Kim To N. Korean Military: Be Ready To Use Nuclear Weapons At Any Time (reuters.com)

PolygamousRanchKid writes with this story from Reuters, excerpting: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un ordered his country to be ready to use its nuclear weapons at any time and to turn its military posture to "pre-emptive attack" mode in the face of growing threats from its enemies, state media said on Friday. The comments, carried by the North's official KCNA news agency, marked a further escalation of tension on the Korean peninsula after the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday imposed harsh new sanctions against the isolated state for its nuclear program. South Korea's defense ministry said on Thursday North Korea launched several projectiles off its coast into the sea up to 150 kilometers (90 miles) away, an apparent response to the U.N. sanctions. ... North Korea has previously threatened pre-emptive attacks on its enemies including South Korea, Japan and the United States. Military experts doubt it has yet developed the capability to fire a long-range missile with a miniaturized warhead to deliver a nuclear weapon as far as the United States. Says PolygamousRanchKid: "Oh, joy oh joy... I knew that 2016 was missing something: the threat of nuclear war!"

Comments

Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop paying attention and he will go away.
It works on internet trolls right? Right?

Re:Shut up

[Applehu Akbar]

Just stop paying attention and he will go away.
It works on internet trolls right? Right?

It's time to eliminate AC countries.

Re:Shut up

[bev_tech_rob]

While this would suck for South Korea, I wish Kim WOULD try a large scale attack so his little army and power structure would be stomped into the ground.

Re:Shut up

[Mishra100]

Such a near sighted comment. -Wishing- an attack and deaths of many thousands and possibly millions of people just to 'stomp' an army into the ground.

This isn't a video game, these are people's lives. Losing your parents, children, loved ones, and/or family is horrible every single time.

Please don't think of wars at a macro level with a 'winner' and 'loser'. At the micro level, it's devastating; brothers that live their lives without limbs, children born without eyes, and sometimes lifetime poverty for families.

I'm so appreciative of the fact that I've grown up without this is my life, but I do think it's made everyone forget about the real life impact wars have on people.

Re: Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who pays their taxes this year is supporting the proxy war the US is fighting with Russia through the Isreali-Syrian conflict. Just because they used the word "wishing" doesn't make you less of a hypocrite. America loves it's wars, it might just as well be a game since we are all being played.

Re: Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone replying to my thread just to get their BS near the too of the page needs to read and obey the subject.

Re: Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

It might save more lives then it would harm. Living conditions in North Korea are horrendous from what I understand.

Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Harlequin80]

There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK. The real deterrent they have is the massed conventional artillery pointed at Seuol. Any attack on NK would have to be so overwhelming as to destroy the artillery in a minute. If not millions of civilians die.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Dorianny]

There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK. The real deterrent they have is the massed conventional artillery pointed at Seuol. Any attack on NK would have to be so overwhelming as to destroy the artillery in a minute. If not millions of civilians die.

Nobody is seriously considering a first strike on North Korea. All their bolstering about their enemies threatening attack is for domestic consumption. With the new sanctions imposed life in North Korea is about to get even harder and injecting a new dose of fear in the populace helps to keep them under control. The truth is that what South Korea fears as well as China fear most is a rapid collapse of the regime and millions of immigrants making a mad-dash for the borders

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be *bloody*. You are correct about what the real threat is.

Millions would die in the first couple of weeks. After that it would be extremely bloody on the NK side.

It is not entirely clear how the Chinese would react.

The only hope for a 'bloodless' thing to happen is for the people of NK to rise up and say 'enough'.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point nothing is a deterrent... the military threat from the North combined with the rhetorical threats from a mentally unstable leader is already cause enough for massive preemptive attack by the US and the South Koreans.

The North needs to deescalate.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[dbIII]

That's war kids.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[ShanghaiBill]

rhetorical threats from a mentally unstable leader

Kim is NOT mentally unstable. His actions are deliberate and rational. The Kim dynasty has been in power for 70 years. They have wrung concession after concession out of the rest of the world. If Kim negotiated calmly, no one would cave in to his demands. But by issuing threats, and using bizarre behavior, he has been able to get his opponents to accept any deal this is even halfway sane.

The North needs to deescalate.

That would be foolish. It would lead to the end of his regime. He needs an external enemy to justify his rule.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Cramer]

By their lack-luster nuclear tests. They have the nuke equiv of a firecracker. Kill people and make a hell of a mess, sure; vaporize a city, no.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Cramer]

Weeks? If they lob a nuke, it'll be over in HOURS. And it won't necessarily even involve the US.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Krishnoid]

Thank goodness we have our own Kim on our side to prevent this from becoming reality.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Etherwalk]

There are 25 million people in North Korea who have to be either killed or unbrainwashed, including over a million active duty personell. The only way to prevent decades of war--short of reducing 45,000 square miles to a sheet of glass--would be if you could capture and coerce (or simulate) their "Dear Leader" for an extended period of time after the conflict.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Crashmarik]

If they make a mad dash to the the south it will be through a giant minefield.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[hairyfeet]

It wouldn't be the first time. ladies and gentlemen meet the freedom tank where a Czech found an old Nazi battle tractor, slapped hillbilly armor on that bitch, and drove it right through the iron curtain. I'm sure there are tractors in NK that could similarly be made into "freedom tanks".

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Any attack on NK would have to be so overwhelming as to destroy the artillery in a minute. If not millions of civilians die.

I think that you overestimate the potential casualties. Even a sustained barrage probably wouldn't be enough to kill millions, mostly because it couldn't be sustained. There are a few other factors working both against the North and for the South. First off, South Korea has long known that North Korean artillery is a threat and so has prepared mobile counter-battery units equipped with MLRS cluster bomblets, among other anti-artillery counter measures. Second, the South Koreans have no doubt organized some form of civil defense to further limit civilian casualties. On the North Korean side, their equipment is old and poorly maintained, reducing both reliability and accuracy. In addition to the generally poor readiness of North Korean equipment, a substantial percentage of their shells are probably past their useful service lifetimes and likely to be duds at this point. I have heard estimates of casualties in the tens of thousands before the North Korean guns could be silenced. That's still significant, but it's hardly in the millions.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Time_Ngler]

So they can destroy Seoul in one strike, then?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Pikoro]

And with that small nuke, they could simply fire on Okinawa. Most of the military forces in the Asia/Pacific region would be gone with one strike.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

You can bet your ass that a lot of people in the US military have been -very- seriously considering a first strike on North Korea, as well as special forces incursions, surprise attacks, decapitation attacks, full scale invasions, and have been for years. They have evidently all come to the conclusion there is no way to safely destroy the NK leadership and its nuclear ability before a possible retaliatory strike on South Korea was launched.

And that is the only reason the NK regime is still in power right now. There's a reason why it's called a -deterrent-. If they didn't have their nukes, they'd be gone.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure? He's friends with Dennis Rodman.

Enough said.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Tailhook]

millions of civilians die

Millions would not die. The death toll of a surprise barrage by NK conventional artillery would be tens of thousands. Long range NK artillery would be neutralized in the first week. Seoul would survive.

You're parroting the claims of the NYT and others that tend to exaggerate the consequences of conflict for their own misguided reasons. Without nuclear or chemical weapons NK cannot destroy Seoul, and with such weapons they face rapid obliteration by the strategic weapons of South Korean allies.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Opportunist]

So it would take 3 days longer until li'l Kim is a charred corpse?

Look, he's much, but not insane. He knows well that ANY strike ANYWHERE would be answered with the total and absolute annihilation of anything and everything that might possibly, remotely have some kind of something resembling power in NKor. In other words, they want to keep their hookers and blow, and they really want to stay alive.

The very last thing they want to do is give anyone a good justification to end that.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I know your teachers taught you to strictly adhere to writing standards, but this isn't a New York Times article or an essay for the Knowledge Bowl. It's a fucking internet forum. Get a real hobby instead of 'self-appointed usage police.'

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Opportunist]

My guess is that the outcome analysis pretty much came back with "not worth it. Even without nukes they wouldn't".

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Opportunist]

If they lob a nuke even remotely somewhere into the vicinity of the US, the sheet of glass strategy would possibly be seen as "not enough. But a start".

Re: Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[easyTree]

Let's remember 'preemptive response' from the US playbook of illogical terms.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Every country has an enemy it is fighting against. Without the enemy, every country has no reason to exist.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[thesupraman]

Why?

As things stands the US has a nice easy to present bogeyman which is almost zero actual threat to the US.
If they removed them, they would gain little, and lose a useful political piece (got to keep the unwashed masses scared of something,
god forbid peace came to the middle east, nice to have a backup!)

The US gets to prod them with a stick from time to time (always nice to carry out live fire exercises right on their ocean border zones) to
keep the system churning away, NK gets to point to a terrible enemy to their existence, really it works for those in power on both sides.

Or did you think it was for the benefit of the general masses on either side? Really?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Plus1Entropy]

Very interesting report. Certainly makes me rethink the (for lack of a better term) conventional wisdom about NK's ability to strike at Seoul. Until now I would have essentially agreed with the OP. The report definitely seems to be well thought out and thorough, however it does rely on some information which, while it may be the best available, is not completely verified (acknowledged in the report, to it's credit). For example, the so-called "Dud rate". I'm don't necessarily disagree with these numbers, but when considering potential civilian casualties their uncertainty must be factored into the inherent risk.

Also, I'm not sure what "misguided reasons" the NYT and others have to exaggerate the consequences of the conflict. Perhaps they are misinformed, or ignorant, but that statement indicates that there is some ulterior motive, and I don't think that's justified.

Furthermore, while the consequences may not be as severe or immediate as some believe, they are still pretty severe, they are still pretty immediate, and they will absolutely be far reaching. There is something to be said for the value of restraint, perhaps in this situation most of all.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[jandersen]

There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK

Personally, I'm not as confident as that - we already know of people in this world, who are prepared to throw it all away even in an empty gesture, if they are pushed hard enough; and they do seem to have the capability to make nuclear weapons, even if it is only just. The problem is that they have been pushed into a corner that gets ever tighter, and they still haven't got the sense to change their tack. Do we believe they are going to back down at some point? I'm not convinced - it would appear that we have left them no way out of the corner, that they can accept. To me it seems that we, being the ones who in real terms are the strongest by several orders of magnitude, are also the ones who can best afford to give them a way out of the problems that they can accept. And in fact, I think that this is a course of action we are already trying to pursue; I hope we succeed.

But my fear is that we are seeing the approach of a major conflict, in which we have to confront the elements that have for whatever reasons chosen not make peace with the rest of the global society. There is little doubt that we will win, in the long run, but I hope we will make it worth the cost by creating a fairer and more egalitarian society afterwards. Because, like it or not, the one, common theme behind all of this is ever growing inequality in the world, with some - the developed nations - having a tendency to piss the less fortunate nations up and down and exploit them ruthlessly.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Richard_at_work]

Right. Through a minefield designed to stop T-72's. I don't think you realise the enormity of the situation there.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Harlequin80]

But the corner that they are in is the corner the rulers want to be in. They can point at the big bad americans and live it up. Yeah the general population lives in hell but those in the ruling party live a very very comfortable life.

These people are not driven by a crazy religion or ideology. They are just leveraging the western threat to live the high life at the price of the peasants.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[johanw]

> Nobody is seriously considering a first strike on North Korea.

