North Korean Internet Is Down

First time accepted submitter opentunings writes "Engadget and many others are reporting that North Korea's external Internet access is down. No information yet regrading whether anyone's taking responsibility. From the NYT: "Doug Madory, the director of Internet analysis at Dyn Research, an Internet performance management company, said that North Korean Internet access first became unstable late Friday. The situation worsened over the weekend, and by Monday, North Korea’s Internet was completely offline. 'Their networks are under duress,' Mr. Madory said. 'This is consistent with a DDoS attack on their routers,' he said, referring to a distributed denial of service attack, in which attackers flood a network with traffic until it collapses under the load."

Comments

Who will get

[Sir_Eptishous]

The blame?

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

Since their internet goes through China the nice folks running the PRC are probably a bit unhappy. There will be fallout.

Re:Who will get

[kruach aum]

Fallout 2 or Fallout 3? This will make a very big difference in who will get angry.

Re:Who will get

[Sir_Eptishous]

Perhaps it is the PRC giving Jong Uno a little spanking...

Re:Who will get

[slashmydots]

The blame?

Well obviously it's all that torrent traffic from North Koreans downloading bootleg copies of The Interview.
(by the way, I think South Korea did it)

Re:Who will get

[slashmydots]

I didn't catch any stories like that. Why is China mad at them this time?

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony is worth more than NK though, so not really.

Re:Who will get

[xaoslaad]

You act as if the common North Korean citizen has internet access.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony is bigger than many countries.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

North Korea did it. Aren't they blamed for everything? They typo'd their own botnet, and accidentally DDoS'd their CnC, rather than their Sony target.

Re:Who will get

[Matheus]

IF they are the perpetrators of the hack (seeing as they're claiming they were framed) and IF the U.S. is responsible for this attack (I seem to recall Anonymous threatening to do just such a thing just yesterday, right?) then the level of retribution is not to balance out the corporate hack but rather the threats made toward civilian targets if the movie were to be released.

The hammer of US reaction to any threats of terrorism predictably treats everything as a nail.

That being said I'm pretty at least one of my parentheticals is right... you can guess which one.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

Do not cross Caesar.

Re:Who will get

[rogoshen1]

New Vegas, plainly.

Re:Who will get

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The blame?

The guy who tripped over the modem's power cord? There can't be that much blame to go around when a network that size drops dead.

Re:Who will get

[Noah Haders]

This is a good point. Us is more likely to send a predator than anything

Re:Who will get

[OakDragon]

Or the credit?

Re:Who will get

[Guspaz]

No, they're not. Sony's annual revenue is $64.7 billion USD. North Korea's GDP is $12.4 billion USD. Sony's market capitalization is also larger than North Korea's entire economy. The drop in Sony's stock value after the hack was roughly a quarter of North Korea's GDP, although the stock has since recovered somewhat.

Sony is far larger than North Korea, economically.

Re:Who will get

[reve_etrange]

The US asked China to interfere with NK's ability to conduct cyber attacks. Maybe they agreed.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't catch any stories like that. Why is China mad at them this time?

You've got it backwards. China has stated that they think the US Government's claim that NK was behind the Sony hack is bogus and lacking in facts. Since NK's internet routes through China, then the implied source (the US Government, probably the NSA) is going through Chinese servers to whack NK's internet, which will piss them off. Personally I doubt it's the US, I bet it's some hacker group like an Anonymous faction, but everyone will think it's the US.

China hates North Korea as much as everyone else. They support them because they're a convenient tool for Chinese diplomacy with the US; every so often the DPRK goes nuts and threatens to blow up South Korea, and the US gets all riled up because we've never officially stopped being at war with them (just a 60 year cease fire). Then China gets to step in and provide the peaceful solution and portrays Washington as a bunch of warmongering fools bullying smaller nations. This is just another iteration of the same tired old game going on the Northeast Pacific.

Re:Who will get

[Roger W Moore]

The U.S. by the look of things. I think it'd be a bit heavy-handed to call it a proportional response though as Sony is a lot smaller than a country.

Physically perhaps but in terms of internet presence I would doubt it. As a non-American I'd think this was an entirely appropriate response if it were the US. It has the beauty of being non-violent, extremely humiliating and very effective at preventing them from engaging in further cyberattacks. This should send such a clear message that hopefully even their insane government can understand it. Indeed if anything it seems so well thought out and proportionate that it seems unlikely to be the US government given their previous record.

Re:Who will get

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I wouldn't say that it is "a lot smaller than a country"

At time of writing:
$40B - North Korean GDP 2014
$7,770B - Sony Gross Sales/Revenue 2014
$2,280B - Sony Gross Income 2014

By dollars, Sony is roughly 200 times the size of North Korea.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

Although it will certainly be blamed on the US, the truth is that NPRK's internet "infrastructure" is so laughably pitiful that any relatively organized attacker could bring it down with a sustained effort. Let's be clear: when the US decides to respond to Pyongyang's latest provocations, it won't be with a fucking denial of service attack against a provider that 0.001% of the population utilizes.

Re:Who will get

[armanox]

The US won't defend Americans in the USA (how many unarmed black men were killed by cops this year? How many black men were lynched this year?), but will happily start a war to defend the Right of Japan to make profit in the USA.

Actually, the police kill more white people then black people.

Re:Who will get

[halivar]

You make many presumptions:
1) That we did it
2) That, having done it, we did it for Japan
3) That, having done it for Japan, it constitutes war.

Re:Who will get

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Sorry, figure corrections (I got my info from http://www.marketwatch.com/inv..., which lists figures in yen):

$4,799B - North Korean GDP 2014
$7,770B - Sony Gross Sales/Revenue 2014
$2,280B - Sony Gross Income 2014

Sony is only really worth 1.6 North Koreas.

Re:Who will get

[schlachter]

Companies should be free to hire cyber mercenaries to decimate their attackers. Maybe that's what's going on here? Or maybe they're getting a little US Mil support.

Re:Who will get

[DoofusOfDeath]

The blame?

I imagine Bush.

Re:Who will get

[medv4380]

US Theaters pulled the plug, not Sony. I also believe there's some weird defense Alliance from some War Japan was in requiring us to do something if they're attacked. I'm all for Japan arming themselves to the teeth as long as we realize it will send South Korea, and China into a panic.

Re:Who will get

[StikyPad]

Not to mention a computer to access it with, or electricity to power the computer.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck modded this up?

You think North Korea can only launch online attacks from North Korea?

Re:Who will get

[mythosaz]

decimate their attackers.

And what about the other 90%?

Re:Who will get

[HiThere]

Not that I don't think the US govt. is abusive enough to do this on no evidence, but why not suspect Sony? They're also abusive enough, and have shown willingness to attack innocent parties without even pertended evidence. (Not that N.Korea is innocent of much, but I've heard of no convincing evidence that they are actually behind this.)

OTOH, it could be a third (unmentioned) group playing "Lets you and him fight.".

Re:Who will get

[slashmydots]

Oh, gotcha. I don't think it's a hacker group. They're all busy attacking Sony for being stupid. The only logical entity behind knocking out North Korea's internet is Seth Rogan himself :-P

Re:Who will get

[g0bshiTe]

Why are you perfectly fine with the number of black on black murders, why do you single out black men killed by cops and lynchings?

Surely more blacks are killed by other blacks than both groups mentioned combined but let's not let facts get in the way of your racist dogma.

Re:Who will get

[nashv]

What part of "annual revenue" did you not understand?

Re:Who will get

[Sir_Eptishous]

Why, they don't want their new album to be streamed to the PRK?

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

The blame?

Nobody. They always turn off the internet and electricity at 6pm every day.

Re:Who will get

[RatPh!nk]

The blame?

Clearly they have upset the G.O.P.

Re:Who will get

[flyingsquid]

and very effective at preventing them from engaging in further cyberattacks.

Probably not so much. It's long been suspected that much of North Korea's cyberwarfare activity is actually based out of China, which is why the U.S. asked China for help shutting them down. I'm going to guess that this is because it's hard to get sufficient bandwidth to operate a cyberwarfare division in North Korea, and because North Korea's limited connectivity makes it too easy to shut down and isolate a team based in North Korea in precisely the scenario we are seeing here.

And North Korea can't be doing this without China's cooperation. China has one of the world's most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, up there with other cyber-superpowers like U.S., Russia, and Israel, and they closely monitor their internet. If North Korean agents are using China as a staging ground to attack South Korea and the United States, China knows about it and is turning a blind eye.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there are parties who would love to have it look like the US did it, but lets be real here. An attack coming from Elbonia is more likely to be done by a botnet with the real owner in some other country than actually coming from there.

Knowing the geopolitics, it could be the DPRK DDoSing themselves just to say that the evil US did it. China could also do it, as North Korea's sole reason it exists is because it distracts the West from their antics. It could even be another country friendly to the US who wants a better negotiation position.

Realistically, we never know, and claiming blame right now is a fool's errand.

Re:Who will get

[gtall]

I doubt the Japanese government would let a Japanese company do anything to N. Korea. As far as I can tell, the Japanese government is still hiding behind the skirts of the U.S. The PM would like to have more muscular military, but even if they had one, they will be wary of doing anything the Chinese could take objection to unless it is defending their islets in the S. China Sea.

