffirmed their commitment to protecting its allies in the region. The North Koreans have been making threats to turn South Korea into a sea of fire. North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' mainland."

97 of 567 comments (clear)

  1. The winner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't we just measure Kim Jong-un and Obama's penises and get this whole thing over with already?

    1. Re:The winner? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are responding properly. NK barely has nukes and they are starting the brinksmanship game already. Not responding to that would be a mistake.

    2. Re:The winner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Worked for Europe in 1938!

    3. Re:The winner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

      Pretend they don't even exist.

      That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.

    4. Re:The winner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

      Pretend they don't even exist.

      That's the same stupid advice mothers give to their children about bullies. When has a bully actually given up because you ignored them hard enough?

    5. Re:The winner? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OT but I think WW2 is better served as an example of how well appeasement works.

    6. Re:The winner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

      Pretend they don't even exist.

      You might think that would work, but you'd be wrong. North Korea has a habit of making sneaking attacks on South Korea when they don't respond. Recently they sank a ship that killed dozens. In the past they have shelled civilian or military areas, kidnapped people across the border, and axed people cutting down a DMZ tree (since they claimed that Kim Il Sung himself planted it). I mean, what do you think the recent cyber attack was about? Without a proper show of force, these provocations will increase. We don't really need a proper USS Pueblo incident, do we?

    7. Re:The winner? by bragr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That won't really work in this situation. Kim Jong Un isn't just some bellicose asshole sitting at the helm of North Korean and giving the world the finger because he feels like it. All the confrontations, defiance, and war mongering are instrumental, mainly to keep his hold on power. Take that away and his grip will start slipping. Once that happens he would have to escalate to something we couldn't ignore (probably war, or at least a large conflict), or he'd be replace by someone controlled by the military, which would quite likely go to war as well to solidify their new hold on power. No matter how you look at it, practice bomb runs are better than mass casualties.

    8. Re:The winner? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      FWIW North Korea tends to get more and more aggressive until there is a response. If this doesn't work, they'll start shelling an island, or try to sink a ship. Better to send them a message before they get too crazy.

      The response here is probably a good one. Fly a few planes around. It serves little military purpose to let your enemy know you've been doing practice bombing runs. But it's a decent way to send a message to North Korea, "stop being annoying."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:The winner? by bragr · · Score: 5, Informative

      France and England gave Germany a lot of slack in the lead up to WW2. Europe suffered so many casualties in WWI that it decimated a generation and made most countries in Europe very war shy. Consequently, when Germany began openly flaunting the restrictions that had been place on it after WWI in the Treaty of Versailles, making demands, and annexing other countries, France and England compromised, made concessions, and offered little real resistance besides formal protest. They hoped by appeasing Hitler, they could diffuse the situation and avoid another full scale war, which worked well obviously because only 60 or 70 million people died during WW2.

    10. Re:The winner? by mooingyak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some pretty minimal googling could have answered that for you.

      The excerpt from the first link that google shows:

      Discover how the policy of Appeasement, championed by Neville Chamberlain and the League of Nations inevitably led to WW2.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    11. Re:The winner? by jamesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

      Pretend they don't even exist.

      That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.

      Depends on the motive of the bully. If they are looking for a reaction (eg tears) and they don't get one they will either escalate or move on to an easier target. If they are performing a show of strength to demonstrate their superiority then ignoring them won't be as useful. In the playground, _your_ objective is to not get picked on, which normally means don't be the softest target. This doesn't apply here as the objective is that nobody gets picked on.

      If this does escalate and they do turn SK into a "sea of fire" then wiping NK out right now will be the option with the best net result in terms of lower loss of life, based on that this is what will happen anyway if they do make good with their threats. History won't see a pre-emptive strike that way though...

    12. Re:The winner? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      NK is not Germany, though. And so far they're just shaking their fists in the air, not invading countries.

    13. Re:The winner? by murdocj · · Score: 2, Informative

      In case you haven't noticed, the USA is at war with North Korea. There was never a peace treaty, and NK has exited the armistice agreement. This has zero to do with dick waving and lots to do with trying to save a lot of lives.

    14. Re:The winner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      F. U.

      Tell it to the little kid that was me 35 years ago. Smartest kid in the class and chubby. It started in first grade when I whizzed through vocab. Scaled up to ostracism, getting chased, being beaten. Got jumped by guys with knives but luckily ran away.

      The only thing that got people's attention was studying karate and breaking a big 6th grader's nose. Aside from that a glacier rock was my best friend at lunch hour. Sure I had some friends, other geeks. But it only really stopped after I got out of the public school system and commuted an hour away to a preppy private high school.

      If you want to know why America sucks at least one reason is because of the utter wasteland of stupidity that is the public school and community of people going to it for 90% of the people, and the system refusing to beat down bullies while they're young. Law of the jungle? Gandhi? Fuck that. I still have trauma from when I was that little kid. Maybe you just didn't get bullied enough. Tell it to kids (not me thankfully) who have gotten rolled up in gym mats, suffocated and died.

      I bet a huge proportion of slashdotters have been bullied like me. Fixing (neutering) bullies and rewarding fair play would do a lot towards fixing (neutering) our military-industrial complex and maybe even our money politics.

    15. Re:The winner? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm. In Vietnam the US destroyed the Vietcong and withdrew. Nearly half a decade later the North Vietnamese continued their original aim, invade South Vietnam. In terms of South East Asia it was an eventual defeat for the US-led Free World. In terms of the overall strategic geopolitical situation it was a huge win. Communist expansion was stopped. Eventually, with no more victories Soviet Communism collapsed (although it did leave its evil seed in many Universities around the World).

      In Iraq the US defeated Saddam, smashed Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army. Installed a new democratic regime (very imperfect, but that is always going to be a problem in an Islamic country due to the political nature of Islam). The strategic mistake the US made was to withdraw and leave too few forces, and an even bigger strategic mistake was to accept an Iraqi Constitution where Sharia was enshrined. This was a fatal mistake that will haunt the Iraqi people (although it already affects the Assyrians, the Islamicist have nearly completed their ethnic cleansing of them ; and yet, the Obama Administration says nothing about the rights of freedom for all people).

      In Afghanistan a few hundred US Special Forces with Afghan Northern Alliance soldiers toppled the Pakistani puppet regime called the Taliban. Smashed Al Qaeda, killed jihadis that were drawn to the honeypot from all over the World. Made the same mistake as Iraq in allowing a Constitution with Sharia.