And that is why they are developing those nukes: to make sure it stays that way. Without them, Kim might already have suffered the same fate as Saddam by the only nation that started multiple wars of aggression in the 21st century.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[tsotha]

No, they don't have a device that's small enough to fit on a missile. Yet. But Cramer is wrong - a few kilotons is enough to wipe out a city.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[TheRaven64]

No. They're not a problem for the country that they're leaving, they're a problem for the country that they're arriving in.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[jafiwam]

This stuff is easy to look up yourself.

Hell, get on Google Earth or Google Maps and review all the places they say there will be attacks from.

You'll find a few holes and tunnel entrances.

What you won't find, is fast deploy-able anti aircraft weapons. You won't find ports or ships to carry attackers. You won't find rail lines that can't be cut fast, and you won't find shit for infrastructure to support a war or a movement of troops. You won't find airfields of any merit. You won't find planes on any of the ones that are there that have moved in years. To attack, they'll have to WALK. Over MOUNTAINS.

Cluster bombs, dropped mines, and other simple stuff will stop them. Hell, drop FOOD behind the lines with a leaflet that says "we dropped all the food behind you." That's what they want anyway, that's the reason for all the threats.

Nothing will come of any of this. China will ship them some more food and they'll quiet down until the crops fail next year.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Bert64]

The sanctions only serve to help the government, they make it easier to keep the populace cut off from outside sources of influence and provide evidence the government can use to demonstrate to its people how foreign governments are taking steps which negatively impact on them.

Those high in the government are not affected, they still have black market channels to get goods in and out of the country and can still make a tidy profit doing so. Lots of goods made in places like north korea using extremely cheap labor are labelled as "made in india" or "made in china" and shipped via those countries for resale in the west.

The only ones who are hurt by sanctions are the north korean people.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[AxeTheMax]

It matters because it shows that the writer is thinking entirely from his / her perspective. Assuming that the writer is American, it suggests that they see emigrants from other countries only as immigrants into theirs, (and if they're not American, similar attitudes exist in most other countries). It shows no consideration for the viewpoint of the subject which is North Korea and North Koreans. It thus makes the argument poor, weak, and downright irritating to those who try to see both sides.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[dargaud]

Nothing will come of any of this. China will ship them some more food and they'll quiet down until the crops fail next year.

Why do their crops seem to fail year after year ? Do they put ALL their resources in the military and nothing for the rest of the country ?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti tank mines require upwards of 300 to 400 pounds of pressure to set them off. If the people flee on foot they do not need to worry about AT mines, except maybe some armed forces. 220 lbs 70 lbs pack and 15 lbs in weapon and ammo and you are pushing your luck. They should keep in mind though that the DMZ is one of the few places in the world still actively mined for Anti personnel mines. Ap mines can take as few as twenty pounds to set off.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reding too much into it. Evry1 else knew what the speaker ment, the only listeners having an issue are grammer nazis. So shut the fuck up.

Grammar, spelling and punctuation errors have been added specifically to piss you off.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[DigiShaman]

It's why you let that regime wither on the vine by imposing sanctions and a naval blockade. Would that spark war? Sure, absolutely it could. But isn't going to war with them now better then waiting until they have a 100+ nuclear weapons? Just rip the bandaid off now and get it over with. Otherwise, it will fester and be far deadlier of a situation than you can possibly imagine. A few cities might fall, but that's just the cost of being feckless. This regime should NOT exist in the first place.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much. PBS has a few documentaries and there are a few on netflix as well. Pretty much everything goes to supplying extravagant shit to dear leader and entourage, and the rest goes to government/military/indoctrination.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[ausekilis]

You've touched on the topic of No First Use. So I'd say you're spot on with the U.S., U.K., Israel and Pakistan... But you never know what China and India may do.

North Korea has been like a bratty little brother to China for decades now, and reports seem to hint that China is getting a bit tired of N.K. shenanigans. Such as China militarizing the border with North Korea, and it not being heard of to open fire on illegals crossing the border.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[cdrudge]

A good portion of the country just sucks to crow crops. Poor soil, terrain, and climate conditions just make it impractical to grow crops in a significant amount.

For the parts that can grow crops, economic sanctions have had their effect to. Having very limited access to commercial pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, and electricity for irrigation results in significantly lower crop yields than what a modern farm would yield. Add in severe natural disasters, lack of diversity in crops, shitty seed, etc and you have a recipe for the current agriculture conditions.

Plus it's just hard to grow plaster fruits and veggies.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[joboss]

After Kosovo, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, Libya, Syria I wouldn't be so sure. However the USA would probably not prefer war in two theatres but they have done it before.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[joboss]

I agree then I disagree. Other parties have been notoriously disruptive when it comes to calm negotiation. The only thing they really want is to negotiate North Korea's surrender. So it doesn't really go very far. Then there are the power games US and Japan play.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[joboss]

Addendum: > He needs an external enemy to justify his rule. Be careful. This is from our propaganda about how we love the people we just hate their leaders. Given the situation we would be against their leaders even if democratically elected so really we're for the people as long as their leaders are for us. There is no reason to believe that North Korea wont get along fine without the constant external existential threat there. The only real risk on all fronts is a change to the status quo especially as the North Korean quagmire has existed in a constant state for half a century. No one really knows anything different any more so its a great unknown that anyone would be hesitant to face.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[sacrilicious]

He needs an external enemy to justify his rule.

ha, I pity people who have to live in such an arrangement. (*looks around*) Wait...

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Mythbusters did show recently that you can indeed go right over mines with an improvised build hovercraft as the weight gets so evenly distributed that not even the AP mines went off. (Interestingly showing that part of the plot for that Bond movie where NK was going to do just that wasn't so far off).

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know that the "Iron Curtain" was a metaphor?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Bert64]

A lot of people aren't really so brainwashed, they take a more pragmatic approach - play along or end up jailed/killed. Many will switch sides when the benefits outweigh the risks for them.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[necro81]

The real deterrent they have is the massed conventional artillery pointed at Seuol.

I disagree. North Korea's real deterrent is their hungry and oppressed population of 25 million. The crazies-that-be in North Korea know that China will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to deal with the chaos that will ensue if and when the N.K. government collapses (or is overthrown). N.K. would have essentially no trade, and a whole lot more famine, without China. China could probably put a stop to N.K.'s nuclear and rocket program if it chose to, but doing so would probably also result in hordes of Koreans ditching their basketcase country and overrunning the boarder...into China.

What confuses me, though, is why China doesn't just bite the bullet and allow that to happen. For a country of over 1.3 billion people, which builds brand new multi-million-person cities on a routine basis, cleaning up the mess of a collapsed North Korea wouldn't be unmanageable.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[necro81]

They have wrung concession after concession out of the rest of the world. If Kim negotiated calmly, no one would cave in to his demands. But by issuing threats, and using bizarre behavior, he has been able to get his opponents to accept any deal this is even halfway sane.

That statement becomes amusing, in a grim sort of way, if you realize that the same could be said of Donald Trump.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[shawn2772]

You sure? He's friends with Dennis Rodman.

Enough said.

Did you miss the part of the GP that mentioned using bizarre behavior as a negotiating tactic?

Re: Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Type44Q]

A small city, perhaps but it'd require an airburst so smuggling it in would be out; they'd definitely require those primitive ICBM's (which reminds me of a joke from the 80's: Q) What did Jessie Jackson bring to the ICBM conference? A) A pooper scooper.

Re: Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Type44Q]

LOL, you're completely talking out of your ass. While NK is not [nor has it ever been] much of a threat to anyone but South Korea and Japan, they do happen to be the most incredibly-useful bogeyman imaginable... and that very much ensures their protected status.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Coren22]

Or perhaps he was speaking from the Chinese and SK perspective, as the rest of the sentence shows.

The truth is that what South Korea fears as well as China fear most is

To China and SK, the people are indeed immigrants who are emigrating from North Korea.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually just one war of aggression, Iraq. The other was retaliation.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[painandgreed]

Why do their crops seem to fail year after year ? Do they put ALL their resources in the military and nothing for the rest of the country ?

That is a large part of it. Military first is a main guiding principle in NK. They justify it due to the threat of the USA and their puppet government in SK. Even when the country was starving, food first went to the military as well as other resources.

Other points are that NK just isn't a good place for growing crops. Most of the good farm land is in the south and the north is good for mining. Another is that the country very seriously follows the guidence of their supreme leaders, and at one time, the eldest Kim advised crop and irrigation methods that nobody with an agricultural degree would have because they would have caused serious erosion of the soil, which it has. So, in the end, they have bad land for growing crops which has been made much worse over the years because nobody can contradict the dictates of the leader without also attacking the state, their resources and money go to the military first and what is left over go to things like agriculture, and what crops they do grow, first go to the military, including making sure they have a stockpile incase of a sustained war.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing will come of any of this. China will ship them some more food and they'll quiet down until the crops fail next year.

Why do their crops seem to fail year after year ? Do they put ALL their resources in the military and nothing for the rest of the country ?

They've historically have put about 75% of their annual GDP into their military. To counter that somewhat, they do often use military units to farm, when they are not conducting drills.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Tailhook]

Also, I'm not sure what "misguided reasons" the NYT and others have to exaggerate the consequences of the conflict.

The parroting of NK's exaggerated 'Sea of Fire' propaganda — which is ongoing by the way — supports the argument that nothing provocative or aggressive should be done, and instead we must negotiate. Diplomacy first, last and always. The fact that this policy is misguided should be self evident; decades of negotiation and 'agreed frameworks' where we unfailingly accept NK lies as truth in the name of diplomacy has produced a nuclear armed NK working diligently to perfect delivery.

Perhaps they are misinformed, or ignorant

No, the "misinformed, or ignorant" cop-out doesn't work; the effectiveness of artillery and the order of battle is understood well enough to debunk the 'flattened Seoul' line you've been successfully fed. All one must do is ask a military analyst to analyze. This doesn't happen because the result would not fit the preferred narrative.

Furthermore, while the consequences may not be as severe or immediate as some believe, they are still pretty severe

No one claimed otherwise. Not sure what you think you're correcting here. The difference between reality and NK/NYT propaganda is two orders of magnitude and the term 'exaggerate' is entirely appropriate. The thing that should concern you isn't whether the NK/NYT falsehoods can be salvaged but how and why you and so many others allow yourselves to be misled so badly.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Richard_at_work]

Read the post I am replying to - it talks about a converted WW2 armoured car being used to escape the Iron Curtain, referring to something similar being used to flee North Korea.

Hence my comments about a minefield designed to stop the predominant NK tank - its going to stop any such "freedom tank" as discussed.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[jfengel]

Nobody is seriously considering a first strike on North Korea.