Re:Who will get

[gtall]

More like they did it to themselves so they can use the world press to claim the big bad U.S. is picking on little ol' N. Korea and its sawed off runt of a leader.

Re:Who will get

[HornWumpus]

They are the ones beating the other 10% to death. Duh.

Re: Who will get

[HornWumpus]

Fuzzy foreigners are confused regarding . vs ,

Re:Who will get

[dj245]

I didn't catch any stories like that. Why is China mad at them this time?

You've got it backwards. China has stated that they think the US Government's claim that NK was behind the Sony hack is bogus and lacking in facts. Since NK's internet routes through China, then the implied source (the US Government, probably the NSA) is going through Chinese servers to whack NK's internet, which will piss them off. Personally I doubt it's the US, I bet it's some hacker group like an Anonymous faction, but everyone will think it's the US.

China hates North Korea as much as everyone else. They support them because they're a convenient tool for Chinese diplomacy with the US; every so often the DPRK goes nuts and threatens to blow up South Korea, and the US gets all riled up because we've never officially stopped being at war with them (just a 60 year cease fire). Then China gets to step in and provide the peaceful solution and portrays Washington as a bunch of warmongering fools bullying smaller nations. This is just another iteration of the same tired old game going on the Northeast Pacific.

It kind of begs the question about what the US is still doing in South Korea anyhow. South Korea is a rich country. They can afford their own defense, but its convenient for them for Uncle Sam to pick up the tab. I have stood on the North side of the DMZ and it is clear that the US is just a thorn in the situation making everybody tense. There is no doubt that the South Koreans can adequately defend themselves against any potential "invasion" from the North. There is no reason for the US to be there. The constant presence of US marines on the DMZ make the North Koreans nervous that the South will invade them.

The DPRK certainly does overreact to different situations, but we need to take a little responsibility for not trying to de-escalate the general tone on the border. Up in the DPRK officer's lounge on the North side, there is a smoking lounge with leather couches for the guards to chill out, possibly smoke some weed (which is legal in the DPRK countryside), and look down on the DMZ. Most of the guards on the North side looked bored and didn't care particularly what you did. In contrast, the guards on the South side look like they will kill you for looking in the wrong direction.

Re:Who will get

[mythosaz]

Get off my lawn.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's too cynical. It would make sense except for the fact that North Korea isn't just an annoyance, it's a huge liability. Most importantly, 1) North Korean immigrants (legal and illegal) cause tons of trouble near the border (crime, corruption, etc) and 2) the situation keeps 30,000 highly armed and trained American soldiers on the peninsula, a stones throw from the Chinese mainland and Shanghai in particular. There are more American soldiers in South Korea than in Okinawa (about 50k total in Japan, ~50% in Okinawa).

If China were smart they'd work with the U.S. to oust the North Korean government, perhaps even supporting unification, in exchange for the U.S. leaving the peninsula entirely. It makes sense from every angle, and the U.S. would probably do so as long as they could continue strategic military cooperation with South Korea (i.e. military trade and token joint exercises). Plus, from a military standpoint China has a much easier time invading Taiwan if the number of U.S. forces in the region are cut by 1/3, so you would think the Chinese military leadership would like the idea.

I think the reason why China protects North Korea is because of old-guard party and military leaders, regardless of their age. They're still living in the 1950s and see protecting North Korea as their duty. From their perspective it's their last major battlefront, both militarily and politically.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

IF they are the perpetrators of the hack (seeing as they're claiming they were framed)...

Well, yeah, the NorKs claim, "We didn't do it!"

But they're also saying, "If you don't do what we want, we'll do it again!"

So....

Re:Who will get

[cold fjord]

You act as if the common North Korean citizen has internet access.

Indeed. The typical North Korean subject likely doesn't have enough calories per day to thrive, and lets skip the question of nutrition. Even the North Korean armed forces have been on lean rations the last several years.

Re:Who will get

[HBI]

The US force is a tripwire to draw the US into the conflict. That's why we are there. The US force is tiny and not sufficient to do anything useful except get overwhelmed. But when US bodies start showing up on newscasts, the DPRK is toast

Re:Who will get

[mythosaz]

On a serious note, "decimate" doesn't bother me nearly as much as say, "terrific," "peruse," or "begs the question."

On a less serious note, the people I'm playing Destiny with are getting fairly sick of me yelling "FEWER!" at the voice-over every time we kill Valus Ta'auric.

Re:Who will get

[DigiShaman]

Ok, all of what? 2 people are offline now?

Re:Who will get

[mythosaz]

Citizens! I have good news, and I have bad news: The bad news is that 10% of you will be beaten to death. The good news is that 90% of you get to beat someone to death.

Re:Who will get

[nedlohs]

maybe learn to read?

Re:Who will get

[Coren22]

I can see it now...Japan would have Veritech fighters and other battle robots within a year.

Re:Who will get

[cfalcon]

He acts as if the common North Korean citizen is permitted knowledge of the internet, instead of just advanced CS students who have proven themselves indoctrinated sufficiently.

It's so easy to underestimate what such a government can do with such an ancient moral code and modern access to propaganda. The North Korean people aren't like "put yourself in their position". They have been systematically denied knowledge and education that would permit them to ask "Why don't we have the freedom to access the internet". They don't understand "freedom", they don't know that there is an "internet", and in many cases their definition of "we" will be substantially alien as well. Education is huge, and they have plenty over there- just of the wrong kind.

Protip: The North Korean media reports on US troops attacking North Korean soil and being repelled. The overwhelming majority of North Koreans believe that not only is the US at war with North Korea, but that North Korea is winning a defensive war lasting decades. That's the literal truth. That's how successful the Juche zealots have been. Internet access? Goodness, lol.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

...the US gets all riled up because we've never officially stopped being at war with them (just a 60 year cease fire).

This is not true. The US has never been at war with North Korea, because Truman did not officially declare war; he acted without the consent of Congress.

South Korea, on the other hand, is still technically at war with North Korea.

Re:Who will get

[stephanruby]

It could be Sony itself. Sony has already admitted to doing Denial of Services Attacks against its enemies, whether those enemies are located in the United States, Europe, Russia, or anywhere else in the World.

Sony really doesn't care about collateral damage, nor national boundaries.

Re:Who will get

[Lunix Nutcase]

SOME US theaters pulled the plug.

"Some"? The theaters that pulled the plug represent the vast majority of theaters in the country.

Heck, they could have gotten dozens of smaller distributors, looking to make a start! And small independent theaters would have jumped at the chance to show something the big corporations would not.

Except even independent theaters pulled the movie as well.

Re:Who will get

[SwabianEngineer]

You can only trust a cowboy if you have a gun as least as big as his. Every non-retareded nation including China knows this.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not heavy handed at all. Aside from the impact this had on Sony, the real attack is on the US first amendment. Arguably, the highest ranked of our rights. The presidential oath is a promise to protect the constitution, and by extension, the first amendment. I'm not calling for dropping nukes, but a forceful response is required if we don't want them attempting it again.

Re:Who will get

[Black Parrot]

There will be fallout.

Hopefully not nuclear...

Re:Who will get

[Rakarra]

Most of the guards on the North side looked bored and didn't care particularly what you did. In contrast, the guards on the South side look like they will kill you for looking in the wrong direction.

I think that might more accurately illustrate which side suspects the other might try to invade.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

There are more white people than black people in the USA. So there could be strong racism and your statement still be true. Also, how many were unarmed and under 20? That seems to be the sweet spot for killing black men.

Re:Who will get

[Rakarra]

Ok, all of what? 2 people are offline now?

The two that matter, yes.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

#1, ask hawkinspeter. He asserted it was the US.
#2. The obvious motive, given the timing, is in response to the hack of Sony. Why would the US have done it, if not for Sony?
#3 Attacking a soverign nation is war. Sony/Japan is irrelevant to that point.

Re:Who will get

[Rakarra]

Well, yeah, the NorKs claim, "We didn't do it!"

But they're also saying, "If you don't do what we want, we'll do it again!"

So....

Wait, where's the source for that second quote? DPRK's claim is "We didn't do it." Guardians of Peace's claim is "If you don't do what we want, we'll do it again!" I haven't heard an admission from the north that they are GOP, or a duplication of the rhetoric that GOP said.

Even Bin Laden is on camera admitting to 9/11. NK hasn't gotten that far yet.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

More blacks are killed in car crashes than murder. Why do you support execution by car crash, but not execution by blacks?

Your complaints are a non sequitur. So long as car crashes exist, one may not complain about the number of murdered blacks. Nope, I don't play by your twisted logic.

Re:Who will get

[Rakarra]

so it is ok then.

Not sure what you'd mean by ok, under some circumstances, yes. It's never desirable. But it can be understandable.

Re:Who will get

[rtb61]

Regardless the of the psychopathic nature of North Korea's government and the pathetic egoistic nature of it's leadership and the quisling nature of it's many middle persons who keep that leadership in power, the only acceptable response is cutting the cable. Unhappy with the contribution to the global internet, cut them off. Seriously, fuck off with the escalation, it will just make the whole situation worse.

Re:Who will get

[Rakarra]

I think he was asking why not suspect Sony of DDoSing NK's network. I don't think he was referring to the original hack.

Re:Who will get

[CaptainDork]

It's not Anonymous. The perps that had any talent are all in jail.