      The US never leaves the battlefield in defeat. The problem is they win well enough that they can't see the point in staying. So they leave (probably prematurely, but hey, it makes good campaign speeches even if it makes zero geopolitical sense).

      North Korea is not like Vietnam (Russia and China are weaker relative to US power than they were previously). Furthermore, the South Korean Army is much much better equipped than the North. In any fight the Northern regime will surely topple. China might like to intervene but in the age of tactical nuclear weapons their main advantage, massed infantry assaults, is not a strength.

      In short, learn proper history please (not the pop history that doesn't match the *actual* facts). The North Koreans would come apart even faster than the massive Iraqi Army if push comes to shove. The only real question is how much damage they could do to Seoul before they went down. Note also that the South apparently isn't that keen on reunification - the evil regime in the North have turned the country into a complete basket case that the South are not that keen to have to fix.

    16. Re:The winner? by tibman · · Score: 2

      I agree with you that DPRK has a loud mouth but it has resulted in deaths. Not only of it's own people but South Koreans as well. Opening dams to cause flooding, torpedoes, and artillery have killed South Koreans. Those were intentional acts. But i suppose some amount of killing has to be ignored, right? It would be silly to go to war over just a few deaths. DPRK will have to kill a lot of people before it becomes worth it. Which is unfortunate.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    17. Re:The winner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's more like a paramedic arriving to find a person bleeding out from a laceration that's severed the femoral artery. Instead of putting a tourniquet on the limb in an attempt to save the person's life - even if it means they lose the limb - the paramedic begins talk therapy with them, in an attempt to find out how they feel about the injury, in the hopes that that will somehow make the wound decide to close itself spontaneously.

      The response to Germany annexing Austria was, "let's talk about this! Can't we all just get along." Germany nodded and smiled and said, "yes, of course, that's a wonderful idea!" while continuing to build up its military in preparation to annex the Sudetenland, invade Poland, and later blitzkrieg all over the map.

      IF there had been a strong military response to Germany's actions from the beginning, it's entirely possible that they would have been deterred from their further aggressive actions. But Chamberlain tried to charm them, in the foolish belief that Hitler's Germany was fundamentally reasonable and rational - they were not, and numerous voices were warning of that at the time. Unfortunately, the rest of the world paid the price in blood for Chamberlain & the other appeasers' unwillingness to act quickly to neutralize a clear threat to the security and stability of Europe.

      I do not know but could he commit the British people to that level of death and destruction without having tried?

      Nip Germany in the bud in the late 30's, and the Blitz never demolished London, and the British people didn't spend 4 years on the brink of extinction. Dunkirk wasn't necessary, Normandy wasn't necessary, the retaliatory bombing of countless German cities wasn't necessary, and millions of Russians didn't have to die.

      Chamberlain's pursuit of peace at all costs is a direct CAUSE of the people of Europe being subjected to a level of death and destruction that could have been avoided, had the world simply acknowledge the threat and dealt with it before the Germans could build their military up to the point that conquering most of Europe was possible. There IS a time and a place for the justifiable and moral use of force: Europe in 1938 was positively screaming for it.

    18. Re:The winner? by jader3rd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NK is not Germany, though. And so far they're just shaking their fists in the air, not invading countries.

      The difference though, is that when Germany pulled the trigger, they moved in troops and occupied territory. Should North Korea pull the trigger it'll be to wipe out millions in a single minute with no intention of doing anything but damage.

    19. Re:The winner? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Appeasement didn't really have much to do with it. It was the fact that we totally fucked Germany after WWI that made a second war inevitable. That is why they were treated differently after WW2, and why the EU was created.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:The winner? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I do not know but could he commit the British people to that level of death and destruction without having tried?

      If he had stood up to Hitler earlier, the level of death and destruction would have been far less, or perhaps zero. Germany was still very weak when the appeasement started. When Hitler sent soldiers into the Rhineland, they had no ammunition. If the Allies had put up even a token resistance, they could have stopped it. But by making concession after concession, they gave Germany time to build up forces. Even after the war started in September of 1939, Britain and France took little offensive action, and war settled into a "sitzkrieg". They gave the Krauts another nine months to finish off Poland, and mass their forces on the western front.

      At the time, WWI was called "The Great War" and WWII had not yet been named. When Churchill, who had opposed appeasement, was asked what the war should be called, he answered "The Unnecessary War".

    21. Re:The winner? by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

      Pretend they don't even exist.

      That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.

      It will work if YOU are the biggest bully in the playground.

      The Principal?

    22. Re:The winner? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      South Korea is at war with North Korea. The US never declared war on North Korea. It took part in a UN-sanctioned action to defend South Korea.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    23. Re:The winner? by rohan972 · · Score: 2

      Would you seek advice on the subject of stopping/avoiding a bully from someone who has failed in all their attempts to do so?

      If they tried the exact same idea you are advocating and it failed then yes, I'd listen. If ignoring bullies might work sometimes and other times makes things worse then it's important to understand why and not implement that strategy at the wrong time.

    24. Re:The winner? by Entropius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hitler actually had the military to make good on his threats -- he wasn't all bluster. If Li'l Kim actually started a war he'd be smashed into powder by the South Koreans alone, and he knows it.

    25. Re:The winner? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the things I take the least pride in as an American is the rampant anti-intellectualism.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    26. Re:The winner? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Still so smug. Let me guess, still shaking down the other kids for their lunch money at recess?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    27. Re:The winner? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's never worked. The only thing that worked for me is hitting back. I've beat down two bullies, and they never touched me after. I was told to ignore then, and tried that for years. It never worked. I'd get my ass kicked and crying from pain would be seen as a sign of weakness. Hell, I was even sent to detention twice for fighting when I didn't fight back.

      One of the main reasons the US is failing is the lack of empathy. If someone emotionally harasses you, it's our fault for being bothered by it. I've been told that at least 100 times on Slashdot in various ways.

    28. Re:The winner? by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      He has a valid point and his theory has been postulated (and is commonly accepted) by people who are experts in the field. That whole point was the difference between Neville Chamberlain (spelling, too lazy to look it up) and Winston Churchill for instance. Your response makes me curious...