Nobody serious is considering it, but there are a fair number of not-serious candidates running for President, and I wouldn't put a first strike past any of them if provoked. And NK does love to provoke.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[jd.schmidt]

The Chinese are, seriously. Yes, this would only be in response to certain types of actions in NK, notably appearing to be trying to reunify with SK, but the Chinese have a contingency plan for that possibility, bank on it. Also, NK doesn't really know that we won't attack them. They know we CAN win a war with them, possibly even if the Chinese rush to their defense, they really only have the deterrent of massive civilian casualties in SK. The problem with a democracy is some who want to invade your country just might be elected, so you can never be sure.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[butchersong]

I would say the response from the US to such an action will depend entirely on the administration in charge. Hillary? Any Republican? True. Obama? I am not confident that he would not see a nuclear retaliation as overkill.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because I'm sure the US military commanders were about to roll the Marines over the DMZ right as North Korea performed their first test. No, wait - we've been in a cease fire for 50+ years, and perfectly content to stay that way.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

We heard that about Japan in 1945. Didn't work out that way then, either.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Dorianny]

The Chinese are, seriously. Yes, this would only be in response to certain types of actions in NK, notably appearing to be trying to reunify with SK, but the Chinese have a contingency plan for that possibility, bank on it. Also, NK doesn't really know that we won't attack them. They know we CAN win a war with them, possibly even if the Chinese rush to their defense, they really only have the deterrent of massive civilian casualties in SK. The problem with a democracy is some who want to invade your country just might be elected, so you can never be sure.

NK has been nothing but a thorn on China's behind. Its clandestine weapons programs and erratic behavior are giving the U.S a very good excuse to deploy Missile defense systems to SK which would blunt the perceived threat posed by China's own missiles just as China is trying to asserts its dominance over the region. The attempt to assertion of dominance also implies that China feels that its military is quite capable of taking on its foes and unlikely to view the NK as necessary buffer from attack. With reunification the U.S would no longer have a good reason for its large military presence in Korea. South Korea would be burdened for decades with the massive reconstruction effort needed to rebuild the North and military spending is likely to shrink. In the long term a Unified Korea is still nowhere near the size of the Chinese juggernaut.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[omnichad]

What confuses me, though, is why China doesn't just bite the bullet and allow that to happen. For a country of over 1.3 billion people, which builds brand new multi-million-person cities on a routine basis, cleaning up the mess of a collapsed North Korea wouldn't be unmanageable.

Maybe this is the backup plan behind all of their empty megacities like Kangbashi.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[paulpach]

Every government has an enemy it is fighting against. Without the enemy, every government has no reason to exist.

There, fixed that for you

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

That's war kids.

You're missing a comma. That should say:

That's war, kids.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

And with that small nuke, they could simply fire on Okinawa. Most of the military forces in the Asia/Pacific region would be gone with one strike.

Right, because the US doesn't keep (at least) one nuclear armed submarine covertly underwater within striking distance of Kim's toilet at all times. He's not stupid; he knows exactly what his life expectancy would be if he were to ever act so rashly.

It wouldn't surprise me if China didn't have a handful of IRBMs similarly targeted, and had let Kim know about it as well, just so he knows who is really in charge. A NK nuclear strike on Japan would force China to step in decisively to pre-empt a US or global response. China cannot afford the backlash from allowing Kim to have the free reign to do even half of what he advertises. However, as long as the situation remains minimally stable, China doesn't have to own the NK humanitarian problem, nor face the ultimate failure of a decades old war. The NK sabre rattling is mostly for internal consumption.

- T

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it totally was, because it wasn't really iron, it was minefields, electric fences, barbed wire and guard towers.

I'm Czech; drop by sometime, I'll show you the few bits that we have preserved.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

That claim has been debunked for ages: https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seoul/

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[sysrammer]

Of course. Planning for contingencies is a military's job. So your first statement is common knowledge. Also common knowledge is the fact that we didn't invade before NK had nukes. So, no, these nukes are not the deterrent that you think they are.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

You realise the NK having nukes is a relatively recent thing? The "nuclear deterrent" doesn't explain why nothing was done before they had nukes.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you realize 'enormity' doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

But... Seoul is producing all these gadgets we buy like cell phones and the like and not the USA, right?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

One sub, one carrier or one cruiser can deal with that. Just have to be aware of the wind direction. NW winds and the Chinese won't like that activity. Be sides we demonstrated that our obsolete SM2ER was capable of shooting down a ICBM.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have been in TDC South Korea, the military hardware there is no joke. That just one of many installations in S. Korea. The Phillipines just seized a N. Korean cargo ship. If the Flips ain't skeered why should we be?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent

[Some_Llama]

what errors?

The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[BarbaraHudson]

Look at the bright side - the day after a North Korea 1st strike, the problem with North Korea will be solved. Or at least disappear.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

One would hope that the PRC would consent to the DPRK being reduced to glowing ashes in the event of a DPRK first strike...

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody would stop to ask for consent. A nuclear attack means instant retaliation.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a math major, but I would like to know how many parking spots will a 20 megaton US nuclear bomb yield?

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[mysidia]

Nobody would stop to ask for consent. A nuclear attack means instant retaliation.

Not necessarily. An "instant retaliation" requires presidential authorization to launch missiles in response, and President Obama's character is such that he will never approve of launching the nukes, not even in retaliation after a first strike from NK turns San Francisco or New York City into a glowing pile of ash.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether he has the authority or not to prevent it, no president would have the power to stop it. The will of the people to counter attack would be overwhelming and to attempt to prevent that would just end up getting him removed legally or (most likely) otherwise and replaced with someone who will if not the military telling him to fuck off and attacking anyways.

But all shit talking aside, if North Korea attacked, Obama would sign that attack order without hesitation. Hell, you can see everything he has done to stay in conflict in areas Bush had already forced him to withdraw from with an international agreement signed before Obama took office. He isn't as much of a pussy as the GOP makes him out to be, he isn't a bulldog by any means, but he would sign that order within seconds of a nuclear attack being discovered.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[dbIII]

Also any problems with South Korea existing are also solved :(

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[ShanghaiBill]

I'm not a math major, but I would like to know how many parking spots will a 20 megaton US nuclear bomb yield?

The US doesn't have any 20 megaton bombs. The last weapons in that range were decommissioned 40 years ago. Most US strategic warheads are 200KT or less. That is still 10 Nagasakis, but only 1% of 20MT. Nuclear arsenals today are vastly smaller than they were at the height of the cold war.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a high school, maybe even grade school, problem. You are a good indicator of the caliber of education today.

captcha: incoming

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Who said anything about President Obama? The second Little Kim acts out, CHINA will obliterate North Korea.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[kuzb]

Yeah, because millions of innocent dead is a bright side. Some of the things you say are so stupid they're baffling.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Harlequin80]

Unless NK has a huge jump in technology any bomb they set off would be relatively low yield meaning to would be very unlikely for the US to go all MAD within seconds. If they bombed a US city they would also launch artillery strikes on South Korea, this would see US forces in Japan & SK hitting back hard, extremely quickly. On top of that the Chinese would move in fast in order to ensure they were at the negotiating table afterwards.

Realistically even if NK nuked an American city America would not nuke back. Conventional forces would be shredding NK in a matter of hours. More likely nukes would be detonated in NK by NK during that time.
   

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Cramer]

You assume the military is telling the truth about their weapons stocks. (that'd be a bad bet.) Even though each warhead is a few hundred KT, we put many more than ONE on a missile.

(and a neutron bomb doesn't have to be very "big". that said one might think NK's dismal nuke tests could be neutron bomb tests.)

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey math major: You still didn't answer my question. Are you a politician?

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

depends on the target... china could either make south korea an island or cheer and applaud and throw parties in kim's honor.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Jeremi]

Yeah, because millions of innocent dead is a bright side. Some of the things you say are so stupid they're baffling.

I see you didn't quite follow his reasoning, so let's go over it. The millions of innocent dead are the downside. The fact that it couldn't happen a second time, because after a nuclear exchange the problematic North Korean government would no longer exist, that's the bright side.

Accuse the parent poster of joking in bad taste if you want, but what he posted was perfectly logical.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Dorianny]

I'm not a math major, but I would like to know how many parking spots will a 20 megaton US nuclear bomb yield?

The US doesn't have any 20 megaton bombs. The last weapons in that range were decommissioned 40 years ago. Most US strategic warheads are 200KT or less. That is still 10 Nagasakis, but only 1% of 20MT. Nuclear arsenals today are vastly smaller than they were at the height of the cold war.

As a weapon of sheer terror the 50 Megaton Tzar bomba is, well Tzar. As far as actual destruction goes most of the energy of a air-blast actually goes up into space rather then to the ground. If your target is a sprawling city rather then a fortified bunker a large number of smaller warheads will do more damage to your target then a larger bomb. Today's ICBM's are designed to carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles , each of which carries a separate nuclear warhead

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[thegarbz]

because after a nuclear exchange the problematic North Korean government would no longer exist, that's the bright side.

Yep because that has happened so often of the past 100 years that it's worth killing millions for.

But I disagree with one fundamental part of this... we have been far closer to the threat of nuclear war than this. It's a little man trying to show how big he is. He's all sorts of crazy, but he's not stupid. North Korea won't pre-emptively strike the USA any more than they were the first nation to put an astronaut on the sun (at night of course because it would be too hot during the day).

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Zontar The Mindless]

The Chinese would much rather maintain their highly profitable trade with this hypothetical island, than continue to prop up Li'l Kim at a huge loss.

Not to mention that the boys in Beijing are getting *mighty* tired of losing face just so Kim can keep playing the schoolyard bully.

If the Americans promised not to venture north of the DMZ, the Chinese would likely be quite happy to have SK take over NK any time.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[netlag1]

Realistically even if NK nuked an American city America would not nuke back. Conventional forces would be shredding NK in a matter of hours. More likely nukes would be detonated in NK by NK during that time.

The US would nuke back, without hesitation. If they didn't, they would be inviting others to try it too. That's MAD.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume the military is on their own program. State and the rest of DC has a keen interest in making sure that we comply with treaty obligations.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Our ICBMs no longer carry MIRVs, though our D5 submarine-launched missiles (SLBMs) allegedly do.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[sociocapitalist]

Look at the bright side - the day after a North Korea 1st strike, the problem with North Korea will be solved. Or at least disappear.

Seems doubtful that the west would dare retaliate with nukes given that North Korea is attached to China.

Which is of course why NK gets away with all the bullshit that they get away with to start with.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[phantomfive]

That's not a bright side.
We don't want North Korea to disappear, we want them to be integrated back into the international community. To stop being crazy. To enjoy the good things we all enjoy.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Harlequin80]

No they wouldn't. Because even though there are plenty of gun toting crazies in the US you do not fire ICBMs anywhere near a nuclear power. NK shares a border with China. China would not sit still with missiles coming in or stand off bombers in bound.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would probably mean China hitting NK very hard to settle the situation and avoid a US strike.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[netlag1]

No they wouldn't. Because even though there are plenty of gun toting crazies in the US you do not fire ICBMs anywhere near a nuclear power. NK shares a border with China. China would not sit still with missiles coming in or stand off bombers in bound.

So NK is free to nuke anyone because they share a border with a nuclear power? No. Nuking the US would get an automatic response of getting nuked back, that's not a gun-toting crazy response. That's the response if they don't want others thinking they could get away with nuking them too. And it wouldn't be an ICBM, it would be SLBMs from a nearby submarine. China would stay out of it and watch the firework show, they're not stupid

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Harlequin80]

I really really really hope you are wrong. NK isn't free to nuke someone. if they nuke someone the rules are going to die along with a lot of other people. But it will be using conventional weapons.

If the US starts using long range or sub deployed nukes the risk of China panicking are too high. One missile wrongly identified as headed towards a Chinese population centre and we are all dead.