Re:Who will get

[Strider-]

It kind of begs the question about what the US is still doing in South Korea anyhow. South Korea is a rich country. They can afford their own defense, but its convenient for them for Uncle Sam to pick up the tab. I have stood on the North side of the DMZ and it is clear that the US is just a thorn in the situation making everybody tense. There is no doubt that the South Koreans can adequately defend themselves against any potential "invasion" from the North. There is no reason for the US to be there. The constant presence of US marines on the DMZ make the North Koreans nervous that the South will invade them.

One of the running half-jokes amongst the US troops and marines in South Korea is their primary purpose is to keep the South Korean army in the south, not the other way around. The US influence keeps the south somewhat calm, and acts as a deterrent to the north.

Re: Who will get

[jd2112]

On the other hand North Korea is a military power including nuclear weapons. Sony however has a remake of Annie which is expected to clean up at the next Razzies. Quite frankly I'm more afraid off Sony.

Re:Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21636033-united-states-needs-overhaul-its-law-enforcement-system-americas-police-trial:

"Roughly 29% of Americans shot by the police are black, but so are about 42% of cop killers whose race is known."

So, considering the black population is ~15%, then cops shoot blacks at about 2x their representation.
Then again, blacks kill cops at nearly 3x their representation.
Sounds like the cops need to work harder, they should be killing at least 15% more black young men to represent the threat posed by them....

Re:Who will get

[gbjbaanb]

why would China DDoS NK's routers? Surely they'd just unplug the cables that stretch over the border. they could even say "for maintenance" if they needed an excuse, feeble though it is.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

Or because black people know that they are twice as likely to be shot than a white person, they shoot back. The unarmed dead blacks are because the cops shoot first many of the times.

That and when a cop is shot, the suspect is always black, until proven otherwise. Also, with only 46 cops shot dead, your numbers work out to 133 Black people killed by cops, and 19 cops killed by black people. So black people need to kill another 115 cops to cover the difference.

Re:Who will get

[gbjbaanb]

How? The internet cables go through China - so you either cut China off from the Internet too, or you accept that all NK traffic goes via China's routers.

I doubt China will see nipping into their territory and cutting any of their internet cabling as perfectly reasonable.

Re:Who will get

[PraiseBob]

How many emails do you think they are getting from HQ today? And doesn't the HQ have a history of executing people who do the wrong thing?

If somebody had a bone to pick with a group that operated in China, might they not target that group in China as well? Perhaps it flies under the radar because the scope isn't as large or easily detectable.

Re:Who will get

[fnj]

It kind of begs the question about what the US is still doing in South Korea anyhow. South Korea is a rich country. They can afford their own defense

So is Germany, and the US has 39,000 troops there. So is Japan, and the US has 50,000 troops there. Hell, there are 11,000 US troops in Italy.

So there are 29,000 US troops in South Korea, which unlike those countries named above has a border with a fully militarized raving psychotic insane evil totalitarian state who viciously threatens South Korea constantly. The capital of South Korea, with a population of 10 million, lies only 50 km from the border and could be overrun and decimated within hours, regardless of whether or not the psychotics ultimately win the conflict.

Is any of this difficult to understand?

Re:Who will get

[fnj]

How about just a touch of reality? Sony PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, which was the entity attacked - NOT SONY CORPORATION - had a 2014 revenue of $8 billion and an operating revenue of $1/2 billion.

Re:Who will get

[Skidborg]

The problem is that nobody /wants/ unification. Cleaning up the mess that North Korea currently is is too much of a money sink for any government to take it on willingly. Millions of starving people with medieval technology isn't an asset.

Re:Who will get

[Guppy]

China wouldn't need to DDoS North Korea's internet link

They do, if they want to have plausible deniability.

Re:Who will get

[fnj]

Absolutely correct. Blacks are statistically several times more likely to be shot by police than are whites. Concerning ages 15-19, the ratio is about 20 times more likely. But what you conveniently overlook is that blacks are FAR more likely to be murdered by other blacks than by police (many of which are themselves black). We are talking many scores of times more likely.

Could it just POSSIBLY be that blacks are far more likely than whites to be engaged in street activities that are begging to attract police attention? And that, once confronted, just maybe they might be far more threatening - as in, likely to whip out a handgun or rush the officer?

Hey, it's just a question, though I strongly suspect what the answer is. And yes, it leads directly to other questions about disadvantaged groups and vicious circles of crime and despair.

One of the most impressive dramas I ever saw dealing with blacks, antagonism between blacks and cops, and disillusionment of black cops was an episode of Dragnet from 1968 or 1969 showing the situation after the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. It showed the raw hurt and grievances, but also it ended on a positive and uplifting note that mirrors my own hopes. On the other hand, every single one of the issues presented remains absolutely topical to this day. You take the afros and 60s cars out of that episode and it could have been made yesterday.

Re:Who will get

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

China hates North Korea as much as everyone else. They support them because they're a convenient tool for Chinese diplomacy with the US; every so often the DPRK goes nuts and threatens to blow up South Korea, and the US gets all riled up because we've never officially stopped being at war with them (just a 60 year cease fire). Then China gets to step in and provide the peaceful solution and portrays Washington as a bunch of warmongering fools bullying smaller nations. This is just another iteration of the same tired old game going on the Northeast Pacific.

That's overly simplistic and as such maybe as much wrong as right. China is stuck with North Korea because of the shared border. The Russian Republic, which also shares a border with North Korea and also assisted it somewhat covertly during the Korean War, stopped sending financial support early in Yeltsin's presidency, leaving China fully responsible in this game of musical chairs. China doesn't like the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons for a variety of reasons. But the truth is that China fears a united pro-US Korea even more, so they grudgingly but willingly pay to prop up the regime. North Korea does actually have a lot of rare earths and China is currently using it's financial support as leverage to extract these materials at cut rate prices, so there is some financial incentive for China to continue to support the regime. China really doesn't provide much useful in the ongoing war of words between North Korea and its perpetual enemies of the US, South Korea, and Japan. China doesn't have as much leverage as those 3 think, but again China rarely uses any leverage at all because it wants North Korea to survive and is afraid if it pushes too hard, North Korea will collapse and the border region will be flooded with refugees. Keep in mind that while North Korea does often infuriate China and at some level at the top they do think that eventually the North Korean regime will collapse on its own, they want to push that date out as far as possible. China paid a very dear price to support their "brothers" in North Korea in the war. China is estimated on the low end to have had at least 100,000 of their soldiers killed in action in the war. One of Mao's sons was killed, probably deliberately, by a UN bombing raid while he was serving in the war. And Taiwan was lost, perhaps permanently, as a direct result of China not having the resources to invade them and the US finally seeing some value in propping up Chiang Kai Shek and sending enough of a deterrent force to the area to save Taiwan. So China feels stuck to support North Korea if for no other reason than to justify the very high price already paid.

Re:Who will get

[cold fjord]

Maybe your clues are wrong.

North Korea faces famine: 'Tell the world we are starving'

More than a decade after North Korea was struck by a famine that killed up to a million people, the country's poorest are once again facing starvation, reports Peter Foster in Yanji

Pyongyang’s Hunger Games

... during the great famine of the 1990s, between 600,000 and 2.5 million people died of hunger. According to the commission’s report, the North Korean regime, then headed by Kim Jong-il, obstructed the delivery of aid to the hungriest regions until 1997, and punished those who tried to earn, buy, steal or smuggle in enough food to survive. The regime was “well aware of the country’s deteriorating food situation” as it stocked airfields, reactors and palaces, rather than food stores.

According to one expert witness testimonial before the commission, the North Korean regime, at the height of the famine, could have closed its food gap by importing between $100 and $200 million worth of food each year, which is just 1 to 2 percent of its national income. Yet rather than using foreign food aid to supplement its own commercial food imports, the commission found that Kim Jong-il used aid “as a substitute for” them, cutting back on commercial food imports when more aid arrived. By contrast, the State Department estimates that in 1997, at the peak of the famine, North Korea’s annual military budget was $6 billion.

Re: Who will get

[Anonymous Coward]

They can defend themselves against the North Koreans, but not China. We're there as a countermeasure against China. It's also why we held onto Guam rather than letting them go like we did the Philippines. Guam has two major military bases (Navy and Air Force) within a stone's throw of Korea and Taiwan.

Re:Who will get

[cavreader]

If NK was to collapse China would end up having to put up with the aftermath. They already have enough uneducated peasants to sweep under their own rug and are not looking for more. Still, NK antics over the years have done nothing but draw more US military capabilities to the region and give Japan a second reason, China provided the first, to take a second look at their constitution in regards to obtaining offensive weapons. The NK threats about launching missiles at the US resulted in the US strengthening and increasing the budgets for their West Coast and Alaskan based anti-missile systems which coincidently covers anything launched out of China. Not to mention the B-2 flyovers for the SK-US annual military exercises which seem to grow in scope every year. China sent a million soldiers running into the NK-SK war back in the fifties to secure a buffer zone. A buffer zone that might have had some utility back then but today a buffer zone is useless against modern missile systems. The same thing could be said about the Russians trying to reclaim their protectorates to keep a buffer between them and the oh so awesome European militaries. The days of battalions of tanks and millions of ground soldiers invading either Russia or China are long gone. Nuclear weapons spiked those threats since their inception.