      See, the PM of the UK at the time was Neville Chamberlain and his nickname actually was "The Great Appeaser."

      I don't mean this as an insult and I was once of a similar mind. But, I'm going to guess that you have been restricted (willfully or culturally) to an Americanized history of WWII. Read (or watch) about the events of the 1930s in western and central Europe. France and England stood by and LET Hitler take what he wanted with Chamberlain signing non-aggression pacts and getting autographed night stand pictures of Hitler all because of the sour taste that WWI left in the mouths of Europeans. I'll chalk it up to American education (left over from the Cold War) and not hold it against you all that much.

      You probably also think that America won the war in Europe and that Japan surrendered because we nuked them. Hint: You can thank the Russians, probably for both. The Russians threw tens of millions of people at Hitler (defeating the Germans) and then crossed the boarder and beat the snot out of the Japanese in Manchuria around the same time we nuked 'em. The latter isn't known for certain and is still debated but there's a lot of evidence for it being as much, if not more, a catalyst than us having dropped a nuke on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

      Did America help in Europe? Absolutely and we funded and supported a great deal of it. Europe would have had a difficult time without American help, money, and equipment. The same applies in North Africa and in Italy. American Marines did the majority of work in the Pacific with the help of the locals, UK, NZ, and AUS but the Japanese were scared shitless of the Russians who threw something insane like 24,000,000 people in the European theater alone.

      My memory is a bit fuzzy and some of the numbers or names may be a bit off but I doubt I got anything too far off. However, the person's post was spot on for the most part and what they propose isn't even really subject to debate with most folks though I'm sure you could get find someone who disagreed though I'd have to see some extraordinary evidence and reasoning. If you have some other facts that the experts don't know about then I'd be interested in hearing about them. I'm not an expert nor do I have a degree in the subject, I'm just a rather passionate fan of certain areas of our history and I consider learning about those periods to be a hobby.

      To show you that I really don't mean this as an insult I went and did a quick Google for just the terms "wwii appeasement" and found this as a handy link:

      http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/appeasement.html

      I'd recommend just a few of the more recent documentaries or World at War if you can find it. The Military Channel has a bunch that are worth watching. It is a subject I really enjoy so if you have anything to support your statements I'm definitely interested in it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re:The winner? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2

      But to be fair, Kim Jong Un is a model of sanity compared to APK.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    30. Re:The winner? by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 2

      You're going to have to explain that one to us.

      Appeasement bought enough time for the UK to rapidly bolster its forces. Just enough.

    31. Re:The winner? by rastos1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Excuse me. A bully is someone who is bigger than you, stronger than you and has a group of followers on his side. You were small, weak and alone. Are you saying that NK is the bully and US is the poor kid afraid to be beaten?

      Sorry. I'm no proponent of NK, but from here it looks like that what US is doing is a provocation. Of mentally unstable, suicidal lunatic. If you want to show your force, go ahead and do it. On your half of the globe. Not in the backyard of the idiot.

    32. Re:The winner? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a good summary, Japan was all but defeated in the Pacific and on the mainland, the nukes just drove the point home. It's often been said that Hitler fought the wrong war, he opened the East front first which prompted Stalin and Churchill to align against him (even though they detested each other). The history we (everyone, not just yanks) learned at school comes from a nationalistic POV, this is why many Chinese do not like Japan, the Japanese are not taught about the atrocities in Korea, Burma, China, etc, and many Japanese see the victims ( such as surviving "comfort women") as a bunch of liars denigrating their country. The same "winners history" can seen in every public school, here in Australia it was the abhorrent treatment of aboriginals that got swept under the carpet in history classes.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    33. Re:The winner? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China wants North Korea as a buffer zone. Having a reunified Korea lead by the democratic South is not what it wants - that's why it continues to prop up the Norks, despite the latter being insane.

      China doesn't want to be an enemy. It is a competitor though, so in some sense it already feels as if it is in a shadow war with the US (and the rest of the World, in fact). Here's an article discussing the huge amount of espionage that the Chinese Government is organizing:
      http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20130328.aspx

      China knows it cannot win a kinetic war against the US and its allies. It is instead planning to set up all the pieces beforehand (eg. technology, modern arms and a knowledge of US military secrets) and have a strong regional force so that the US will hesitate to intervene in any dispute. The plan of China is already to enforce its ridiculous "9-line" claim, by force if necessary.

      However, China is concerned about the supply lines to keep its industry going. It is contributing to global peacekeeping like the Somalia anti-piracy operation (which also helps train the PLA Navy for eventual power projection in the Indian Ocean). If China stops trampling on the Exclusive Economic Zone of its neighbours then its rise will be a positive thing. At the moment it is running around roughshod over its neighbours, so it is increasingly viewed negatively by its neighbours (who used to be neutral or friendly). That is why Vietnam asks US *military forces* to visit (no doubt a surprise for any readers with their mind still stuck in the paradigms of the 1970's), of course the US is still in Japan and Korea. Then we have Burma/Myanmar peeved with the Chinese (and their crap quality weaponry) so turning toward the Russians; then we have the Philippines who kicked the US out asking to have the US back. The funny thing was that China was afraid of a US-lead anti-China alliance even though none existed. By stupidly throwing its weight around it has in-fact got it's neighbours annoyed and they are asking the US to guarantee their protection (thereby starting to create such an anti-China alliance). I know that the Chinese feel that it is "their time to take their rightful place in the World", and this is somewhat true, but they are so terribly clumsy about it they don't realise they are acting as their own worst enemy.

      Note to Chinese readers, we like you and don't want to fight you, so please chill a little. We know you don't want to be pushed around, please realise no-one else wants China to push them around either. Compete hard, but compete fair. :)

    34. Re:The winner? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't underestimate North Korea's military. They might not have the most modern equipment but there are a lot of them and they are fanatical. Even though they would eventually lose it would be a very bloody war with a lot of close fighting.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:The winner? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      France and England stood by and LET Hitler take what he wanted

      And so did the USA. We knew about the holocaust long before we got involved. Hell, the service contract for the IBM concentration camp management machines was handled straight out of Armonk, NY. Well after we knew what was going on we were still selling aluminum to Japan, and fuel and other resources straight to Germany. The Bush family fortune is based on deliberately channeling funds to Hitler's S.S. There's plenty of blame to go around.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:The winner? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Russia stopped Germany from moving too far north. The would not have beaten Germany back into it's own country. They had no interest in in that, they just wanted Germany out of their territory. Russia was also suffering from war fatigue.