If thousands and thousands of US troops land in NK and Kim et all are executed no other country is going to think it's ok to nuke the US. There is no need to risk Armageddon to make that point.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[TheRaven64]

The problem with nuclear weapons is that the fallout is not contained. Hitting North Korea, without effectively hitting China is very difficult. If the Chinese say that dropping a nuke within a certain radius of their borders would be considered an act of war, do you think that a sane US President would still do so? Retaliation is far likely to be using conventional weapons (and conventional missiles can still do a lot of damage). China would probably welcome a chance to show off how much damage its military can do in a conventional conflict against an opponent that is unambiguously the bad guy to the international audience.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[jafiwam]

South Korea does a lot of trade with China. LOTS.

The Chinese are in a pretty bad position. They don't want democracy right at their door. They don't want to screw with the gravy train from the US and South Korea. Their strategic asset is fucking with their economic asset so they are going for a balance, but might have to choose which they lose.

China will bribe their way out of it like usual, and send food to the Norks.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Zak3056]

I really really really hope you are wrong. NK isn't free to nuke someone. if they nuke someone the rules are going to die along with a lot of other people. But it will be using conventional weapons.

If the US starts using long range or sub deployed nukes the risk of China panicking are too high. One missile wrongly identified as headed towards a Chinese population centre and we are all dead.

If thousands and thousands of US troops land in NK and Kim et all are executed no other country is going to think it's ok to nuke the US. There is no need to risk Armageddon to make that point.

It has been the policy of the US since there have been nuclear weapons that if you hit us with nuclear weapons we will hit you back with nuclear weapons. It's a reasonable conclusion that, yes, it is extremely likely that our leadership will "risk Armageddon to make that point."

That said, I think it's extremely unlikely that they would get the chance. My money says Beijing nukes Pyongyang before we ever get the chance to, precisely because of the point you just made. It also reinforces the position that China appears to be taking today (with regard to the South China Sea, among other things) that the region is their sphere of influence, thank you very much, and they're perfectly capable of policing it.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[dmgxmichael]

I've been of the opinion for some time that the solution lies in with China in this manner.

Here's what I think would work. Talk with the Chinese leadership and I bet they'd agree to the following plan. Have them propose to the North Koreans to send in troops to help them stage their own "military games" at the same time the US and South Korea are staging theirs. Once the Chinese army is in Pyongyang under this pretext, they cut the head off the snake. After North Korea falls, South Korea takes over and the US military withdraws from the peninsula as well. The US also agrees to cut all arms supplies to Taiwan and end that protective pact.

Sure, this sucks for Taiwan, but Taiwan under red China with a unified Korea under Seoul is a hell of a lot more stable the status quo, and better for the world over all. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - further the suffering of Taiwan under China would not be nearly as bad as North Korea under Kim.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the news yesterday? We don't need Algebra! It's too hard! The cisgendered hunnies can't handle it!

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[spyfrog]

That question has obviously been discussed between US and China and I am quite sure that there is procedures to use to tell China that they will strike North Korea.

Also, since China really isn't expecting a nuclear strike from US or any one else (this isn't the cold war), they probably wouldn't push the "world destroy" button if they saw a missile without first checking it.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[spyfrog]

That plan wouldn't work since Kim doesn't trust China. He knows that China is feed up with him. Actually, he probably fears China more than US since he know that they might make a move to remove him. He would never approve that kind of military game.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it would be bright for a while, then comes the mushroom cloud...

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[twotacocombo]

President Obama's character is such that he will never approve of launching the nukes, not even in retaliation after a first strike from NK turns San Francisco or New York City into a glowing pile of ash.

I think his hand would be rather forced in that scenario, but we did see how well he backed up his 'red line' BS regarding chemical weapons in Syria.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[twotacocombo]

The second Little Kim acts out, CHINA will obliterate North Korea.

That wouldn't be in China's best interest. They certainly don't want millions of panicked refugees attempting to cross their border. A more likely scenario is that Fatty the Third suddenly dies of a heart attack or car crash, and the Kim dynasty comes to an abrupt end.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need to use ICBMs to nuke NK. There have been submarine-mounted nuclear-armed cruise missiles for quite some time.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[BarbaraHudson]

They don't all carry live nukes. Some of the warheads in any mirv are decoys designed to distract anti-missile defenses. This way, not only can they keep under the treaty limits for actual warheads, but the decoys require a lot less maintenance.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[BarbaraHudson]

North Korea has no capability of nuking north america. South Korea (next door) , Taiwan (just under 2,000 km), and Japan (just over 1,000 km) are more likely targets.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

China can put as many men under arms on the NK border within, say, 72 hours, as NK have in their whole country.

Or they could reboot NK as a shiny new car park in about 72 *minutes*.

Perhaps the Chinese will make Kim an offer he can't refuse...

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[kuzb]

The point you're not getting is that there is no bright side. There is no point where anyone benefits here. NK will get annihilated killing many innocents there (I mean, come on, I bet a lot of people there aren't there by choice) but not before they shell the shit out of South Korea.

You're as stupid as she is.

Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud

[sociocapitalist]

That question has obviously been discussed between US and China and I am quite sure that there is procedures to use to tell China that they will strike North Korea.

Also, since China really isn't expecting a nuclear strike from US or any one else (this isn't the cold war), they probably wouldn't push the "world destroy" button if they saw a missile without first checking it.

Not sure how valid your assumptions are but I am quite sure that America would not accept for any reason anyone nuking Mexico or Canada because they are so close to the US border as there would be, if nothing else, great concern over radiation and fallout, water tables, etc.

So no, I don't agree with you. If the US launched on NK, there would be hell to pay - which is no doubt why the US hasn't done jack shit about a country with known nuclear capabilities threatening to nuke US interests.

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Seoul and no one I know is even slightly concerned about this guy. No one is scared and no one cares.

Ignore him.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. You are a fake and a liar. I live in Seoul and there is tension and mass paranoia. We are all going to be nuked and it sucks.

Re:Yawn

[Tablizer]

You might indeed someday, but Kimmy is just bluster most the time.

Re:Yawn

[wheeda]

When I've been in Korea, people cheered when NK lobbed bombs in the general direction of Japan. Most Koreans, that I've talked to anyway, just say to leave NK alone.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

You might indeed someday, but Kimmy is just bluster most the time.

Is it just me or does it seem like Kim Jung Un is eating too many donuts? Every time I see him he gets fatter and fatter.

I thought the US was the place where our main export was cynicism and Type 2 Diabetes.. but apparently not.

Re:Yawn

[bigfinger76]

This was the funniest thing I read all day. It struck me just right.

Re:Yawn

[martinfb]

REALLY?! Didn't we ignore Hitler at first? It seems a lesson need not be forgotten here.

ALL IN

[Dorianny]

North Korea is now all-in on their nuclear-weapons gambit. What North Korea's endgame might be remains unknown, least of all to its young, inexperienced leader Kim Jong UnKim

Re:ALL IN

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea is now all-in on their nuclear-weapons gambit. What North Korea's endgame might be remains unknown, least of all to its young, inexperienced leader Kim Jong UnKim

I think is pretty experienced now at being a murdering crazy person. At this point their end game seems to be to go batshit crazy and get millions of people killed.

Re:ALL IN

[dbIII]

Will threaten for food.
I don't think there is an endgame, just the status quo with a small number of ultra-rich aristocrats very happy with the situation and a very large number of starving peasants unable to change it.

Re:ALL IN

[Marginal Coward]

BTW, has anybody noticed that Kim Jong Un always seems to be the one-and-only fat guy in any picture you ever see of North Koreans? Not even the elite folks that flank him are fat (except for the brims of their hats, of course.) Maybe he has a rule about that or something: "I am only fat guy in North Krorea!" Just wondering...

Re:ALL IN

[dbIII]

Someone I met used to run a seafood export business out of North Korea but had to flee for her life to China sometime around 1960. The place went from being a major exporter of food to starvation even with foreign food aid.

Re:ALL IN

[wvmarle]

We don't know his age, but do know his years of experience being in power (just over four years now at the top, longer in other functions in the NK government).

I'm wondering for how much longer he'll be called "inexperienced". I've never seen that word being used on any of your US presidential candidates, most of whom have far less experience when it comes to leading a country.

Re:ALL IN

[jafiwam]

Will threaten for food. I don't think there is an endgame, just the status quo with a small number of ultra-rich aristocrats very happy with the situation and a very large number of starving peasants unable to change it.

You forgot to add "feel the Bern!" after that.

Re:ALL IN

[joboss]

Their end game is not having to surrender or fear invasion and continual other forms of attack from the USA and pals. Presumably there is a goal of reunification which can be achieved if people are patient enough to accept something such as a 50 year plan but no reason to believe there is a will beyond that to extort, achieve vengeance, conquer or otherwise.

Re:ALL IN

[twotacocombo]

Maybe all these stories of his subordinates being executed by wild dogs or anti-aircraft cannons are a cover for the fact that he simply devours them. To death.

Re:ALL IN

[butchersong]

The endgame is pretty simple. NK isn't playing to win they are playing for stalemate. That is the only survival option for the regime.

Re:ALL IN

[painandgreed]

BTW, has anybody noticed that Kim Jong Un always seems to be the one-and-only fat guy in any picture you ever see of North Koreans? Not even the elite folks that flank him are fat (except for the brims of their hats, of course.) Maybe he has a rule about that or something: "I am only fat guy in North Krorea!" Just wondering...

It is a point of national pride that their leader is fat and that the people can keep him that way. It shows how much they care for him. Not kidding. That's what they teach and believe in NK. Unlike the countries behind the iron curtain back in the day, NK is less the oppressed people yearning to be free rather than a nation of Stalinist true believers who will cry out their leaders names as they starve. Things have gotten less so in the last decade or so with a porous Chinese border and the smuggling in of SK soaps that the NKs watch. Still, even though many NK manage these days to escape to SK, even with special classes, they find it hard to adapt and some even return home because they can't deal with living in the south. Keep in mind that their entire idea of what NKians believe about the south is from those soap operas, and when they get there and find out they aren't realistic representations of life, it shatters their world that much more.

Re:ALL IN

[Marginal Coward]

Very interesting and informative, thanks!

Re:ALL IN

[Marginal Coward]

BTW, they must think that we're really neglecting Obama, as thin as he is...

Re:ALL IN

[dbIII]

some even return home

Who is telling you that? I know some people on the Chinese side of the border and they have a very different story. Who would go back to starvation and public execution for trying to escape in the first place? Some executions even happen within sight of the Chinese border.

Re:ALL IN

[painandgreed]

some even return home

Who is telling you that? I know some people on the Chinese side of the border and they have a very different story. Who would go back to starvation and public execution for trying to escape in the first place? Some executions even happen within sight of the Chinese border.

Various news articles on the subject. I think the one I remember was on BBC on how hard it was for NKs to adjust to SK culture. It just mentioned that some did return. This article addresses the subject although they put a very low number to those that have returned. Single digits on the number SK says have gone back to NK, double digits on what NK says, and barely triple digits on the high end. Of course, this is also put into uncertainly because it is feared that NK is sending spies in with refugees and I could see such returning just as a propaganda ploy. Many of the articles will talk of how refugees are sending money back to NK from SK because of families and there are fears that the NK government is seeking to control such people either for the money or propaganda by doing so.