Re:Who will get

[cold fjord]

Plausible deniability.

Re:Who will get

[cold fjord]

Satellite image shows Kim Jong Il's dark legacy

North Korea is covered in darkness, both metaphorically and literally.

Re:Who will get

[OhPlz]

Does anyone really care about the whole consent of congress thing anymore? We send troops somewhere, it's a war. A bunch of bribery-driven jackasses in the legislature mean nothing to people killing and dying out in the battlefield.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

Could it just POSSIBLY be that blacks are far more likely than whites to be engaged in street activities that are begging to attract police attention?

Nope. Every study I've seen done on it indicates that two people with a clean background check, one white and one black are both equally likely to offend, and that applies across all types of offending (violent, felony, non-violent). The issue is that Black people are more likely to be harshly punished for any act, leading to higher recividism. But I've never seen a study that shows a black person with no record is more likely to offend than a white person of the same SES level. If you've seen one, I'd love to see it.

The studies indicate that recividism is higher in Blacks because they perceive unfair treatment, and the studies detect unfair treatment.

And that, once confronted, just maybe they might be far more threatening - as in, likely to whip out a handgun or rush the officer?

Unrelated to the number of beatings/killings of unarmed people, who, by definition couldn't have pulled a gun on the cops.

On the other hand, every single one of the issues presented remains absolutely topical to this day. You take the afros and 60s cars out of that episode and it could have been made yesterday.

My experience is that this exists because the whites assert there is no racism, especially against those lazy, worthless Niggers. The system does hold down the Black man, and the system calls all Black people liars for thinking it does. When we admit our racism and embrace it (in an MLK way, not a Hitler way), then we'll be closer to moving away from being suck in the '60s race riots for another 200 years.

I know multiple people who claim to not be racist, but insist they wouldn't hire anyone who wasn't white. That kind of disconnect, insisting everything is right, while doing the opposite, is what causes frustration. If every Black person born tomorrow actually had all the same opportunities as white people, we wouldn't have any racism in a generation. But I know plenty of people who were pulled over for DWB. Even had it happen to me once, for driving a "bad" car in a nice neighborhood at night. Driving home from volunteering at a non-profit as a poor college student. "Your inspection sticker looked to be out of date". But it wasn't. And where he was, I don't think he could have even seen the sticker at all, let alone have any idea whether it was valid. The new Caddy in front didn't get pulled over, and the new Mazda behind me didn't get pulled over, and had the same exact sticker (I know because Mom owned the non-profit I was volunteering at, and was following me home). This was in a small town that has been sued for racism (rounding up brown people at bus stops and arresting them for loitering). I have no doubt he thought I didn't belong, and waved me on when he stopped me and established I was white and did look like everyone else. Young enough to be allowed a used car, and old enough to have a license. Move along, white boy, you are valid. But if I'd been black or otherwise didn't look as fit-in as he liked, I'm sure I'd have had harassed me more.

Re:Who will get

[cold fjord]

So black people need to kill another 115 cops to cover the difference.

No filter between the brain and the fingers, eh?

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

My facts are correct. The AC said that the cops need to kill more Black people to even up the numbers. Looking at them a slightly different way, the Black people need to kill more cops.to even the numbers. If everyone stopped killing, then the numbers would be even as well, but that doesn't work for stats of previous periods of time.

The solution is to go to the UK model. No cops killing anyone (or was there one in Scotland, I can't tell from the sources I saw).

Re:Who will get

[Mister Transistor]

"If you don't do what we want, we WON'T do it again!"

There, FTFY.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

South Korea is a rich country. They can afford their own defense, but its convenient for them for Uncle Sam to pick up the tab. I have stood on the North side of the DMZ and it is clear that the US is just a thorn in the situation making everybody tense.

Part of the point is that North Korea can't "invade" South Korea, but could destroy it. The US is there to enforce MAD. If NK attacks SK, SK will lose, but so will NK. That is the point. It's like a nuclear deterrent.

Re:Who will get

[baegucb]

Welcome to 1950. Want a rerun?

Re:Who will get

[Notabadguy]

It kind of begs the question about what the US is still doing in South Korea anyhow. South Korea is a rich country. They can afford their own defense, but its convenient for them for Uncle Sam to pick up the tab. I have stood on the North side of the DMZ and it is clear that the US is just a thorn in the situation making everybody tense. There is no doubt that the South Koreans can adequately defend themselves against any potential "invasion" from the North. There is no reason for the US to be there. The constant presence of US marines on the DMZ make the North Koreans nervous that the South will invade them.
 

Alright troll, you sucked me in.

1. You've been on the North side of the DMZ looking south, and from your vantage point three feet from the border in peace village...it was clear to you that the US is a thorn in the situation? SERIOUSLY?!? You deduced all that at a glance?

2. I'm going to presume you've never been to North Korea, and educate you about a few things.
          a.) First and Foremost, that's the U.S Army at the DMZ, not the Marines. Specifically, the 8th Army. The infantry units there come from the 2ID, (2nd Infantry Division), with Republic of Korea attachments (referred to as ROKs). Tank support comes from the 72nd armor regiment, artillery support from...you get the picture. Army units. Not Navy (marine) units.
          b.) There are an estimated 13,000 - 17,000 artillery pieces on the border, pointed at Seoul, which happens to be ~120 miles away from Pyongyang.
          c.) Seoul is one of the most densely populated cities in the world.
          d.) If the US was not present, a war between North and South Korea would last 2-3 hours and would look like this:
                        d1.) Hostilities ensue.
                        d2.) Within the first hour, North Korea has obliterated most of South Korea's population centers.
                        d3.) South Korea retaliates with nuclear force, and levels Pyongyang.
                        d4.) Other stuff, largely secondary given that North and South Korea are largely depopulated.
          e.) The presence of the U.S - TODAY - is not as relevant as 3/5/10 years ago. However, U.S. foreign policy takes an incredible length of time to change.
          f.) North Korean guards on the border to not "look bored." The half cant of their eyes is because of their asian heritage. Both North and South Korean guards on the DMZ treat it like a ceremonial position - like being in the 3rd Infantry in D.C. stationed at Ft. Myer doing military funerals, or Tomb of the Unknown, or ceremonial duties.

I *have* been to North Korea. I've been to Kijong-dong, and I *have* stood on the North Korean side of the border at the DMZ. If you'd like to see what it *really* looks like there, google it. Google, "Korean DMZ." You'll see pictures of guards on both ends of the border standing at perfect attention.

Re:Who will get

[ComputersKai]

That likely won't bother the government. They can easily perform operations through other countries.
Considering the majority likely don't even get internet (or they get the NK Govt's version of it), this probably wouldn't be that bothersome to their govt. as they probably have their own backup systems in place for access. In a way, NK has been already "cut the cable" on many things.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

"One less problem" is correct, as idioms can violate grammar rules and still be correct. You must really hate the song "I got one less problem without you."

Re:Who will get

[dj245]

I did a week tour in April 2014. You're not special, lots of westerners have taken tours since the government decided to open up a little bit and experiment with reforms. The strongest and most universal impression I got was that every foreign visitor saw basically the same things, and yet everyone came to completely different opinions about what was going on. It was a great learning experience for me to see how given the same information, different people will see different things depending on their own experiences and predispositions.

It seems you disagree with me that these folks are basically harmless and just want to enjoy life and watch their kids grow up. That's fine. The situation there is tense, but it has been more tense in the past. If something was going to happen it would have happened already. Saber rattling never leads to peace.

Re:Who will get

[meerling]

Anonymous is not the USA, even if many US citizens claim to be members.
If the USA wanted North Korea offline, they'd probably use some kind of long range weaponry (cruise missile for example) to take out whatever buildings host the critical backbone hardware. It's not like they have a multiply redundant system with lots of viable alternate resources.
Heck, a lot of NK doesn't even have proper access to electricity. With the government there doing their best to hide all problems from the few allowed visitors it's kind of hard to pin things down all that well, but if nothing else us general public plebes can at least see the vast swaths of darkness that engulfs NK at night.

Re:Who will get

[meerling]

There are several theaters in my state that were looking forward to running that movie, until Sony said they weren't going to allow it.
Yes, some theaters got cold feet, but it was NO where near all of them.
The final decision that nixed it for everyone sits squarely on the shoulders of Sony.

Re:Who will get

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"collateral damage" is the term your looking for.

Re:Who will get

[meerling]

I rarely try to act like Conan the Grammarian (horrible play on grammar and barbarian), but I believe you meant to use "than" instead of "then".
Otherwise your sentence indicates that the police kill white people before they go out and kill black people as that usage of "then" is a reference to time and sequence of events. :P
You can blame autocorrect, I sure do. :D

Re:Who will get

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

We will never "end" racism, until we can genetically re-engineer ourselves. Just like we can't end alcoholism, both have a genetic source. As "thinking" creatures we can, and should, fight to overcome this...but it's not going away.

Re:Who will get

[sound vision]

You'd think they would do something more sophisticated than a DDOS though. This is likely some Anonymous-esque group striking out on their own. If a big state actor is going to launch an attack, it's going to be a slow and low torpedo that doesn't blow up until it's in a position to do maximum damage, like the Sony attack, or Stuxnet.