      The bombs are why Japan surrendered. It's pretty damn clear. Would Japan have lost without the bombs? yes, but it would have cost millions of lives.

      The Russian fought well, and bravely. Had they not, thing would have been a lot different. Lets not over blow things.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    37. Re:The winner? by grep_rocks · · Score: 2

      Russsia by far bore the brunt of casualties during WWII, but the US was critical to winning, in 1940 the US GDP was greater than the rest of thw world _combined_, the US truely was the "arsenal of Democracy" in the sense that it could produce an endless number of tanks, fighters, bombers and ships - so long as England did not fall the US could just stack up equipment in England to use as a staging ground for the invasion of Europe - Russia was quite pissed off that the US waited so long to invade while they bore the brunt of the casualties. The US had a similar role in WWI, in that american equipment helped break the stalemate between the axis and the allies.

  2. Good luck with that by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    "North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' main land."

    Given the success of their missile program so far, I think China should be more worried than the US - and that's assuming NK is aiming at the US.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I were North Korea and I just wanted to blow up some Yankees out of spite, I'd say "forget the missile" and try to work out how to get a nuke into a standard intermodal container on a ship bound to a busy port near a population center.

      Slashdot, check me on this. As North Korea, are my nukes powerful enough to do damage to land-based civilians from a boat pulling into harbor in Oakland or New York or Los Angeles? I know detonating a nuke in the NYC harbor was among of the canonical cold-war-turns-hot scenarios.

      Captcha: "terrors". you don't say.

    2. Re:Good luck with that by mrchew1982 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Who do you think the stealth bomber runs are done to impress? CHINA!!! Sure, Kim Jong Un might know about them and use them as propaganda, and it might scare him a little that he can't see the things on radar, but my guess is that we're really trying to impress China. I'm sure that the island is right at the edge of their early warning radar coverage, and if we slip in and drop the payload without raising an alarm (with a bomber that we designed in the 70's no less...) China will sit up and take notice. The Chinese are the only ones in a position to twist Kim's arm hard enough to make him stop acting like a four-year-old, the Chinese are the ones that we are trying to scare.

    3. Re:Good luck with that by v1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they've gotta be getting to the point where even China isn't going to take their crap for much longer. They WERE trying to destabilize the region. NOW they're trying to destabilize the entire world.

      I see NK like some punk little child that goes around trying to start trouble everywhere he can, that always runs back and stands next to his big brother whenever anyone gets fed up with his harassment. This makes him bold beyond common sense, kicking and spitting on the others around him that would otherwise break his face. And Big Brother has got to be getting sick of it by now.

      And just like in the neighborhood, china's the hulk of a big brother that is the only reason any number of others in the neighborhood don't tackle the punk and give him the pounding he so badly needs and deserves.

      So really the big brother is the only one that can effectively fix the problem, by finally picking him up by the hair, shaking vigorously, and screaming "ENOUGH!"

      I just hope that china is even a fifth as annoyed with him as the rest of the world is. Seriously, even China-style communism would do that country a world of good. I'd just love to see Jinping make a trip over to Pyongyang and sit the little dictator/delusional-god in a small chair and discuss making some minor adjustments to how NK is run.

      (contrary to some suggestions in earlier comments, this is not the sort of problem you can ignore till it goes away... the more you ignore little punks like this, the bolder they get. ignore them, and it will never end, it will only continue to escalate)

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Good luck with that by icebike · · Score: 2

      One does not "pull a boat" into Oalkand or LA without the US already knowing what is on it and where it came from.
      In exchange for fast customs clearance the US clears the vast majority of containers before the ship departs from foreign ports.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Good luck with that by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends. I'm not familiar with the geography of Oakland's or New York's harbors, but a low yield nuke in the LA-Long Beach port would probably have (relatively) few immediate casualties. The port itself is huge, and the surrounding area relatively under-populated (compared to other areas of the city). The Hiroshima blast radius was only about 1 mile with little direct structural damage outside that radius. Such a blast at the LA port would still probably kill thousands, but very likely far less than Hiroshima did. They ensuing chaos (we Angelenos LOVE a good riot) would probably kill as many people as the bomb.

      My guess would be that Oakland would be even less severe, and New York would be worse.

    6. Re:Good luck with that by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They marked you funny but frankly its true, for those that didn't read about it we recovered their first stage from the ocean after their "sat" launch and found...its an uprated Scud missile. For those that I'm sure will say "So what?" you might want to look up "Stalin's Organs" which was the rocket artillery the Soviets used in WWII, the Scud was just a slightly more modern take on that. Imagine taking a Vietnam era Hellfire rocket and saying "We'll just build a really really REALLY big one of these and fly to the moon!"...yeah, not really made for that chief, gonna blow up in your face more often than not. This is why we have a hard time to this day saying how effective the Patriot battery was against the Scud because Saddam did the same trick and ended up with a rocket so fragile and explosion prone that they often ended up in pieces whether we shot anything at it or not, neither the fuel nor the engines were ever made to do any kind of range, it was just a cheaper weapon to make than the traditional artillery cannon which is why the Soviets favored them.

      Finally remember that the Soviets weren't no dummies,unlike the USA in the 80s that would hand out its best tech to anybody that would say "we hate commies" the Soviets were smart enough to keep lower quality designs for export, designs its military derided as "monkey models" for the M placed at the end of the model, T72-M for example. So not only are they trying to build an ICBM out of something built for at best short range inaccurate barrages, but on top of that they are doing it with grossly inferior models to start with as the Soviets kept the best gear for the Warsaw Pact and everybody else got M models.

      Sooo...yeah, maybe if they just drove the bomb over the giant leaking sieve of a border that nobody will fix because its a political hot potato? Then they might do something but with their "ICBM" tech I'd be more worried about the thing getting a couple hundred feet and turning into a fireball, possibly setting off the nuke (after all we have NO clue how safe their weapons are designed) and even if it doesn't spreading radiation all over Korea and possibly China. I have a feeling this is just some more bullshit posturing because their last aid packages have run out and they hope if they rattle the saber followed by the tin cup they'll get a little extra scratch. Personally I'm shocked China has put up with them for this long, maybe when the last of the old guard are dead they'll pull the plug and that will be that.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:Good luck with that by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

      They don't want to be reliant on China for security, they want Mutually Assured Destruction.