Not scared

[manu0601]

Since I am convinced Kim Jong Un does not want to live the rest of his life in a radiation-proof bunker, I am not scared by North Korea military posture.

Re:Not scared

[Anonymous Coward]

For all you know, the dude is loving the hell out of Fallout 4.

It's entirely plausible that he wants to live the rest of his life in a radiation-proof bunker.

Re:Not scared

[Anonymous Coward]

The king of basement nerds.

Re:Not scared

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sole Survivor

Now this is too delicious. Captcha: megaton

Missiles Not Required

[Anonymous Coward]

Before there was the missile there was the bomb. And bombs don't have to fall from the sky. I wonder if we'll hear about more cyber attacks in the near future.

It's just all bluster.

[MtViewGuy]

Mostly because people who have seriously studied the DPRK military note their military is like the military divisions in Moscow during the Soviet era: all show and no go. Many have said that the DPRK military may not even have enough ammunition and military hardware to mount a full-scale invasion of South Korea.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[Harlequin80]

They don't have the capability to invade South Korea. They haven't in a very very long time. If they tried to march south they would be massacred.

What they do have is an absolutely stupid number of artillery pieces pointed south and we know at least some of them work because they keep firing them. The US estimates that NK has 8600 artillery pieces of which 4500 are currently aimed at SK. Even if you assumed 50% were inoperable the amount of explosive that would rain on Seoul is insane.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[iMadeGhostzilla]

That's exactly what Stratfor would say. They describe most leaders, such as they are, as rational players primarily interested in their survival. DPRK doing anything other than posturing w/ nuclear weapons would be against their survival.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least 1/3 of the nk military is ready to turn when needed.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Well i dont know thier layout at all but couldn't the US just bomb those positions? not fast enough? I guess theres no such thing as a tactical nuke but if they are all in the side of a mountain, perhaps creative means could be used.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[blindseer]

I read a paper to this effect from an Air Force officer. I'm not sure what it was but I seem to recall it was something like a graduate school thesis. The paper basically laid out why it was best to just leave North Korea alone.

The paper spelled out the number of artillery pieces that they have, the number of conventional shells they have on hand to fire, the rate that they can fire, and the range that they are capable of reaching. These artillery pieces are placed in deep in mountain sides where they would be very difficult to destroy. NK does have some effective anti-aircraft capability so its not like anyone can just fly in to drop a bomb on them. Even though we may have a very accurate estimation of their artillery capability we don't know where all of them are.

The paper speculated that any attack on NK would result in a bombardment of any and all populated areas in SK. Since a large portion of the population lives within artillery range the result of such bombardment would be very deadly. In the time it would take to destroy those artillery pieces about 2/3rds of the SK population would be dead or homeless.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[phantomfive]

North Korea is prepared for that. They have heavily fortified bunkers, hidden locations, and mobile artillery, so we don't actually know where they all are. In the first few minutes of bombardment, millions would die.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[Harlequin80]

Well the estimate is 4500 artillery aimed at seoul. Lets assume you manage to knock out 75% in a pre-emptive strike. That leaves 1125. If we make the assumption that they are the D-20 which are the predominate NK equipment they can fire 4-6 rounds in the first minute and then sustain 1 rpm. Assuming we identify them and destroy all of them in 30 minutes (not fucking likely) that means close to 40,000 shells have landed on Seoul in the first 30 minutes.

There are 10 million people living in Seoul. How many people would die if 40,000 bombs went off in a city of that population in 30 minutes?

Re:It's just all bluster.

[thesupraman]

Since you ask a serious question, then why not a serious answer.

My ballpark would be 100,000 people dead depending heavily on the type of ordinance (HE, AP, Incendary, Frag, etc)
so, that is around 1% of the population. Remember, those shells will land roughly randomly - I am assuming they have been
setup to specifically target the population (if totally random then it will be MUCH lower).

However your figures are highly flawed, as you are not allowing for losses in the NK artillery, or for desertions in people who dont
actually want to shell their own families (remember, Korea was only separated a few generations ago), equipment failure, etc.
You are also assuming all of those pieces can reach high popluation densities, however the border is long and the ranges not that great.

By your own claims (and I agree) their most common artillery piece is similar to the D20, around 20km range.
The center is Seoul is 30-40km from the border (30 if you count a specific inset area..), so they only have the closer areas to
target, which are lower density. They would also need to have concentrated all their artillery in a very small and specific region to even
target Seoul.

And, lastly, think about what they would 'gain' by such an attack. The rest of the world would wipe them out.
No more young girl harems for the great leader, no more european sportscars, no more playstation, no more living as kings for the ruling class.
If they are lucky they will be reduced to running and hiding while they are being hunted after the fall of their state.

Hard to see their motivation for such an attack..

Re:It's just all bluster.

[Harlequin80]

My figures were based on them having lost 75% of their capabilities due to a pre-emptive strike by the US or other forces. You can pretty much cross out any desertion / non-firing because of not wanting to attack people if they were subject to a first strike. You would of course have to add in runners but I felt that 75% out of action probably covered those.

It was in response to the previous posters comment of can't the US just bomb them. I also assumed a 100% silence rate at 30 minutes which is probably optimistic.

If it was a pre-emptive strike by NK, and they only use the 4500 currently in place you are looking at 153,000 shells in the first 30 minutes. Less if you assume some batteries are taken out but it would be more in the long term as there is no way all 4500 would be silenced in 30 minutes.

I wasn't claiming there was any reason NK would take this path. There isn't. I was referring to the conventional setup as a bigger threat than the nuclear.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[stealth_finger]

The paper speculated that any attack on NK would result in a bombardment of any and all populated areas in SK. Since a large portion of the population lives within artillery range the result of such bombardment would be very deadly. In the time it would take to destroy those artillery pieces about 2/3rds of the SK population would be dead or homeless.

Is that not assuming all, or at least 2/3rd of the population live within range (20-30km) of the artillery which is definitely not the case. And that's if they're literally on the border, any recession into NK territory would reduce the effective range further. Going by this map you've got maybe 3 or 4 places big enough to be marked within range. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_South_Korea#/media/File:Korea_south_map_-_Valentim.png). That probably also assumes the population would take no measures to escape the range of the artillery.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[wvmarle]

Do they even have that many shells in working condition, and all at the correct location - i.e. right next to operable guns that are at a location they can do some real damage?

You act as if ammo is and will not be a limiting factor. It may very well be.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[jafiwam]

North Korea is prepared for that. They have heavily fortified bunkers, hidden locations, and mobile artillery, so we don't actually know where they all are. In the first few minutes of bombardment, millions would die.

It's likely they don't exist.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[joboss]

North Korea can deliberately use dams to cause floods which may clear the way beyond some mine fields and military bases. Then you have tunnels. Add chemical/biological warheads into the mix. Small nukes. Add drugged soldiers, millions of them with a lot of go as a consequence. Casual clothing instead of uniforms. The problem is that once you have a million man army in the South rampaging through it inseparable from civilians engaging in guerilla and urban warfare you have a very unpleasant problem to deal with when it comes to exercising air power. If they can mobilise several million and fight to win at any cost then South Korea could make Syria look like a minor skirmish. These are worst case scenarios though.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it would be an issue in the longer term, but I'd have no reason to doubt that in the decades they've been doing this they haven't fully armed each location for maximum short-term damage.

Dud rates may factor in.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[Harlequin80]

I'm sure that ammo would be a limiting factor, however I think it would be likely that a gun emplacement has 34 shells sitting next to it. That is all we are talking to achieve that 150,000 rounds fired due to the number of guns they have.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[blindseer]

North Korea has potentially thousands of heavy artillery capable of a range of 60km, such as the Koksan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

These artillery pieces put Seoul in range from within North Korea, being approximately 55 km from the DMZ. The Seoul metro area has a population of approximately 24 million people, in a nation of approximately 52 million people. Many other large cities are also within range of North Korean artillery.

While people can certainly flee from the bombarded cities to the south and get out of range the cities themselves cannot move. That is why I claim that the inhabitants of these cities are likely to end up dead or homeless. The artillery does not have to strike a building to render it uninhabitable, fires are nearly inevitable to produce considerable damage to structures. Destruction to infrastructure like roads, bridges, water works, electricity production and distribution, and communications (TV, radio, telephone, etc.) would make large areas uninhabitable, undesirable, or merely inconvenient.

Doing a little poking around the internet I see that China has self propelled artillery with a range of 100km. If China shared this design with North Korea then Seoul and many parts of South Korea south of it is certainly in range of artillery well within North Korea.

Re:It's just all bluster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mobile artillery is somewhat a myth these days, counter-battery fire from more advanced adversaries now has the accuracy and speed of response to hit the firing location. This is not WW II where accuracy was measured in 100s of meters and GPS didn't exist.

So unless it is well dug-in, most artillery guns will only manage a few rounds of fire until they are serviced as a target and destroyed by counter-battery fire.

IBM sues North Korea for ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... patent infringement in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

He had to up the ante

[Anonymous Coward]

He took one look at American's presidential candidates and said to himself: "Self, if I don't do something fast, I'll lose my title as craziest man on the planet."

Re:He had to up the ante

[Anonymous Coward]

funny? wtf. this is the most insightful thing ever posted to slashdot.

ICBM ?

[Archfeld]

They don't have to have an ICBM, just get an object into orbit and they can drop it anywhere provided they have enough math skills, and based on racial stereo-types that would seem a slam dunk. Hell they don't even need a nuclear warhead, a big enough rock would do the trick, what are we (USA) or any other country going to do ? Send Bruce Willis & company to stop it ?

Re:ICBM ?

[Dahamma]

They don't have to have an ICBM, just get an object into orbit and they can drop it anywhere provided they have enough math skills

Eh... that's basically the definition of ICBM.

I suppose you could argue if they are actually launching a satellite into a stable *orbit* that would eventually drop a nuke with any accuracy it wouldn't technically be ballistic - but in that cast it's an order of magnitude more complex than an ICBM so what's the point...

Re:ICBM ?

[iggymanz]

errr.... which takes the MUCH more powerful rocket system and more accurate guidance? to do sub-orbital lob and hit a target, or put object fully into orbit, to de-orbit later and hit a target?

Re:ICBM ?

[djinn6]

The point is, instead of 20 minutes of warning you get maybe 5 before the nuke lands on you, thereby rendering all of our anti-ballistic technology useless. Oh, and you'd have no idea who deorbited their nuke so you can't even retaliate properly.

Re:ICBM ?

[Todd Knarr]

NORAD does too much tracking. If a bird deorbits they know which bird it was, who put it into orbit when and from where.

Re:ICBM ?

[WaffleMonster]

The point is, instead of 20 minutes of warning you get maybe 5 before the nuke lands on you, thereby rendering all of our anti-ballistic technology useless. Oh, and you'd have no idea who deorbited their nuke so you can't even retaliate properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:ICBM ?

[dunkelfalke]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:ICBM ?

[djinn6]

That system only covers a small fraction of the globe and it doesn't work in bad weather. So all it takes to get plausible deniability is to build in some maneuvering capability and wait for a cloudy day. Oh and leave a decoy where the warhead was supposed to be, that way you can claim the weapon is still there in orbit.