Re:Who will get

[rockout]

So when Japan attacked Hawaii, they weren't attacking the United States? Reality, indeed.

Re:Who will get

[Randall311]

I normally don't feed the trolls but... Yes it does. In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is sometimes also used to mean "to raise the question"

Re:Who will get

[Solandri]

The US force is a tripwire to draw the US into the conflict. That's why we are there. The US force is tiny and not sufficient to do anything useful except get overwhelmed. But when US bodies start showing up on newscasts, the DPRK is toast

Case in point, the troops there call themselves "speed bumps." They know their job in case of a N. Korean attack is to get overrun and die, so the U.S. populace will get all outraged and back a full reprisal in S. Korea's defense.

And to answer OP, the idea is that the outcome of a war between N. Korea and S. Korea has enough uncertainty that some loony of a N. Korean leader may actually try it. But the outcome of a war between N. Korea and the U.S. is so obvious that no N. Korean leader would try it. (Well, no sane N. Korean leader. I'm starting to have my doubts about how much sanity is left after 60 years of indoctrination about how "N. Korea drove the U.S. out" of half the peninsula.) If you talk with S. Koreans, most of them don't exactly like U.S. troops being there, but are willing to tolerate it for this tangible deterrence factor.

But couldn't the UN do something? When the original 1950 "police action" in Korea was authorized by the UN security council, China's vote was controlled by Taiwan, and the Soviet Union happened to be boycotting the UN to try to get that vote transferred to mainland China. Let's just say that if a similar situation should arise, there's considerable uncertainty about getting anything more than a strongly worded statement from the UN.

Re:Who will get

[ScentCone]

... Dragnet from 1968 or 1969 showing the situation after the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. ... You take the afros and 60s cars out of that episode and it could have been made yesterday.

Except Michael Brown was no Martin Luther King. King would have been appalled by the circumstances into which Brown's family launched him through neglect of his character. King would have been disgusted by Brown, who spend the morning smoking dope, robbing a convenience store to get more supplies, and then assaulting a cop. King would likewise have been disgusted by people chanting in the streets about things that didn't happen, outraged by their willingness to destroy people's property and burn down their neighborhood businesses, or shout in large organized groups about wanting to see dead cops NOW!

No, things are very different now than they were even 20 years ago. Worse, when it comes to that sort of thing.

Re:Who will get

[Damarkus13]

Not the same. The whole point of owning a subsidiary rather that creating an internal division is to legally divest yourself from said subsidiary.

Also, the Japanese attacked a federal military installation.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

There is no genetic source to racism. There's a genetic source to preferring the familiar, but racism isn't genetic. Having traveled around the world, I've noticed that racism is different in different places. It's all bigotry, but some places it's much more nationalistic (England) or religious (southern Western Europe), and in the US it's racism. But they are all bigotry, and not always what is labeled "racism" based on race. It's the genetic "familiar good, different bad" instinct that's bread into us. "Familiar is defined by our family and friends, not genetics. Racism isn't genetic.

Re:Who will get

[Damarkus13]

Sorry, I don't count "because the FBI said so" to be convincing evidence.

Relevant quotes from the article you posted:

The FBI said Friday that technical analysis had revealed links to North Korean-developed malware, including lines of code and encryption algorithms.

That is circumstantial evidence. Certainly not a smoking gun.

A White House spokesman said on Thursday that the United States would consider a "proportional response" if it determined that North Korea was behind the hacking. He did not rule out an attack on North Korean computer systems.

That is a pretty important if.

Re:Who will get

[medv4380]

The top 5 chains constitute over 90% of the market, and 100% in many areas. That's pretty close to ALL by most definitions.

Re:Who will get

[Jeremi]

Companies should be free to hire cyber mercenaries to decimate their attackers. Maybe that's what's going on here? Or maybe they're getting a little US Mil support.

I have this sinking suspicion that this could be the common state of affairs for the Internet's forseeable future -- various unknown parties constantly breaking various things on the Internet, with the rest of us never really figuring out who is doing what to whom, or why.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a global game of Core War, being played on everyone's servers, forever. :P

Re:Who will get

[joocemann]

Some toddler tripped over the phone cord.

Re:Who will get

[zedaroca]

The North Korean media reports on US troops attacking North Korean soil and being repelled.

Care to point for a source? Considering how everything NK's government do or say gets lots of coverage, I think that if it was happening, they would shove that in our faces daily.

they don't know that there is an "internet"

Really impressive that such bold claims with no source got modded 5, insightful. Specially if we consider that we have little information about how people are over there.This kind of news (about the internet being down over there) and all the other ones about how the internet is censored indicate that they usually do have access to it.

Re:Who will get

[davester666]

Why? NK just forgot to reboot their modem.

Re:Who will get

[pspahn]

These guys don't really look too bored. I think I'd call that somewhat less casual than ceremonial duties.

Re:Who will get

[reve_etrange]

Yeah, it's easy to forget how fragile internet protocols really are - and from what I've read NK doesn't have that much bandwidth.

Re:Who will get

[gl4ss]

sony could ddos NK on their own.

if that made _any_ difference to nk's cyber ops though.. I'd be surprised. the china link is very small and only for the handful(hundreds, thousands?) of elites living in NK.. and for them it's not even meant for viewing youtube.

Re: Who will get

[Pace3000]

Maybe China agreed, but don't want the world to think they did. It's just a business transaction.

Re:Who will get

[cfalcon]

"Care to point to the source"

Haha is this wikipedia? I'm telling you things you can google, not applying for a job as your bitch.

You know that statement about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof?
Well, ordinary claims just need you to use a search engine, or even just start on wikipedia. You don't get to play skeptic with life, assuming that before you change your precious worldview something has to be tied up and cited. You have the power to google it your goddamned self.

But, fuck it. I'm on vacation.

You can find a TON of first hand accounts of crazy fucking bullshit in North Korea. Here's some who talk on social media after having been there as a tourist:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...

Here's one on social media who mentions having taught there, and brings up the "repelled incursions" I referred to, in addition to crazier shit involving netting on cars:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...

Also you can find firsthand accounts all over, not only from social media:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c... ..but from other media as well
http://www.cracked.com/article...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.dailylife.com.au/li...

Essentially ALL of these mention that the internet is pretty well shut down and only the North Korean fake version is available- in Pyongyang. You know, their BIG CITY.

Here's a wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Some quotes:
"As of late 2014 there are 1,024 IP addresses in the country."
"Despite the incident, many citizens of North Korea may be oblivious to the existence of the internet."

http://qz.com/315969/in-north-...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/2...

"Nearly all of the country's Internet traffic is routed through China. Firms that monitor that traffic say it is comparable to only about 1,000 high-speed homes in the United States."

I'd like to repeat my earlier point, however:
You don't need to source a claim to be correct. The world isn't wikipedia.

Re:Who will get

[Zontar The Mindless]

Rock&Roll. Wish I had mod points today. :)

Re:Who will get

[rockout]

The original point was that North Korea attacked Sony, a corporation with more revenue than the entire country attacking it. The GP's ridiculous post posited that because NK attacked "Sony PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT", we should only count SPE's revenue when making such a comparison, as if the parent company didn't care that their subsidiary was attacked. You've taken that tangent to a silly level of off-topic.

Re:Who will get

[Gryle]

From what I understand (having talked to a lot of soldiers who've been stationed in South Korea), US presence is something of a contentious issue. Broadly speaking, the older generations who remember the Korean War prefer the US to stay, while the younger generations would prefer the US leave. (There's also a small segment of the younger generation that agitates for faster progress on re-unification now and then). A few soldiers I talked to told me stories of the elders going out to protests against US presence and smacking the protestors trying to get them to go home. As the older generation dies off, the resistance to US presence will increase.

Re:Who will get

[zedaroca]

Thanks for the read and you are right about this not being wikipedia, sorry.
On the other hand, I met a few North Koreans while in China and the internet was not new to them. Maybe they were all high official's daughters and sons (I was in a Chinese university).
It still seems strange that they go through so much trouble censoring it for just over a thousand people. Unlike in China, this doesn't make sense.

Re:Who will get

[stealth_finger]

It kind of begs the question

No, it doesn't. Perhaps it raises the question, but it certainly does not beg the question. Please stop using the name of a fallacy as though it were a common idiom and you have linquistic panache.

It begs the question if acs just search for the phrase just to get the big haha you used it wrong.

Re:Who will get

[Damarkus13]

The silly tangent was comparing it the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Re:Who will get

[davydagger]

you live in a strange world if you think that would actually happen.

Re:Who will get

[davydagger]

not neccarily. the government has many assets.

convienantly there are many trolls and script kiddies in Anonymous who would like to have their sentances reduced.

Re:Who will get

[Talderas]

I hate that song but mostly because she says "chew" so many god damn times during it.

Re:Who will get

[Talderas]

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

I'm afraid that this part of King's speech has been oft overlooked. He's right. Everywhere I look the responses I see to what happened in Ferguson after the grand jury decision were of incredulity and lack of support. These militant violant acts in response to these decisions are causing the the minority to lose allies. To lose trust. To walk alone. Until that corrects it's only going to get worse.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

"wit-chew" is an accepted, though not strictly correct, pronunciation of "with you". I understand all the people who don't like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't English.

Re:Who will get

[Talderas]

There is only one correct pronunciation of 'with you'. Everything else is slurring your words.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

Reality disagrees with your assessment.