      Pretty sure they are just going to have to settle for AD.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:Good luck with that by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Everybody makes export models of weapon systems. You sound like you think it was Soviet only.

      Israel gets the cutting edge stuff. Everybody else? De-rated engines and simplified avionics.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Good luck with that by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One does not "pull a boat" into Oalkand or LA without the US already knowing what is on it and where it came from.
      In exchange for fast customs clearance the US clears the vast majority of containers before the ship departs from foreign ports.

      Hahaha...only 8-10% of containers are inspected before departing foreign ports, and roughly the same when they're coming into port in North America, there's just too much of it to search and look it up. The majority of shipping relies on documentation and belief that the shipper is "following the regs and laws."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remind me, how is the "War on Drugs" going? Still having issues with that whole importing tons of cocaine every single year thing? And you think they can't slip a cargo-container with a nuke inside past the Coast Guard? They don't even have to get it through customs. Just set it off in the Port of LA - instant panic.

    11. Re:Good luck with that by tftp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a book where a supervillain delivers nukes into the US mainland inside of new cars. The A/C unit of the car is replaced with a nuke; then ships are filled with those cars and sent to US ports. The cars are perfectly functional, except that the A/C is not working - but who is going to test that? Not the dealerships; they are owned by the said supervillain.

      There is a lot of large machinery that can contain a nuke, or parts of a nuke. You cannot even take that machinery apart. Consider a large electric motor, for example... that is 10' or 20' in diameter. How would customs agents even power it up? it is absolutely impossible. But that mountain of metal can have plenty of space inside to hold contraband. The shipper does not even need to damage the product. If the container is inspected, the agents see what they expect to see - a bulldozer, for example. How would they know that 90% of its fuel tank is already taken by a contraband? How would anyone know what is hermetically welded inside the steel chassis of that machine? You cannot X-ray it; you have to destroy the product - and the agents will do that only if they have specific information.

    12. Re:Good luck with that by tftp · · Score: 2

      The same bombs detonated near ground level, whether on a ship in the harbor or in a sea container stacked in a yard on land, would have somewhat lower blast radius, I think.

      The instant damage would be limited, especially considering how wide everything is spread in the USA. Sometimes you need to drive a car between stores of the same mall.

      However a ground explosion will be very dirty. The resulting contamination will sicken millions. This, in terms of civil defense, is worse than outright casualties. Dead do not need anything except revenge. Wounded require resources to treat them and care for them. Mass paranoia (not that it will be entirely unfounded) will take care of the rest - the country will be entirely out of its mind. Add a financial catastrophe to the mix, and this single - and, technically, irrelevant - attack can become a catalyst of country-wide anarchy.

    13. Re:Good luck with that by v1 · · Score: 2

      Not entirely. What I most expect to happen is that at some point NK is going to pull a stunt similar to the six day war, where they invade SK and get a VERY short distance before being stopped, at which point they pull a "look over their shoulder, call for 'big brother' to come help", at which point they see big brother turning and walking away, not wanting to go to war over NK's being more insane than usual today.

      Then it will get ugly. I doubt nuclear, but ugly. Because at that point they will basically have given the world the excuse they need to go beat the snot out of the local pricktator, at least to a point. They'll have a better excuse than usual, plus no big brother to worry about, for the moment. At some point China will walk back into the room and say "ok, that's enough. c'mon little man, time to go home", grab by the collar and drag him away, either kicking and screaming, or balling his head off. Just like it works in real life.

      If NK decides to pull a true crazy iven and nuke SK or the UN forces pushing him back, I think China will totally abandon NK. Then we may be looking at an Iraq of sorts. Though I don't think China would tolerate a new democracy next door, they would certainly get heavily involved in replacing the government with something more communist. But really, anything is better than what they have now. And with sanctions lifted, the NK people would have a chance to climb out of the 3rd world and get back into the game with the rest of the planet, regardless of the form of government that arose.

      Right now the people of NK are so brainwashed that I doubt they want to be a part of the rest of the world, which is really sad. It'd take a few generations to make good progress on fixing that. It'd be nice to see it move faster if they could get into communications with the rest of the world via internet and free travel. Make them understand that everyone on the planet isn't foaming at the mouth to invade them and rape/kill everyone in the country. Until that's fixed, it's going to be hard to get any stable, sane government running over there.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    14. Re:Good luck with that by T-Bone-T · · Score: 2

      It would really help your credibility if you got your facts straight. Russia did help them build a power plant. That's as far as I needed to go after seeing your incredibly apologistic attitude towards NK.

    15. Re:Good luck with that by jader3rd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pretty sure they are just going to have to settle for AD.

      If they want ActiveDirectory that bad, let's give it to them.

    16. Re:Good luck with that by tftp · · Score: 4, Informative

      They test every ship with a geiger counter. The containers with the nuke would be found very quickly.

      Uranium-based nukes are not sufficiently radioactive for that. The metal itself is a weak alpha emitter. That alone can be blocked with a mere sheet of paper. But the bomb is enclosed in a metal casing that absorbs pretty much everything. Given the size of the bomb and the size of the available volume for concealment, you could even shield a gamma emitter with enough lead, and nobody would know.

      To further complicate your inspection job, container ships are loaded so much that you cannot even access containers inside the stack until the ship is at the pier and cranes are working on it, layer by layer. By then it's kind of too late. You could try inspections at the port of origin, but that is hard - you have no rights there, on the foreign soil, and the locals are in charge. You can approve one container, but a completely different one gets loaded.

    17. Re:Good luck with that by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      There must be a pretty good chance that USSR and perhaps also China have smuggled nukes into the USA

      Both the US and USSR developed "suitcase nukes" for just that purpose.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:Good luck with that by cusco · · Score: 3, Informative

      Put it in the middle of a container of LCD screens, they're made with leaded glass. Bury it in a shipment of cat litter, which is already radioactive. For that matter, just wrap the thing in a foot of solid lead.