Re:ICBM ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can find a way to get enough mass into orbit to do significant damage without bankrupting your country then I believe Elon musk and Jeff Bezo would both like to have a conversation with you.

Re:ICBM ?

[kellymcdonald78]

This assumes that NK has anything remotely close to this capability. They've launched precisely 2 things into orbit (both of them much much much smaller than your theoretical maneuverable nuke with precision de-orbit capability) and both of which ceased to function before they even made it to orbit. ICBMs are much easier than what you propose

Re:ICBM ?

[Dahamma]

Your whole premise is silly because we are talking about NORTH KOREA.

1) if NK actually gets anything of a decent size a stable orbit you'd better believe it will be tracked by every country in the world capable of doing so - they'd know exactly where it is and who did it.
2) they can't do #1 right now. And launching an ICBM would be WAY simpler than #1, which was my point.
3) it's basically suicide at a national level if they ACTUALLY do either #1 or #2, so they don't REALLY want to use it, they want to bluster and threaten people with it. In that case they are much better off telling everyone they have a ICBM than that they have a space based nuke, as in the latter case anything NK ever launched into orbit would basically be shot down immediately and without repercussion as it violates international space law.

If that doesn't make sense to you, you should watch Dr. Strangelove... "The whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?"

They will never be able

[Anonymous Coward]

To stop sucking dick in time enough.

This is when editors really need to step in

[rebelwarlock]

Says PolygamousRanchKid: "Oh, joy oh joy... I knew that 2016 was missing something: the threat of nuclear war!"

We don't need this stupid bullshit in the summary. I'll read the comments if I want stupid bullshit.

Re: This is when editors really need to step in

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The Tepublican editors here want a war. Want a war.

Re: This is when editors really need to step in

[Anonymous Coward]

This site has gotten so CONservative after the buyout.

Re:This is when editors really need to step in

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. I read the summary and article if I want stupid bullshit.

The comments are great for mildly intellectually deficient bullshit.

Re:This is when editors really need to step in

[aralin]

Also, as the guy has absolutely no clue. We just averted a very real possibility of nuclear war just a week ago, when the ceasefire agreement was reached for Syria. There is still a good chance of it, but it seems to be considerably lower now. Saudi Arabia and Turkey threatened to invade Syria and Russia would have no choice, but to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend their troops there. What we would do in response is not too hard to guess.

Compared to this, there is almost no threat of actual nuclear war from Korea. Even if they actually managed to fire a nuclear weapon, the response would probably be conventional.

Re:This is when editors really need to step in

[twotacocombo]

Saudi Arabia and Turkey threatened to invade Syria and Russia would have no choice, but to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend their troops there.

What the hell makes you think Russia would go full retard in this scenario? We've had over 70 years of warfare between us and the last nuke fired in anger, and so far conventional munitions seem to be tickling our fancy just fine. I seriously doubt Russia would risk a nuclear conflict over Syria, and it's certainly not the only choice they could make in this situation.

Re:This is when editors really need to step in

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking tool - we always live with the threat of nuclear war.
Thanks most especially to USA, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel.
NK has maybe a couple, maybe.
The others have fucking thousands, and have shown every inclination to using them preemptively on whatever pretext du jour suits them best.
I've been aware of living with this threat of random annihilation since I was 10 years old, over 40 years ago.
I'm not any more scared now than I was then, and no amount of media stupidity will change that.
We're doomed - it's just a matter of time ...

NUKE EM! NUKE EM NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why every country should have the right to bear nukes! Otherwise, only the bad actors will have nukes and it's San Bernardino all over again! A country against nukes is a country that is against the American way... and should be NUKED!

Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

There is no real risk of a nuclear strike coming out of NK.

Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

How exactly?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Harlequin80]

No, not really. The only real nuclear risk to the US would be a bomb smuggled into a port. I'm sure this is possible but the actual damage from that would be minimal. Also the risk of getting caught is extremely high. That sort of operation would produce too much chatter to not get detected.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Cramer]

Station wagon with a lead pipe full of radioactive trash. Maybe not to the US mainland, but to US interests around the world, sure.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

A single crop duster aircraft would do. Although the WW2 idea was on a larger scale and used a formation of bombers for "dusting".

For even lower tech there is a simple dirty bomb. A regular bomb encased in radioactive material. Delivered like any other bomb, methods subject to its size.

Whether you take out a room, a city block or an entire city won't make much difference to how the US reacts though. Radioactive material should be traceable back to NK reactors.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

No, not really. The only real nuclear risk to the US would be a bomb smuggled into a port. I'm sure this is possible but the actual damage from that would be minimal. Also the risk of getting caught is extremely high. That sort of operation would produce too much chatter to not get detected.

Do not confuse the operational skills of NK operatives with the idiot jihadists in the middle east. The NK operatives are highly trained and extremely proficient special forces types. The NK's aren't very chatty.

Also don't fixate on city killers. Contaminating a city block or even a room would have a massive effect in the US. And a massive response.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Harlequin80]

Sorry I don't give NK military the level of credit you do. I doubt that they are particularly well trained or well equipped. They are also not combat tested to any degree.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

Sorry I don't give NK military the level of credit you do. I doubt that they are particularly well trained or well equipped. They are also not combat tested to any degree.

Do not confuse the NK military in general with the NK special operations types. Its night and day. They're special operations types are highly capable and have proven it in South Korea. For example in the 1990s a NK reconnaissance team infiltrated South Korea by submarine and successfully surveilled a navy base for several days. When the sub came back to pick them up the sub ran aground. Classified equipment was destroyed and then the recon team executed the sailors and tried to make it to NK on foot. They were discovered and evaded the South Korean military for over a month, killing and wounding several dozen South Korean soldiers in the process. Most of the recon team was killed during this long hunt, one is thought to have made it to NK.

On another occasion a NK sub got caught in a fishing vessels nets. Its seems to have scuttled itself when the South Korean Navy tried to take it. The water was shallow enough for divers to search it. Evidence of numerous successful recon mission on South Korean territory was found.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it sounds pedantic, so forgive me, but in this context terminology counts. Dirty bombs and the other devices you mention are considered radiological weapons since no nuclear reaction takes place (fission or fusion), "Nuclear weapons" means Da Bomb (regardless of delivery method).

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRC disagrees with you.
To quote "A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb."

Sorry.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Original poster here. Oh I had the same thought, but I thought the distinction not really relevant. The public reaction likely to be the same, the distinction irrelevant to them, and to the political reaction to follow.

FWIW, there was a nuclear reaction, in the NK reactor where the "dust" to be dropped is irradiated.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRC disagrees with you. To quote "A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb." Sorry.

Original poster here, I was aware, but its a technical distinction irrelevant to the context. The public and the politicians will not care about such a subtlety. People will die like Hiroshima survivors. That is all that is relevant.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[WaffleMonster]

Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.

Dirty bombs are the strategic equivalent of poking a polar bear with a small twig.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.

Dirty bombs are the strategic equivalent of poking a polar bear with a small twig.

Good thing NK is run by a rational grounded person who would never do something so stupid, no matter how desperate.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaaand that's the end of North Korea.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[msauve]

"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it ... the sub ran aground ... recon team executed the sailors ... Most of the recon team was killed..."

"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Reference?

Re: Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Source?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

As if you would know. Shut the fuck up.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it ... the sub ran aground ... recon team executed the sailors ... Most of the recon team was killed..."

"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Why? Every so often an operation goes pear-shaped. How many successful ones were there? Do the SK/US intel folks know about them, but are keeping quiet? The ones that we know publicly are simply because it made it to the news. How many didn't?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. I've talked to people who analyze this stuff for a living. The North Korean military is, in fact, one of the best in the world. They would be a very formidable enemy. If you think a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan were tough, try fighting a country that actually has anti-aircraft defenses.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Translation Error]

Sounds like the blame for that should rest on the sailors who operated the sub and ran it aground.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it ... the sub ran aground ... recon team executed the sailors ... Most of the recon team was killed..." "Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.

You ignored the relevant part.

"... evaded the South Korean military for over a month ... killing and wounding several dozen South Korean soldiers in the process ..."

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

Reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

As if you would know. Shut the fuck up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

So Kim will fly a crop duster aircraft from North Korea to the US?

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. That's what illegal Mexican immigrants are for. He'd just hire a few of them to fly over the Donald's Wall.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

So Kim will fly a crop duster aircraft from North Korea to the US?

Bin Laden's guys took off and flew from New York / New Jersey / Boston, *not* from Afghanistan *nor* from Saudi Arabia.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles, nor even nuclear bombs. Nuclear weapons include dirty bombs, nuclear dusting and various other things. Some of the later only require WW2 era technology. North Korea is capable of attacking the US with these older technologies.

Dirty bombs are the strategic equivalent of poking a polar bear with a small twig.

A small twig takes one hand, that leaves the other hand free for a polar bear appropriate gun.

Re: Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I don't think the "goat herders" were much trouble at all. Cool story about those awesome ww2 weapons the North Koreans have. Last time I checked most of the world has fought against ww2 weapons. Oh BTW Iraq had an air force and anti air. They couldn't use them against the invasion for some strange reason though....so cool story brah.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[sysrammer]

Yeah, I watched that Bond movie, too. I was pretty impressed.

I agree that the panic caused by an event in the middle of a city would get quite a reaction.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[bjwest]

"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it ... the sub ran aground ... recon team executed the sailors ... Most of the recon team was killed..."

"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you hunt an peck the statements you use, you can make even the U.S. Navy Seals sound incompetent. The sub running aground had nothing to do with the N.K. special operations team, the fact they surveilled the base for days without detection, killed the entire crew to help cover their mission, and then evaded the South Korean military for over a month before, possibly, one of them made it back to deliver their data speaks highly of their capabilities.

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[drnb]

Yeah, I watched that Bond movie, too. I was pretty impressed.

Bond movie, no. How about recent historical events? Since the 1980s the US military has help the NK special forces types to be very capable. Really good on infiltration, sabotage, etc. Explained in another post: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it ... the sub ran aground ... recon team executed the sailors ... Most of the recon team was killed..."

"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think his definition is extremely accurate and the US military happens to have the same assessment of NK SpecOps forces. They're the cream of the cream. No shortage of equipment or supplies. Top notch training. The rest of their army might be hungry, but those guys aren't. They can go toe-to-toe with Seals.

This incident happened while I was in SK. It caused quite the panic. Think about what that team did. They successfully infiltrated,loitered, and performed reconnaissance. They would have left without anyone being the wiser, except for an incompetent submarine crew. The navy guys already proved they were idiots and the SpecOps team knew their chances of survival and escape were virtually zero with those bozos tagging along, so they took them out. How hardcore is that? Once they were discovered pretty much the entire SK military forces were hunting for them. The fact that one of them made it back to NK is quite amazing. The survivor was suspected to be the team's commander, who was already a somewhat legendary guy. "Highly capable"? Most definitely.

Its a balancing act

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of these regimes that play the tough guy, all they really want to join their voices with Aretha Franklin and ask for some r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
I grant it's hard to respect the DPRK because they are so morally and economically impoverished.

They are usually wanting to say one of two things (and sometimes both at the same time).
They say, "Look at me. I'm a real country. I get to play with the big boys."
And back home they can bolster a (false) sense of nationalism by saying to their people, "Hey look at us, we are powerful in the world, standing up to the big boys."