Re:Who will get

[RockDoctor]

You'd think they would do something more sophisticated than a DDOS though.

If they actually wanted to do something, yes. On the other hand, if they wanted to be seen to be doing something without actually doing anything - what Schneier (spelling? Bruce-the-security-megaphone) might describe as "retribution theatre" - then this is about what one would expect.

This is likely some Anonymous-esque group striking out on their own.

That's exactly what it does look like. Smoke and mirrors. Deceit and obfuscation. Double-dealing and triple-backstabbing. Diplomacy as normal.

Re:Who will get

[Talderas]

Reality would point out that the term for what you're describe is relaxed pronunciation which in its definition points out that it's a slurring of words. Which basically means it's a "nicer" definition to make people feel better about the fact that they cannot properly enunciate their words.

Re:Who will get

[AK Marc]

Which basically means it's a "nicer" definition to make people feel better about the fact that they cannot properly enunciate their words.

Or a racist elitist practice to give "official" backing to belittling anyone "different".

Re:Who will get

[Rich0]

Companies should be free to hire cyber mercenaries to decimate their attackers. Maybe that's what's going on here? Or maybe they're getting a little US Mil support.

I have this sinking suspicion that this could be the common state of affairs for the Internet's forseeable future -- various unknown parties constantly breaking various things on the Internet, with the rest of us never really figuring out who is doing what to whom, or why.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a global game of Core War, being played on everyone's servers, forever. :P

Tend to agree, though there could be another possible future. Nations get tired of this nonsense and start instituting border proxies. Maybe traffic is unrestricted between nations that agree to punish those who attack on other signatories, and refrain from government attacks (think US+EU and a few others). Countries that don't crack down on hacking get their traffic proxied, with only whitelisted protocols accepted (maybe strict html without javascript, plus images in specified formats chosen for simplicity and checked for standards-compliance, and email subject to a delay to allow for spam discovery and scanning/etc - perhaps without attachments). It would basically be the death of the internet as we know it, and obviously the usual suspects will be all for it.

When what happened to Sony starts happening to many major corporations there will be a lot of talk about changing how things work. From what I've read Sony's security seemed pretty typical for any large company - a firewall against incoming connections, and little else once you get inside. Companies aren't going to want to build a complex security infrastructure internally, let alone really strong measures like isolated networks - it costs a lot and is a lot less useful unless you punch a million holes in it (which diminishes the security). With regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley companies want to be able to account for every hour charged to every project and every mile expensed and every bolt ordered against the bottom line each quarter. Gone are the days when everybody just managed their department on a spreadsheet and cascaded the numbers up the levels. Then you have all the tax nonsense - governments don't like it when the value you declare to customs doesn't match the value you get when you finish doing all your double-irish whiskey with a shot of bermuda rum shell games, and good luck having that happen without about 14 layers of integration. Keep in mind the guys running all this IT stuff are in China next to the guys doing all the hacking on behalf of North Korea in the first place. :)

Re:Who will get

[bhiestand]

It is refreshing to know some people understand the situation there and understand the use of American troops as tripwires.

That said, I think it's important to make the distinction that American bases in ROK are more than just a tripwire. "Speed bump" means that they are supposed to slow the enemy advance to buy time for other assets to be put to use. They also have the tertiary purpose of maintaining the vast supplies needed to fight that war.

This is getting scary

[Skiron]

Welcome to the new clear dawn (after 500 years when the bomb went off)

Re:This is getting scary

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It would be fairly amusing if the next world war was started over a film of dubious quality.

Re:This is getting scary

[Sir_Eptishous]

It is 2014... This could be the 21st centuries WWI.

Re:This is getting scary

[Translation Error]

And from the smoking ruins, Sony emerged triumphant, ruler of this brave new world.

Re:This is getting scary

[hey!]

And it turns out that it wouldn't be the first time the firm did this. Sony started out as a radio repair shop in a bombed-out department store.

Re:This is getting scary

[samwichse]

As opposed to a book of dubious quality?

North Korea has Internet?

[Irate Engineer]

Is it a single html page saying "Hail Leader!" with animated gifs of the North Korean army marching?

Re:North Korea has Internet?

[slashmydots]

They clearly spelled "intranet" incorrectly.

Re:North Korea has Internet?

[Coren22]

Well, it is an Intranet now...

Re:North Korea has Internet?

[Virtucon]

Why was I thinking Hamster Dance when I read this?

Obama promised a "proportional response"...

[bradgoodman]

...sounds like they got it!

Re:Obama promised a "proportional response"...

[AmiMoJo]

Not really. Any kind of military retaliation, even if it is a cyber attack, needs to go through proper procedures. That's why there was so much fuss made over the last Iraq invasion, and why they had to manufacture evidence of WMD. International law is quite clear on when and how you are allowed to attack other countries in self defence.

More over, the case has hardly been proven. It would be very dangerous for the US to start this kind of tit-for-tat cyber warfare, which is why I really hope it was just some Anonymous douchbags acting on their own.

Re:Like little children

[Scottingham]

All the more reason to let robots/A.I. handle government.

Re:DDoS .. in which attackers flood

[Twinbee]

So THAT'S what OS stands for. Thanks also for linking to an overview on Wikipedia, since I had no idea otherwise! (initially thought DDOS was a type of OS).

Why bother with a Denial of Service attack?

[FlyHelicopters]

When you're a state actor, why not just cut the lines physically connecting a nation to the rest of the world?

Countries such as China or the United States have the ability to do that, if they so choose.

Re:Why bother with a Denial of Service attack?

[HiThere]

In this case because China provides N.Korea's internet connection, and it would be a bad mistake to get them mad.

DDOS or....

[roc97007]

...too many torrents of The Interview?

Re:DDOS or....

[roc97007]

I just don't understand. Sony is a Japanese company! Why do they care about US

I think the issue is, Japan is, geographically, significantly closer to NK than is the US. And is a smaller target. They don't care about us, they care about their own country. Although NK's threats of attacking the entire US are fluff, they could reasonably be expected to have enough firepower to damage Japan.

Re:DDOS or....

[CrimsonAvenger]

they could reasonably be expected to have enough firepower to damage Japan.

Slightly. At most. North Korea's ability to project power barely extends beyond the DMZ. They could ruin Seoul, maybe...

Note that there's no indication that whatever the NK's have for a "nuclear arsenel" is air-portable, nor is there much indication that they could get a plane to Japan....

Send them the "You are an idiot" YouTube video

[JoeyRox]

Oh wait, they can't watch it because their internet is down. Now who's stupid?

South Korean Reactors

[Martin S.]

If the US an Ally, South Korea perhaps, are responsible this is more likely to be a result of the North started targeting Nuclear reactors in the South yesterday, than anything to do with Sony.

The irony here, is that it that it looks like hacktivists were responsible for the initial Sony attacks, not the DPRK.

Re:Like little children

[JackieBrown]

You start with this

Why am I reminded of petulant children squabbling over who gets to pat the new puppy?

and then start complaining about not getting jetpacks, flying cars and a holiday trip on the moon all lined up for Christmas

obliq old school

[Rinikusu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Tit for tat

[Cro Magnon]

They keep us from watching a movie nobody wanted to see, and we cut off Kim Jung's pr0n.

Re:Tit for tat

[AmiMoJo]

Who is "we"? If it's the US government then they might have started a war, but I doubt they would openly admit it. More likely it's individuals, maybe associated with Anonymous who seem to love DDOSing things and were upset over the movie not getting a release. In which case, if private individuals are willing to support the US in this way it adds credibility to North Korea's claims that it was individuals who hacked Sony to support them.

Re:Tit for tat

[AmiMoJo]

The stupid thing is that NK probably doesn't care. Most people don't have internet access, and the ones that do only have access to a small number of sites anyway. The US is far more vulnerable because everything is online, even stuff that shouldn't be, but NK's technology is old an generally not networked in that way. It's not like someone screwing with the US's connectivity, which would cost it billions of dollars.

Re:Tit for tat

[SwabianEngineer]

How do you know ? I was impressed by the fighter-pilot-vixens who surrounded him in a recent picture.

Re:Internet ?

[halivar]

Someone picked up the phone, that's all.

What does that big reg button do?

[TomTraynor]

First words out of Little Kim's mouth when he visited the site that connects to the real world.

Re:What does that big reg button do?

[TomTraynor]

Should read 'big red button'... Sigh, one of these days I will learn to spell.

Re:What does that big reg button do?

[aduxorth]

Or just use Preview properly.

Cue the Apocalyptic Rants and Missile Tests!

[Irate Engineer]

Now is the time at Sprockets when Kim Jon Un jumps up and down angrily, threatens a fiery death to all the enemies of the glorious republic, and lobs some shells and missiles into the Sea of Japan.

Vigilantes?

[DarkOx]

Seems the the State Department could just get various friendlies to start announcing DPRKs prefixes from all over the places in BGP and pretty much nullify their ability to use the Internet.

Also given the attack did not originate from DPRK but is simply suspected sponsored by DPRK, this does not seem like it would be an effective response.