      When did they start scanning ships before docking? The last I heard they were still trying to get the machines that scan the individual containers to work correctly, without a lot of success.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    19. Re:Good luck with that by cusco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Attach the trigger to a simple magnetic door contact, and the thing goes off when the container is opened. An IR motion detector will pick up any movement in the container if they manage to bypass the DC. A normally-open switch under the device will trigger if the device is removed from the container. Including the cost of the battery you've spent under $100. Even North Korea can afford that.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    20. Re:Good luck with that by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (with a bomber that we designed in the 70's no less...)

      Actually, the B-52 entered service in 1955. In fact, I remember watching B-52 raids back in '72, when we were in Tonkin Gulf, and steaming through the clouds of sand, dust and grit that they created. FYI, there's only one thing I've ever heard in my life that sounds the same as a flight of Stratofortresses cutting loose: an earthquake.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    21. Re:Good luck with that by MrEdofCourse · · Score: 3, Informative

      North Korea has 70 submarines (the US has 71):
      http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea

      I'm wondering if we're tracking all of them, or even able to track them. Sure, they're probably old and what not, but if we're not tracking them, one could be sent into a port... unless we have some kind of submarine fence/detection system?

      Still, an undetected sub could leave North Korea with a nuke and then hijack a cargo ship from a US friendly country, transferring the nuke to the ship.

    22. Re:Good luck with that by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they want ActiveDirectory that bad, let's give it to them.

      Well I rally meant Assured Dest....

      Oh wait, I see we're on the same page here.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    23. Re:Good luck with that by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      ... the headquarters of Starbucks would be flattened.

      Yet you say this as if it were a bad thing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    24. Re:Good luck with that by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The US inspects less than 1% of ship cargo, and has no idea what's coming in. The US scans manifests, but unless you list it as "secret nuclear weapon", "farm machinery" will get it into port.

    25. Re:Good luck with that by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, they don't test every ship with a geiger counter, and even if they did, a well shielded nuclear bomb (the regular kind) will not show unless the container containing it is opened.

    26. Re:Good luck with that by icebike · · Score: 2

      They inspect it where its packed so they don't have to inspect it here.
      At the Sony plant, in the dock yards in Korea, Japan, and China. Go down to to the harbor with your binoculars.
      Virtually every container will have a customs band on the door.
      You don't see them inspecting because it was done dockside overseas.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. And so it BEGINS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    please deport the cute NK chicks b4 any war, kthxbye

  4. I agree on single Nuclear Strike- on Jersey Shore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Glorious Leader, I agree on a Single Nuclear Strike on US soil and only single strike, if it targets Jersey Shore.
    Thank you.

  5. Perfect Analogy by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    North Korea is like the baby chihuahua barking at you from across the street, behind a 6 ft chain link fence, and tied to a tree. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Perfect Analogy by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a terrible analogy. North Korea could pretty easily launch a nuclear weapon right into downtown Seoul and kill half a million people while launching a war that will kill a million more.

      They're not a threat to the US mainland, no. But they're a huge threat to South Korea.

    2. Re:Perfect Analogy by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      None of their recent threats have been at South Korea

      Other than the part where they talk about turning SK into a "sea of fire" and about "raining bullets on them" etc. Have you not been paying attention?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  6. Re:I know B-2 are cool toys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That will only if everyone omits verbs.

  7. Re:Hopefully it's still there.. by russotto · · Score: 2

    Even if NK used one of the Nukes, there is no way the US would respond in kind. We know which way the wind blows, and it would not be necessary.

    Perhaps not; neither China, Japan, nor South Korea would appreciate the fallout. But turning every military base in NK into a firestorm with conventional weapons and sending conventional bunker-busters into every possible hiding place for NKs leadership wouldn't be out of the question.

  8. WW2 by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You also have to consider a big difference between WW1 and WW2: fear of communism. While almost everyone in France was in a patriotic frenzy before WW1, there were a lot of people that did not want to fight Germany for WW2 because fascism was seen as a good protection against communism.

    Germany, Italy, Spain had fascists regimes. France spared a fascist coup in 1934 just because different fascists leaders could not agree with each others. Some where hoping that a war defeat would bring to France what a coup missed to achieve.

    1. Re:WW2 by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Prior to WW2 there was little enough fear of Communism in France and the UK. There had been concern in Britain after the collapse of Czarist Russia but that was at the tail end of WWI.

      Germany wasn't allowed to rearm out of some fear of the Reds, but because there was a general desire not to place the Allied Powers, greatly preoccupied with domestic problems, on a collision course with Germany. Russia, eating itself alive on Stalinist purges, barely factored into anyone's equations.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:WW2 by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not quite correct. While there was no direct collision course, Stalin's politics actually put USSR firmly on everyone's map as a rising giant. It's very difficult to deny that Stalin's policies weren't the main drive behind the massive rise of USSR from post-civil war ruined country to an industrial and agrarian powerhouse over just a few years. The main reason why it wasn't as scary as it was after the war was that fascist Germany was rising from similar situation even faster.

      For example, did you know that at the same time as "USSR's bread basket" Ukraine suffered from holodomor, the hunger that killed millions, USSR was exporting millions of tons of grain? Stalin judged that dead ukrainians were worth the fund injection he used to build up the industrial base of USSR.

    3. Re:WW2 by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      You don't know what you are talking about.

      Sure.

      People in France didn't want to fight Germany in WW2 because they didn't want to repeat the nightmare of WW1. It had little to do with "ism"s.

      This feeling existed, but it does not explain everything. Germany was a rising military powerhouse, and Hitler plans for France were clearly explained in My Kampf, leaving no doubt to its intentions. French right wing governments refused to increase defense budgets. You have to wait 1936 when the left wing Front Populaire wins elections to see some military preparation against a possible war with Germany. And even a that time, many people in the industry and the army did not want to prepare for a fight against a fascist Germany that was a hope for them : it could help getting rid of the Front Populaire.

  9. A farce by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    KJ Un has no exit. NK old apparatus (tied with China) certainly doesn't want the country to join the "West" (and having most of the commanders to pay for their crimes), and China certainly doesn't want NK to merge with SK (ie having an immediate neighbor that joins the "West" club). KJ Un studied in Europe, he is far from being stupid, he likes life, good food, women ... in other words he is definitely not as crazy as his late father, KJ Il.
    So what do you think? You really think KJ Un wants a war? Or keep living with that level of UN penalties, poverty, ...? Un wants to end that. And he doesn't have much choice considering the political+geographical situation. He pushes the apparatus to their limits, high pressure, and hopes this will lead to an opening. Either the internal apparatus breaks down, Un seize the opportunity to instill a Gorbachev like coup. Or a (arranged) war will actually take place - just to allow the US and SK to take over (NK army (ie generals) will give up quickly).