In the end all of this really isn't all that important.

The DPRK's eugenics program, human rights abuses and an absolute lack of free speech are for more concerning.

Well its been quiet with ISIS

[future assassin]

so guess the western powers need to throw rocks on another buggie man/hornets nest/

Re: The silver lining around every (mushroom) clou

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they want you to think. You are really dumb, did you know that? How dumb you are?

Why is the GP dumb? They don't have 20 Megaton bombs because they're not practical. 10 200 Kiloton bombs are more dangerous than one 20 Megaton bomb.

Re:He won't do it

[Zontar The Mindless]

He got the downmod for doing it wrong. What a bunch of noobz we're cursed with, these days. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN.

Re: The silver lining around every (mushroom) clou

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they want you to think. You are really dumb, did you know that? How dumb you are?

Smart enough to know what a "Tactical Nuclear Weapon" is.

I don't use the word idiot lightly. You are an idiot times 2.

Fuck Kim

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's go in and End this country once and for all.

Re:Nuke North Korea

[Zontar The Mindless]

So basically, you want to nuke North Korea because you want to nuke North Korea.

And you assume that Kim is not a rational actor. That's a big assumption. Especially since he seems to have proved himself quite adept already at removing possible threats to the power that he was born and raised to assume as the scion of a Stalinist dynasty.

(And I am also an EU citizen, and you most certainly do not speak for me.)

Thanks for playing!

His numbers don't add up.

[dsmatthews9379]

So he picks a fight and some good and innocent people die, but 100% of his country gets vaporised in the counter strike. He had better check the weather before he wumps SK too, because at the moment the fallout would poison most of eastern China. Or does he realise that and is trying to intimidate Xi Jinping as well? Somehow I don't think that strategy is likely to go well for him.

Cue cartoons of him in a nappy trying to count on his fingers, because that is the magnitude of his arsenal and the nature of his behaviour.

Re:His numbers don't add up.

[twotacocombo]

So he picks a fight and some good and innocent people die, but 100% of his country gets vaporised in the counter strike.

Most of his country is poor rural villages, who really present no threat to the world. Aside from Pyongyang, I'm guessing you could count the actual number of targets worth nuking without taking off your shoes. This isn't a case of an entire nation foaming at the mouth wanting to kill western civilization, it's a relatively small number of brainwashed overlords keeping the majority of the people in terrified poverty under the guise of the big bad west being at fault. If you destroy the political/military leadership, I'm sure you'll find the rest of the country is really in no need of destruction.

Is there a trend, here?

[hyades1]

Does anybody else notice an increase in right wing FUD in the stories covered here...stories like this one, that barely qualify as tech-related, if they do at all?

I'm learning to think it's not a real week at Slashdot unless we see at least a couple of "Obama sucks because" stories, three or four "Windows 10 only phones home a hundred times a second because if loves you" stories, and a few like this one, where the "authorities" we're supposed to dislike and mistrust say they don't think North Korea can get a nuke-carrying missile as far as the US.

Can we get back to the Slashdot that used to keep this crap somewhat isolated and filterable, please?

Re:Is there a trend, here?

[DNS-and-BIND]

In fact, it is a breath of fresh air to see a diversity of opinion here. For too long Slashdot has been slave to SJWs and their divisive, hateful agendas. We can only have debates when there is a legitimate opposite opinion, and SJWs don't allow that kind of thinking.

Funny how you never protested when the off-topic, non-tech stories agreed with your point of view. The problem isn't that biased stories are being shown, is it? It's that these biased stories are biased in the wrong direction. By the way, how did you even get "right-wing" out of "North Korea is an insane Communist country"? It's not like that is even remotely controversial.

Re:Is there a trend, here?

[phantomfive]

I'd rather have articles about programming and computers, really.

Re:Is there a trend, here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I might perk up a bit if I saw a headline reading "Pentagon Accelerates Battlemech Program to Counter North Korean Threat."

Re:Is there a trend, here?

[hyades1]

"Funny how you never protested when the off-topic, non-tech stories agreed with your point of view".

I have. Less often, because it's well-covered by many others here.

As a conservative you have failed to notice that in the past couple of decades, the Fox News approach (a conservative lie is just as good as the truth...they've been caught so many times I've lost track) passes as "fair debate".

What you're seeing here is an invasion by the right wing echo chamber. Debunked lies cycle through over and over again, no matter how often they're refuted, and every objective fact has its carefully-crafted, time-wasting conservative cut-and-past boilerplate response.

If you want more of that kind of drek, go to Fox News. Please quit polluting decent websites and wasting the time of intelligent people with your paranoid, agenda-driven bullshit.

Re:Is there a trend, here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it to people like you everything that's evil is conservative? You're aware Truman, the only man to ever use a Nuke was a liberal and a democrat, right? This is usually where people like you try to disavow that he was part of *your team* and claim that the democrats weren't what they are now back then. But then you seem to forget that the shining example of what a democrat should be, FDR, was the president Truman served under as VP, and it was FDRs death that elevated him to the presidency. Then again, we point out that Johnson is mostly responsible for Vietnam, not Nixon, who was in fact responsible for getting us out of there. Again, usually you're ilk go on about not really a democrat and all and forgetting that he was the VP under another shining example of a democrat, JFK. And now you go on saying that conservatives and the Fox News approach are responsible for "lie is just as good as the truth" when in fact this is standard politics that literally predates the US as a country, let alone the republicans or the democrats. If you see anything dealing with NK as a "right wing echo chamber" you're literally an idiot. This can be proven by how you go off on spouting all these things while supplying literally not one shred of verifiable evidence, and the other side can literally present a press release from NK.

Face it, you're a left wing wack job. You have no compass on anything and you're so disillusioned that if you had any wisdom you should just shut up to stop yourself looking the fool.

Re:Is there a trend, here?

[hyades1]

Please save your strawman argument for somebody who won't blow it out of the water in three seconds flat. Produce evidence that "people like me" disavow Truman, or go fuck yourself. The fact is, you can't, because most Americans backed dropping the nuke.

The rest of your comment is the kind of lying drek I'd expect from a bottom-feeding shitsucker like you. Go get shot by a toddler or something, and improve the gene pool.

Thank you Bill Clinton and 90's Democrats...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can all thank Bill Clinton and his liberal Democrats for this.

Dark as coal

[SuperKendall]

Look at the bright side - the day after a North Korea 1st strike, the problem with North Korea will be solved. Or at least disappear.

By what means? The U.S., nor any other nation, would not issue a retaliatory strike, and probably not even invade. A few facilities bombed, and that's about it.

It would take several consecutive strikes before any first world nation (well OK just the U.S.) would consider a nuclear strike right now.

Re:Dark as coal

[MachineShedFred]

You have to remember what the reaction to 9/11 was - that was two buildings in Manhattan, a closed-for-renovation wing of the Pentagon, and a 4th airliner crashing into a field. That spawned two wars and a deposing of a government that wasn't even involved.

If a nuke was detonated in the Port of Long Beach, the US military wouldn't stop until South Korea was an island.

Re:Dark as coal

[SuperKendall]

And you have to remember who the president is and what the military has become.

Come on, China. Just end it already

[istartedi]

At this point, we really won't even mind if you keep it as a "communist" buffer state. Just install a saner puppet. Really. We won't mind that much. Do it. DO IT. DO IT!!!!

domestic politics

[bkmoore]

a lot of what comes out of Pyongyang is likely directed at their own population. Kim needs to convince his people that their country is under imminent threat in order to distract attention away from the corruption and oppression by his regime. He needs to show his own people that he is doing something to respond to that threat that his propaganda machine created. Otherwise he appears weak, or his people won't take that threat seriously. And he needs the combination of an over-sized military (for the population) and sanctions as an excuse for the extreme poverty most of his citizens face. "Comrade, I know you are starving, but unfortunately we need to protect our country from American aggression. We don't want to divert precious resources to build atomic weapons, but those cosmically evil Americans give us absolutely no choice..."

Re:domestic politics

[Anonymous Coward]

His country IS in imminent treat. Obama is regularly threatening North Korea and sugesting that they should disband their state and be anexed by South Korea, which means America occupation forces all over the peninsula. If that is not a treat, I don't know what is.

Re:Nuke North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuking anything on the peninsula means showering Japan with fallout, thanks to prevailing winds at altitude.

Instead of armchair explanation...

[three27]

Why not consider an expert's opinion? I point you to the work of Andrei Lankov and in particular a recent (Feb 1, 2016) Q&A he did with the Korea and the World podcast. He's traveled to China and spoken with officials there about the relationship with North Korea—it is in better shape than the media lets on. Also he talks a bit about the current state of the economy and the growth of private markets—they are thriving and being allowed to do so. The conclusion is that North Korea is much more stable than most would give them credit—especially the South Korean propaganda machine—and that despite appearances Kim Jong Un may actually be allowing an openness not previously seen in North Korea. This is demonstrated by the decrease in the number defectors over the last two years and the general increase in the standard of living. source: http://www.koreaandtheworld.or...

Ummm... Obama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough is enough. As the leader of the free world, shouldn't you be doing something about this? Besides everyone else, the families Kim is gassing would be thankful if you stopped turning a blind eye to Kim's shit. http://www.theguardian.com/wor... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Time to give this fucker the same body piercing the SEALS gave Osama bin Laden. BANG! BANG!

They'll only ever get one shot...

[jcr]

I wonder if the Baby God Dictator of the Norks has minions who are smart enough to shoot his ass before letting him destroy their country?

If the Norks pop off a nuke, it will be the last thing they ever do.

-jcr

Just bomb the shit out of N.K.

[argee]

That is what the USA always does. Then we wonder how come they don't like us.
Oh ... and what has N.K. ever done to us that we hate them so?

Re:Just bomb the shit out of N.K.

[MachineShedFred]

Besides that we're still technically at war with them?

Cold War 2.0

[easyTree]

Just a wild speculation.... have US defence budgets been reduced lately, perchance?

Re:He won't do it

[Anonymous Coward]

how ironic that you would be doing it wrong while telling others they're doing it wrong.

Re:Nuclear weapons are a deterrent

[thesupraman]

And what then mr know-it-all?
Tell me, what exactly do you think their second step would be, and what do you think the worlds reaction (for example, China..) would be?
Perhaps N.Korea can invade someone with their highly capable navy, using their extensive airforce for air cover, and hold the ground against
the efforts of the rest of the world?

They want such weapons to protect what they have now, which almost certainly includes their access to nice western toys for their elite.
They will rattle their sabers for two reasons which are really the same. To try and maintain their power/position, both internal and external (hence 2.)

There is no scenario where they 'win' any form of external attack.
The people in power there currently enjoy absolute power, and all the trimmings that comes with. Why exactly would they want to wipe that out
by launching an actual attack, short of being on the brink of losing that power?

The difficulty will come when change eventually comes from N.Korea, THAT is when things get touchy.

spike Kim for food

[harvey the nerd]

promise everyone 4 month's worth of rice in return for Kim et al's head on a pike. They'll lose their fear, spike Kim, stay home and grow their own food.

North Korea's next target ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... no, it's not South Korea

The most probably target for North Korea's nuke might be China

Yes, you read it right, CHINA !