Re:Like little children

[invid]

Um...politics and warmongering is the price we have to pay for not having a global dictatorship. If you have large groups of people who disagree with each other there needs to be a method of getting things done while allowing for the representation, at least to some degree, of these disparate groups. Would you prefer to have the world run by dictator who thinks like you (or perhaps you yourself would like to be the dictator) so you can advance to the world toward what you think is best, irregardless of what others want?

Re:Thank god for editors!

[Anne Thwacks]

Anyone on /. who does not know what ddos means should be condemned to a lifetime of reading DOS boot disks in binary with a plastic monacle.

DMCA violation

[dysmal]

You've got it all wrong. It wasn't the US or China or even PRC ineptitude that caused this. It was Sony lawyers using DMCA'ing them into the dark ages for all of those copies of Baywatch they were caught downloading.

oops!

[Tumbleweed]

It's so hard to keep those C64s running these days!

Re:Like little children

[StikyPad]

irregardless of what others want?

Um... yes. Wait, no! Damn, I suck at answering questions posed with made-up words.

And

[pev]

...in other news, kim jong un now reportedly threatening verizon customer services with ground attack after being on hold for 90 minutes...

Re:And

[MooseDontBounce]

This won't happen because attacking Verizon Support would be a public service to all of their customers.

Test run

[Iamthecheese]

If I were working for a large, wealthy government and had developed an e-warfare weapon powerful enough to selectively knock a whole country off the grid I would pick a good moment of crisis, blame it on that country, and then test my weapon. I would test it against a country no one likes.

Re:Like little children

[invid]

irregardless of what others want?

Um... yes. Wait, no! Damn, I suck at answering questions posed with made-up words.

At some point, all words are made up. Irregardless is a perfectly cromulent word.

Lizard Squad?

[mad_psych0]

I haven't seen mention of it on any actual news sites yet, but there's been some #tangodown messages from social media accounts supposedly controlled by Lizard Squad that are at the very least worth raising an eyebrow at. Since massive DDoS attacks have been their signature move against all of their high-profile targets (Sony, Microsoft, Blizzard, etc), which is what's happening to these routers rather then an actual sophisticated attack, and I'm currently looking at a facebook account of theirs that makes mention of an impending #tangodown that was posted a good 48 hours before North Korea went offline, I'd say this is just as likely if not even more likely then some kind of state-sponsored retaliation by the CIA/NSA/FBI/whatever.

Re:Lizard Squad?

[0dugo0]

With the number of FBI informants in Lizard Squad these likelyhoods are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Lizard Squad?

[strikethree]

No. Lizard Squad is itself down.

http://www.news.com.au/technol...

Apparently, they were taken down by hackers who were upset at Lizard Squad being a bunch of little pricks.

Like little children

[trazom28]

What's that old saying? War is politics by other means.

I completely agree with you.. we could better spend resources on more important things and yet, the world we live in leads us to this. Too bad the entire world couldn't pull its collective head out of its butt and realize that we're all pretty much the same, and want the same things from life - no matter where you're from.

N. Korea's Own Bad Ways Made This Possible

[Roblimo]

Dictatorships that control their subjects' access to information like to have all Internet connections in their country pass through a single choke point so that they can maintain control. I once visited Saudi Arabia and met the guy responsible for all Internet traffic in and out of the country -- through a single link with a single backup.

This is good if you want to give your people only the access you want them to have, and to block everything else. At the same time, it means your whole country can be knocked offline by a single attack, which seems to be the problem N. Korea is experiencing. Imagine trying to knock the entire U.S. offline! It couldn't be done.

Cuba, OTOH.... well, that one may change soon. But N. Korea? Probably not, although I wish it would. A far more miserable place than Cuba has ever been.

Re:N. Korea's Own Bad Ways Made This Possible

[SwabianEngineer]

Certainly the U.S. can be knocked off the internet any time. Not by me, not by you, but by some orgs who have a nice stash of goodies.
Remeber they accidently knocked Syria off while injecting some listening stuff into that Cisco device ?
Surely you can give ALL Cisco routers of the US (or any other nation, or the globe) that treatment.

Have some plans for that. And dont freak out.
WIll be fixed in a few hours.

Re:N. Korea's Own Bad Ways Made This Possible

[ShaunC]

I once visited Saudi Arabia and met the guy responsible for all Internet traffic in and out of the country -- through a single link with a single backup.

Were they allowing Slashdot?

Re:N. Korea's Own Bad Ways Made This Possible

[SwabianEngineer]

Writing a little perl script to iterate all those 17500 (I made that number up) core routers of the U.S. part of the Internet is difficult HOW ? Getting that list is not difficult either - all you need to do is to collect adresses from massive tracerouting. The input for traceroute comes from your webcrawler. The difficult part are the Cisco (and two other makers - then you have 95% of routers) exploits. We know they already have those. And if you think this should be called "nuclear" then you will not be surprised to learn that they have put those weapons under the control of those orgs which do the nuclear stuff. So - the U.S. internet CAN be disabled, because all the small routers, pcs, smart phones and dsl routers are useless if the backbone routers are dead. You just take three days off and walk in the forest, while they fix the router faults used in the exploit. Eat some canned beans or something meanwhile. It will make you less fat, which is good.

Re:Like little children

[AdamThor]

"Imagine how much closer we (as a race) would be if we could eliminate all the stupid waste..."

You don't think that turning off the internet to N Korea was (somebody's idea of) a good first step?

Re:DDoS .. in which attackers flood

[72beetle]

So THAT'S what the caps lock key is for.

Re:Internet ?

[Lectoid]

> Someone picked up the phone, that's all. Probably the best comment here.

Customer support

[PPH]

Did they try turning North Korea off and then back on again?

Re:Customer support

[Irate Engineer]

Did they check to see if North Korea was plugged in?

Re:Customer support

[Fire_Wraith]

They obviously need to reinstall. Even Windows could manage the resources of North Korea better than the Kim dynasty.

Re:Customer support

[Tablizer]

Even Windows could manage the resources of North Korea better than...

Actually, nobody would know the difference:

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

Re:Customer support

[gbjbaanb]

Obviously not... see if you can spot NK on the map

Re:Customer support

[TheGratefulNet]

north korea failed the Genuine Advantage test and their WAN is in hobble-mode until they buy a non-hacked license key.

Re:Like little children

[NewtonsLaw]

Not such a bad idea... just look at what Lee Kwan Yew did for Singapore -- turned it from a backwards island state into one of the world's most sophisticated, modern countries with low tax rates and enviable prosperity.

Benevolent dictators are sometimes a whole lot better than corrupt (faux) democracies controlled by the movie and defense industries behind the scenes... don't you think?

Who gives a damn if you get caned for chewing gum anyway :-)

Interesting....

[ogdenk]

Likely a DDOS from Anonymous....

It would be interesting if the DPRK *IS* responsible for the Sony hack.... now.... Sony is twice as big as the DPRK from a financial standpoint. Can Sony hire a bunch of mercenaries to retaliate or nuke the DPRK and call it self defense? If corporations are people and people have a right to defend themselves with weapons if necessary..... is a corporate army in the US legal?

Re:Interesting....

[AK Marc]

So international law has settled a corporation-state attacking a small country? I thought the rules were all based on country vs country, not company vs country. If Sony can take and hold North Korea, who's to say they can't? If a tin pot dictator does it, it's an internal matter that international law doesn't mess with.

Re:Interesting....

[SvnLyrBrto]

Really, I don't see why Sony should be considered any *less* legitimate than North Korea. There's even a fairly good argument that pretty much ANY publicly-traded corporation's governance is actually significantly MORE legitimate than North Korea's... or that of ant other dictatorship.

Corporate leadership is, after all, at least somewhat answerable to its public, in the form of annual shareholder motions and elections which do occasionally change board of directors membership and force actions upon said board, and therefore the corporation.

Re:Interesting....

[ogdenk]

Remove the sockpuppets in DC and we basically DO have a corporation-state. As far as that goes, we invade whoever the hell we want with almost complete impunity. We've generally sucked at it since the '40's. It's never been quite as profitable since.

Dangerous if its the US

[joe_frisch]

We don't have widely accepted rules of war for cyber-warfare. It has the potential to escalate into acts that cause civilian deaths, and large scale property damage. Does a cyber attack on nuclear strategic forces result in a nuclear counter-attack - the way a conventional attack might?

IF the US is behind this, the initial response may seem reasonable, but it could lead to escalating counter attacks and real badness.

This is very spooky uncharted territory.

Re:Dangerous if its the US

[Virtucon]

Pfft yeah, I'm really worried. The one good thing about having episodes like Sony's hack is the fact that forensically they can be studied by the experts and the exploits eventually fixed. That'll put the SOBs like VUPEN out of business and we'll all be able to get on with our lives. As for critical infrastructure, again why aren't there air gaps between control systems and the Internet? That's fucking stupid and if any utility, pipeline operator or other critical infrastructure provider (FAA et al.) is compromised then whoever decided that was a good idea should be taken to the Mall in DC and put in the Stocks for about six weeks. The only thing I ask is that I have the rotten tomato concession.

Re:Dangerous if its the US

[joe_frisch]

Air gaps are harder than they sound.

Air traffic control now uses ADS-B data linked from aircraft. Anyone with a plane and a few thousand dollars for an ADSB-out unit (required on all aircraft in a few years) is sending data to the air traffic control computers. Is the data sufficiently checked for hacks from badly-formed packets etc? I'm sure its checked but people have managed to hack other systems that were thought to be secure.