    --
    And of course Eric Schmidt was in NK to talk about the Internet...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:A farce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      or like what happened last time nk kicks the shit out of sk and us and we lose again.

      But on the bright side, we might get a sequel to M.A.S.H.!

    2. Re:A farce by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      KJ Un studied in Europe, he is far from being stupid, he likes life, good food, women ... in other words he is definitely not as crazy as his late father...

      If he's that smart and sane, why doesn't he take a look at some of the saner monarchies out there? Like a lot of countries that have communist revolutions, it's essentially a dynasty at this point. He should move towards the British, Jordanian, or Saudi model. Much saner. Wow, you start talking about DPRK and Saudi looks sane and smart by comparison! He even makes the Castro dynasty in Cuba look good.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  10. agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who dislike confrontation tend to prefer methods of confrontation-mitigation that are themselves non-confrontational. Sometimes, this works....for example if you never provoke a confrontational person they often don't notice you and hence an unpleasant situation is avoided.

    Obviously, the strategy stops working the moment you are noticed anyway. But people who have a distaste for confrontation convince themselves that they can end the situation by continuing to refuse to participate. Of course, in the real-world, this does not work, never can work, and never will work. Once a predator (of any species) has its eyes on you no amount of ignoring it will ever get it off your case. After that moment, your only option is to fight back (or at least credibly demonstrate that you are ready, willing, and able to do so).

    The need to kill other people is unpleasant, and we are right to try and avoid it. But the cold-hard fact is that sometimes, those other people make that violence unavoidable. You and the innocent you protect will be a lot better off if you nip the problem in the bud, and that requires direct confrontation.

  11. Well that's stupid. by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they're stealth bombers, how will the North Koreans notice to get scared?

    1. Re:Well that's stupid. by Ioldanach · · Score: 2

      And did we really actually send them? Wouldn't it be enough to simply *say* we sent them? In fact, it might be even better that way, because then they'd be mucking about with their radar for weeks trying to figure out how to detect something that wasn't even there!

    2. Re:Well that's stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Matt Damon

    3. Re:Well that's stupid. by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      If they're stealth bombers, how will the North Koreans notice to get scared?

      If Hollywood has taught me anything; one thing I know is that stealth bombers can turn the stealth on and off (entering stealth mode). If true, the US can fly the bomber to a point where they know NK will be watching, have the bomber disappear and then reappear in a different spot. Kind of like a firefly on the radar.

    4. Re:Well that's stupid. by WGFCrafty · · Score: 2

      If they're stealth bombers, how will the North Koreans notice to get scared?

      Because we have no reason to lie, other than to save gas, and they know it.

  12. North Korea's war preperations... by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Funny
    In recent weeks, North Korea has invalidated its 1953 armistice and threatened a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S. Here are some other signs that the country is preparing for war:

    Creating military formations that put soldiers with boots in front

    Shutting off nation’s 14 lights at night so country is much more difficult to see

    North Korean malls playing instrumental version of “(I’ve Had) The Time Of My Life” overdubbed with anti-U.S. lyrics

    Strapping landmines to every North Korean citizen

    Propaganda team Photoshopping an image of a muscular, shirtless Kim Jong-un putting the Statue of Liberty in a headlock

    Mandating all citizens maintain a “victory dirt patch”

    Reprinting every obituary published in American newspapers and adding at the end of each one, “We did this!”

    Releasing several reports by the state news agency about how uneventful a day April 8 is going to be

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/north-koreas-war-preparations,31794/

  13. Marry Little Minuet by canadiannomad · · Score: 2

    They’re rioting in Africa
    They’re starving in Spain
    There’re hurricanes in Florida
    And Texas needs rain.

    The whole world is festering with unhappy souls,
    The French hate the Germans,
    The Germans hate the Poles,
    Italians hate Yugoslavs,
    South Africans hate the Dutch,
    (And I don’t like anybody very much!)

    But we can be thankful, and tranquil, and proud
    For Man’s been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud,
    And we know for certain that one lovely day,
    Someone will set the spark off
    And we will all be blown away.

    They’re rioting in Africa,
    There’s strife in Iran.
    What Nature doesn’t do to us
    Will be done by our fellow man.

    -- Sheldon Harnick 1953

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  14. OT of course, but not the answer either by Anubis350 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    F. U.

    Tell it to the little kid that was me 35 years ago. Smartest kid in the class and chubby. It started in first grade when I whizzed through vocab. Scaled up to ostracism, getting chased, being beaten. Got jumped by guys with knives but luckily ran away.

    The only thing that got people's attention was studying karate and breaking a big 6th grader's nose. Aside from that a glacier rock was my best friend at lunch hour. Sure I had some friends, other geeks. But it only really stopped after I got out of the public school system and commuted an hour away to a preppy private high school.

    If you want to know why America sucks at least one reason is because of the utter wasteland of stupidity that is the public school and community of people going to it for 90% of the people, and the system refusing to beat down bullies while they're young. Law of the jungle? Gandhi? Fuck that. I still have trauma from when I was that little kid. Maybe you just didn't get bullied enough. Tell it to kids (not me thankfully) who have gotten rolled up in gym mats, suffocated and died.

    I bet a huge proportion of slashdotters have been bullied like me. Fixing (neutering) bullies and rewarding fair play would do a lot towards fixing (neutering) our military-industrial complex and maybe even our money politics.

    Like most things it's not that simple. At 13 I would've agreed with your final conclusion. Then I grew up and learned the world is more complicated than that. I've also worked with and taught HS kids, where I learned things get even more complicated when you know even more of the backstory. Bullying often stems from problems, many of them at home. Abusive parents, neglectful parents, absent parents, actual mental issues, economic problems, familial stress, physical injuries, drug and alcohol issues and many more things all can play a part.

    Bullies are often not evil kids, and a countrywide reaction to bullies Hammurabi style would do an enormous amount of damage too, as would simply overlooking competence, however fair it seems. Yes, there are some kids who would stop bullying if they get punched in the nose but there are many more who stop bullying *you* and move on to a easier target, and that's obviously not an answer from a societal view of things, since not all those bullied can punch the bully in the nose. The best approach is not a blanket one, but one that would take bullies and send them social workers to figure out what the hell is going on to begin with.

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    1. Re:OT of course, but not the answer either by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Many of these kids may not have had an actual choice.

      Either we believe in free will, or we don't.

      The situation is more complex than "these kids" anyway. In cases where bullying is permitted to continue or even become pervasive, the administration is always to blame; preventing it is their responsibility, and they often in fact give tacit approval.

      If you think bullying is evil, you have had a very soft life. Bullying is wrong, and its a behavioral problem. It isn't evil.

      It's not a great big evil compared to many other things, but bullying is junior terrorism. I lived in fear from sixth grade through sophomore high school. If I'd have had ready access to a firearm I'd probably have used it, somehow. Probably not on myself. Evil begets evil. I was so full of hate, to go with my fear.

      Think.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. About those Russians by arcite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That the Russians has a near unlimited supply of poor untrained peasants to fling at the enemy on mass does not say much for their strategy. If Germany had not made the bone headed move to invade Russia at the onset of one of the coldest winters in decades, the war would have turned out much differently. You also forget the AIR POWER that the Americans brought to bear on Germany's manufacturing cities and supply lines. Without manufacturing, the German war machine collapsed. It was American technological might that saved the world in WWII, not Russian brawn, which only resulted in millions more needless casualties on all sides.

    1. Re:About those Russians by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That the Russians has a near unlimited supply of poor untrained peasants to fling at the enemy on mass does not say much for their strategy. If Germany had not made the bone headed move to invade Russia at the onset of one of the coldest winters in decades, the war would have turned out much differently. You also forget the AIR POWER that the Americans brought to bear on Germany's manufacturing cities and supply lines. Without manufacturing, the German war machine collapsed. It was American technological might that saved the world in WWII, not Russian brawn, which only resulted in millions more needless casualties on all sides.

      It was a combination. We can theorize left and right about what might have happened without any one of the great powers, or with slightly different deployments of resources. Britain might have been forced into a separate peace due to an inadequate food supply, for example; Russia might have lost soldiers more quickly than it could produce them without advancing sufficiently if the Americans hadn't bombed the hell out of Europe; America might have turned nuclear against Germany in 1946 if Hitler had never been stupid enough to attack Russia; America might never have declared war on Germany if Japan had attacked a year later and Britain had made a separate peace; The Russians might have failed in their advances if they hadn't tied factory production directly to the food supply for incentive purposes.

      There is so much anti-american sentiment these days that theories diminishing the importance of any American commitment are inherently suspect, IMHO. On the other hand, there is nationalistic propaganda that is often wrong, on all sides.

    2. Re:About those Russians by Flamerule · · Score: 2
      Depressing seeing this modded up to 5.

      You also forget the AIR POWER that the Americans brought to bear on Germany's manufacturing cities and supply lines. Without manufacturing, the German war machine collapsed.

      Completely inaccurate. The British began large-scale bombing of Germany in early 1942, while the US began bombing in mid-1942. Combined raids started in mid-1943.

      What did German military production do during that time period? This chart (.pdf, page 32) shows production rising almost continuously from 1941 until it peaked in July 1944. Other sources show various production components also peaking in 1944, e.g. tanks. (This massive increase in production is typically credited to Albert Speer, who was appointed as Armaments Minister in early 1942, although the linked paper disputes that.)

      In the meantime, on the Eastern Front, the Soviets won the Battle of Stalingrad in February, 1943, after which they relentlessly pushed the Germans back across Russia and Eastern Europe.

      In fact, strategic bombing had a minimal impact on German production, and Germany's military reversals certainly weren't due to inadequate materiel.

    3. Re:About those Russians by redlemming · · Score: 2

      In fact, strategic bombing had a minimal impact on German production...

      There is a bit of a slippery argument. Germany, unlike Britain, operated for quite a long time with its economy on a peacetime basis, not optimized for war. This meant that once they started getting serious about wartime production, the production levels invariably went up, in spite of the slowly increasing effectiveness of the strategic bombing. It is likely that in the absence of strategic bombing the production numbers would have been even higher.

      There was one critical aspect of the strategic bombing that did (eventually) work quite well, and that was the bombing of the German synthetic oil factories. The Germans never did run out equipment, but they did run out fuel for their tanks and aircraft.

      During the course of the war, about 1 million Germans ended up working in the air defense system. The air defenses used enormous numbers of planes, pilots, guns, ammunition, and fuel. See Robin Neilland's book "The Bomber War" for more details. These numbers show that Allied Air Power played a very important role: consider, for example, what might have happened on the Eastern Front had all these resources been available for use there...

  16. FOrgetting one thing by arcite · · Score: 2

    The Germans were using a new tactic never before seen in modern war, the Blitzkrieg. It took a good long time for the French, English, and others to figure out a way to counter this.

  17. Re:I think they are just... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    Isn't listing both Dennis Rodman and Goofy redundant?

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. hiroshima... by schlachter · · Score: 2

    I've been to the Nuke museum in Hiroshima, Japan. They have USA DoD declassified documents from the time of WWII which discuss the decision to drop nukes on Japan. The US DoD state that Japan was on the verge of surrender to Russia, who was negotiating a conditional surrender at the time of the bombing. In the end, the nukes were dropped to force an unconditional surrender and to short circuit a Russian backed peace agreement. The American DoD documents from the highest officials are clear about this, despite the protest of many people in the gov at the time.

    As an American that was an eye opener. We were always taught that it was done to save the lives of millions of Americans who would have died in a ground invasion of Japan. There was no mention of Japan being on the verge of surrendering to Russia at the time of the bombing.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  19. Re:The winner? Wrong much? by Viewsonic · · Score: 2

    You post is incredibly inaccurate and shows you have a basic grasp of World War 2 history. The Soviet Union was only able to survive because of the other fronts Hitler had lost to the Allies. He had to refocus his defenses and this allowed the Soviet Union enough breathing room to regroup and counter. Also, the success of the Soviet Union in WW2 was mostly because of logistics. Their trains, trucks, and fuel all came from the United States and the UK. Without any of that, they would have lost. They had NO WAY to moving any equipment around their country at the time of Hitlers invasion. Also, you are so wrong about the Pacific front that it is not worth responding to you about.

    In short, go read a history book.