Air traffic control may also need feeds from NOAA weather, which will need to get data from and provide data to many outside services.

Utilities may have internet connectivity to allow employees to quickly fix problems from home.

Even with air gaps, systems often need new firmware or software, so you need to control all of the computers where that development is done, or need a way to be sure the software doesn't have hidden time bombs.

I'm not saying that its impossible, but it can be quite difficult to completely secure a system from sophisticated hacks.

Re:Internet ?

[Stargoat]

Yes. It was invented by Kim Jung Un. Al Gore only took the credit.

(OK, yeah, we all know Al Gore didn't really say that. It's a joke.)

Re:Thank god for editors!

[Livius]

Anyone on /. who does not know what ddos means

I thought it was spelled DR-DOS.

Re:Like little children

[Lije Baley]

Oh please, don't you know there are people getting spattered by the blood dripping out of your nose from way up there? Not that I don't wish that this was an alternate reality where nice guys finish first, but since it isn't, why must you incite even more squabbling with such sanctimonious statements...

For NK, it brings a whole ...

[CaptainDork]

... new meaning to, "darknet."

Where can I sign up?

[turkeyfish]

I have quite a bit of extra unused CPU time. Where do I sign up to donate to such a DOS strategy?

With me its not political. I just can't stand the haircut, so I'd like to vote no.

Re:Thank god for editors!

[clovis]

Anyone on /. who does not know what ddos means should be condemned to a lifetime of reading DOS boot disks in binary with a plastic monacle.

I do know what ddos means, but I'd really really like to have a plastic monocle.
Can you fix me up?
Thanks,
Kim

Re:DDoS .. in which attackers flood

[nytes]

To bring this thread to its logical conclusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Routers?

[damn_registrars]

This is consistent with a DDoS attack on their routers,

I honestly didn't think they had more than one. Considering how few people there are allowed to leave the country - physically or digitally - I really expected there would be only one router. They have only one neighbor who they share a land border with who will talk with them, so they likely don't really have a way to set up a redundant second route.

Re:Routers?

[Strudelkugel]

... They have only one neighbor who they share a land border with who will talk with them, so they likely don't really have a way to set up a redundant second route.

Two countries, they share a short border area with Russia

Makes for interesting questions: Do they have fiber running through Russia, too? Did China decide to shut down the NK internet? If NK has a connection through Russia, did they go along with the idea? Or did the US or someone else do something to the internal NK infrastructure? All of the above assumes the NK blackout is not the decision of the NK government.

Friendship by Ray Charles

[BenJeremy]

By sheer coincidence, Best Korea's IT chief just got a shiny CD in the post of Ray Charles' Friendship album and played it just prior to the internet going down.

Re:Thank god for editors!

[TheGratefulNet]

its a multiply-sourced denial of service.

ie, MS-DOS.

Re:Completely untrue

[CaptainDork]

Sorry, your font does not trace to NK.

Why does PRK have Internet

[Virtucon]

Maybe Verizon finally disconnected Kim's FIOS?

Re:Like little children

[Notabadguy]

Some words are more made up than others, irregardless of your opinion.

Gods, it hurts my brain to even type it.

Re:DDoS .. in which attackers flood

[AK Marc]

DD-WRT is a router OS, so DD-OS is the desktop version, right?

Re:DDoS .. in which attackers flood

[Twinbee]

Lights! They're turning on.

I know why

[marciot]

Kim Jong-Un decided to download "The Interview," thereby saturating his country's only dial-up connection to the Internet.

Are they still down?

[Phil Karn]

Is NK still off the net? About a half hour ago I had no trouble reaching the sites www.kcna.kp - 175.45.177.74 / 175.45.176.71 naenara.com.kp - 175.45.176.67 / 175.45.177.77 According to https://www.northkoreatech.org..., both sites are physically hosted inside North Korea. I see that both are in the 175.45.176.0/22 block that whois says is assigned to North Korea, and traceroute shows an extra latency (satellite hop?) for that network past China. Is that their only net block? A /22 is 1024 addresses, which I keep hearing is the total number for the entire country.

I expect that the main mutha

[Grand Facade]

in Korea will shortly be offering up a sacrificial lamb who will be blamed for the actions.

China is not afraid of the refugees

[Taco Cowboy]

China is not afraid of the refugees

China is not afraid of the Kim dynasty of NK

China is not afraid of South Korea

China is not afraid of the Americans stationed in South Korea

What China is truly afraid of, is what the Japanese could do, and the ensuing reaction from the Chinese people against the Japanese

The Japanese could take advantage of the power vacuum and set up a client state in place of the Kim dynasty

If that happens, the Chinese communist regime is afraid that they could no longer contain the Chinese people's anger against the Japanese and the resulting all out chaos

That is the one thing that truly worries the Chinese government

29,500 bodies is not tiny

[johncandale]

29,500 US service men and women as of 2014 is not tiny. That is more then Bush sent on invasion in the first year to Afghanistan or Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... That is more then enough to fight, and within days the US air force in japan (11,000+ US airmen/women) would flatten NK and the US army/marines/navy (39,000+ United states sons and daughters) in japan would be readying to back up south korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... Don't act like we don't have a huge presence in the area.

Re:29,500 bodies is not tiny

[HBI]

I spent good portions of the last 7 years in Korea working the area for the Army. I know who is there. What we have is token opposition to the force in being that we are opposing. We're purposely set up many miles beyond the DMZ to avoid an incident short of actual war. That said, 2ID, the primary US ground force in Korea, has something like 15,000 effectives. It's even worse than it sounds when you say 29,500 - most of the rest are logistics related personnel. Lots of tail, limited teeth. The effectives are the people primarily at risk in the event of NK aggression, other than the Air Force pilots, who are very limited in number. The logistics tail will retreat as quick as they can to Daegu and then Busan, in the event of a NK breakthrough.

Re:29,500 bodies is not tiny

[Talderas]

The US 1st Division OOB has two infantry and one artillery brigade. Each infantry brigade consists of two infantry regiments, each consisting of two battalions of infantry, and a machine gun battalion totaling eight infantry battalions and two machine gun battalions. The artillery brigade consists of three artillery regiments. Two of those have two artillery battalions and one has three battalions. The artillery brigade also has a mortar battalion. The total combat troops of the division is thus eight infantry battalions, two machine gun battalions, seven artillery battalions, and one mortar battalions. There's also division level troops but those aren't combat commands and are things like signals, the HQ unit, or units for the protection of HQ and division elements. The majority of the 1st Division is currently deployed in the US.

The US 2nd Division OOB has two of their three combat brigades stations at Ft Lewis, Washington meaning one-half to two-thirds of the US combat troops organized under the 8th Army HQ in South Korea are stationed in the US. Only a single brigade of the 2nd Division is stationed in Korea. That brigade contains a squadron of a cavalry regiment, an infantry battalion, an armor battalion, and an artillery battalion.

US forces in Korea are not significant enough to provide a huge impact to the outcome of an attempted invasion by N.Korea into S.Korea. They are also not able to play a significant part of a S.Korean invasion of N.Korea. As another poster pointed out, their presence is there only to help keep the peace by providing the bait by which the US would become reinvolved in the conflict.

Re:29,500 bodies is not tiny

[david_thornley]

Your order of battle is a little less than a century old, that being the deployment to France in 1917. It's been updated since.

Re:Internet ?

[tehlinux]

It was clearly his father, the internet expert, that invented it.

Re:DDoS .. in which attackers flood

[31415926535897]

Thank you Mr. Anonymous. Are you sure you know what AA stands for?

Re:DDoS .. in which attackers flood

[31415926535897]

Thanks for playing along. I guess sarcasm isn't received too well around here...strange...

Re:Like little children

[ihtoit]

difference between petulant children and the US is that petulant children, when they go nuclear, are largely confined to the living room. The US has still just one petulant child with his metaphorical finger on the button of thousands of warheads and that look in his eye that says "If I can't have nice things, nobody can!"

Yes it is...

[Martin S.]

When compared to the size of the DPRK army.

Compared to north Korean standing army of 1 Million it is 2.5%.

Then consider their 8m reservists.

Then it really is tiny.

What he really means...

[Martin S.]

Is that he saw this documentary, were John Sweeney said almost the exactly same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...

Chinese supplied internet connection

[VendettaMF]

The dear leader probably tried searching Google for video of Tienanmen square military action...

It's called Kimternet

[dimethylxanthine]

Peace be upon it.

And Keep Down ROK Missile Tech

[cmholm]

As part of a '70's memorandum of understanding between the US and ROK, giving the ROK access to some US missile technologies, they agreed to limit the range of their missiles, about 180km. Recently, the MoU has been modified, allowing the ROK to design and deploy a ballistic missile that can hit any part of the DPRK.

And, to reply to dj245's comment as to exactly who's to blame for tensions on the DMZ, tension is the very thing that gives the DPRK government legitimacy. They deploy tension whenever they feel the political and/or economic need. It is possible that if the US unilaterally withdrew its forces, the result would be nothing. But, that's a guess. What's known is that with US forces in harm's way, the DPRK's military commission has to take the possibility of massive US intervention into account.

Re:Internet ?

[Stargoat]

I believe 3 years in this education center might help your memory, comrade.