That button head supreme leader is mad because China has decided to join up with the United States in drafting the new UN sanction resolution, and for that, North Korea might most probably attack China

Think of this ---

If North Korea attacked South Korea, an ally of the United States Uncle Sam will have to take drastic action --- and this time, China isn't going to help North Korea anymore

But if North Korea attacks China, that button head supreme leader could offer Uncle Sam a deal he couldn't refuse --- to become an ally to the United States of America opposing China

Re: North Korea's next target ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US does not hate China dude. If North Korea attacked China, the US would assist- if China needed help swatting that fly, which they would not.

Your whole preconception is wrong.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[TomGreenhaw]

LOL, hell no.

The fact is Americans love the Chinese. We buy their products like crazy. We love their food. We admire their art, exotic language and respect their ancient heritage. We welcome their people to study and work here. Sure we complain about the trade imbalance and the gamesmanship between our governments. But for the things that really matter they are our brothers and would instantly and without hesitation rally to their aid.

Make no mistake, if North Korea would actually use nuclear weapons in anger against *anybody*, it would cease to exist as a political entity in less than a week.

Re: North Korea's next target ...

[sumdumass]

Not only that, But they was massive layoffs in China recently and the most efficient way to deal with it would be conscription into military service and a war that thinned the population out.

If North Korea provoked China, it might be the end of N.K.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[Applehu Akbar]

And...imagine how many more products a unified Korea could make?

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would take more than a week because the rest of the world would not want to harm the civilians. So strikes would need to be planned out pretty well and be extremely surgical.

Re: North Korea's next target ...

[Type44Q]

LOL, don't be so fucking gullible; yeah, our governments apparently finds it useful to spin their leaders as madmen but you're really not supposed to fall for that bullshit unless you're stuck with an IQ under 105; the North Korean regime clearly hasn't stayed in power as long as they have because they base their tactical and strategic decisions on their fucking emotions!

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[dcw3]

How did that work out for Germany when the wall came down? NK has virtually no production capacity or skilled labor, and would be a drain on the ROK economy for years before things got better.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would certainly hope there are already sketches of plans and such. Heck, the us had plans to prevent a takeover by the GIRL SCOUTS. (how else do you teach new enlisted how to deal with real world tactics without asking them to devise actual plans) Or is this like the movie Armageddon, where nobody has thought of anything that could remotely happen, as opposed to likely as in this case?

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[dcw3]

Under the threat of them using nukes? No, collateral damage would be a sad but necessary evil.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[Coren22]

Or is this like the movie Armageddon, where nobody has thought of anything that could remotely happen, as opposed to likely as in this case?

That is what you took out of that movie, a lack of preparation? They had two shuttles all ready to go that could fly out past the moon, they had a rover designed and built for just such a mission, with a drilling rig attached to it. They had some issues getting the transmission working on the drilling rig, but that was due to intentional sabotage of the plans submitted to the patent office.

I didn't see a lack of preparation in Armageddon, I saw tons of preparation. About the only lack in foresight was the lack of early detection of such a large asteroid, which was pretty far fetched.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[Applehu Akbar]

Costly at first to feed and house millions of Germans who had been starving for two generations and had been used to planned poverty, but they caught up surprisingly fast.

Koreans have been one people since the beginning of history. We tend to forget that the whole idea of North Korea dates back only to the immediate postwar years. NK is a fake country that has existed this long only because of the perceived support of China, which is now finding the place to be more trouble than it's worth. When the wall comes down. no matter what the reason, Both Korea will immediately cease to exist, and there won't even be any equivalent of Ostalgie.

Re: North Korea's next target ...

[Coren22]

It is gullible to think that Kim Jong Un is insane? He pokes SK, Japan, and the US on a regular basis. He has attacked SK previously, and fires off missiles and explodes nukes as a temper tantrum every year when the US and SK have their annual cooperation drills.

The guy is clearly crazy, the only reason they won the Korean war was due to China's support, and he has managed to alienate China, their closest ally, by setting off nukes after they told him to quit it.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[dcw3]

I haven't forgot. I was in Germany for six years, including during the fall of the wall. I also spent another six in the ROK.

ROK will certainly embrace their brethren civilians from the north, and exploit the natural resources there. I agree with your take on the northerners not missing any of their old country...they've lead extremely sheltered lives.

Re: North Korea's next target ...

[Streetlight]

I'm not sure one can conclude that North Korea won the Korean war considering the economic and political situation in the South. Some might say it's a stalemate, but even that is not accurate considering the differences between the two halves of the peninsula.

Also, if China were truly interested in controlling the actions of NK, including development of nuclear weapons, China could shut NK down very quickly by an economic blockade which would encourage the rest of the world to do the same. The small economic actions of the rest of the work have had little affect on NK. Then again, if NK were really blockaded their actions could be pretty bad for that part of the world, sort of like a cornered rat with no options but to do crazy things.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[Applehu Akbar]

Taking the train to Berlin shortly after reunification, I was struck by the difference between prosperous Braunschweig and the next town, run-down, freshly liberated Magdeburg. In Berlin, I saw the Brandenburger Tor standing by itself in the open, recalling how much grainy newsreel footage I had grown up with of people being shot for sneaking through it.

Re: North Korea's next target ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, they could send in a billion solders in a hurry.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good analysis...except that last part...make that 'less than an hour' & you have it about right...

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[sysrammer]

As a world, I expect that we spend a lot more money on preparing films as we do on preparation for asteroid strikes.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[TomGreenhaw]

For the South Korean people I know, reunification would be a dream come true. I know people whose families were divided. The Germans I know are very happy that they are reunited economic challenges notwithstanding.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[dcw3]

I wasn't questioning the idea that it was desirable on a humanitarian front. I've lived in both places, and know full well the implications. The GP however made what I believe is an incorrect claim regarding their ability to produce once unified.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[TomGreenhaw]

That makes sense.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[lsatenstein]

It would take more than a week because the rest of the world would not want to harm the civilians. So strikes would need to be planned out pretty well and be extremely surgical.

Your dreaming.. Retaliate first and widespread, then for the second wave, take care of what's left.

If war starts, it will be by a widespread surprise attack.

No time to be rational on defense mode.

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[feufeu]

Costly at first to feed and house millions of Germans who had been starving for two generations and had been used to planned poverty, but they caught up surprisingly fast.

I sincerely hope that my literally inexistant knowledge of NK ist still much better than yours of divided Germany. There has never been any starving or housing problems in east Germany during the existance of the iron curtain and not nearly as much oppression of the population and never any real isolation from information from the rest of the world. Not that the GDA was fine, don't get me wrong...

Re:North Korea's next target ...

[WinstonWolfIT]

I hate their bland food. Give me Indian or Thai.

Pre-emptive attack would be really smart

[DrXym]

If North Korea pre-emptively attacked the South, either with an artillery / missile barrage or used a nuke, it might as well kiss its existence goodbye. At least as far as the regime and a large portion of its army was concerned. Even China would probably be on the side of those looking to wipe them off the face of the earth.

Re: The silver lining around every (mushroom) clou

[Anonymous Coward]

Bin Laden went down on Obama's watch.

Mad Max (the old one) style

[silviuc]

All North Koreans are receiving extra rations of beans and other types of food known to cause gaseous discharge.

Yadda yadda yadda

[some old guy]

Same shit, different day.

Maybe someday the south will just say, "OK, bring it on you fat little faggot!" and smack the shit out of them.

Problem solved.

Okay well NK..

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say that all you want but unless you actually have some sort of nuclear weapons it really doesn't mean much. Paranoid much?

Ready to use nuclear weapons at any time...

[sabbede]

...we build one that actually works.

Loudmouthed little turd.

Lankov may have an agenda

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Lankov is Russian and is based in Russia. Do I really have to point out that nobody in Russia is a reliable source of information under Putin? For all you or I know, he has Kremlin ties. I do think it's certainly possible that private markets are helping stability, I'm not convinced that Lankov doesn't have an agenda straight from Putin and for a variety of reasons it is in Putin's interests at the moment to paint North Korea in a picture as rosy as possible. I have read Victor Cha's book _The Impossible State_ and I recommend it. Cha points out that China basically has no choice but to support North Korea. They don't want refugees flooding over the border, which not only would cost them money but would take up valuable resources they are going to need to keep the population in line as the economy declines. China lost Taiwan, perhaps forever, as a result of going to North Korea's aid in the Korean War. This is still a major sticking point for them. Their desire to have complete control over Taiwan is insatiable. Also, China paid a real price in blood to save North Korea, including the loss of one of Mao's sons. And finally to give China something for their support, North Korea is basically letting them ravage the environment to dig up rare earths that China pays a huge discount for. Cha states that while China has more influence than they are willing to use most of the time, they actually have less real influence than is commonly believed in the west. North Korea knows that ultimately it can do what it wants because there are real limits to how much China will push back.

Why is Seoul so close to the North?

[Crowd Computing]

Even if you assumed 50% were inoperable the amount of explosive that would rain on Seoul is insane.

But this is the insanity I don't understand. Why do the Sokors insist on locating their largest city within artillery range of a country it's technically still at war? The government could have easily built, especially during SK's period of rapid growth, a new capital on its southern edge, closer to Japan. If not that, it would have been a rather simple matter, converting some of the other cities into a government center.

Given its central location in the Korean peninsula, Seoul would make an excellent capital for a united Korea, but as it stands, it's a huge security risk and magnet for attack with a mere minutes' advance warning should Kim decide to launch blitzkreig.

That is not correct, that's NK propaganda

[coder111]

Some analysis says that it would cause less than 40k casualties, potentially as few as 1000. Still lots of human lives lost, but not as bad as NK wants to paint it.

http://www.popularmechanics.co...

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013...

There are more in-depth articles I'm unable to find at the moment. Gist of it is: Not much of their artillery has the range to would reach Seoul, it's probably in bad maintenance or would break down soon, and NK would not be able to supply it with enough munitions or spare parts for sustained barrage, they would not reach Seoul center but less densely populated northern suburbs, there are plenty of shelters and after initial shock people would take cover. Not to mention counterbattery and airstrikes to take it out which would start immediately. --Coder

Re:That is not correct, that's NK propaganda

[Harlequin80]

I agree that the centre of Seoul is probably safe. But have a look at a place called Daehwa. It's a lot closed to the DMZ and is is still high density. Most artillery would hit it easily.

Bring it, fat boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're here to kick your ass. No more twinkies for Comrade Wobblechops.

Re:Nuke North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, they're used to radiation there. It's like soy sauce to them.

And this is unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite sure the US military is under similar orders. And I know which of the two countries I'm most scared of.

Obama Hillary Foriegn Policy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't North Korea Nuke deal one of Hillary's " accomplishments"?

As secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a hands-off approach to North Korea. Under a policy called "strategic patience," the Obama administration refused to offer any new incentives to Pyongyang to induce it to return to nuclear-disarmament talks following the collapse of an attempted deal at the end of the Bush term. The North Koreans were infuriated, and more nuclear and missile tests ensued, along with open hostilities between North and South Korea in 2010.

Politico

Re:Obama Hillary Foriegn Policy?

[sumdumass]

Both Clintons too.

A nuke deal was reached under Bill's presidency too. It too was violated even though it was under the former leader.

Deals may not be possible with North Korea. At least long term ones.

Re:Obama Hillary Foriegn Policy?

[eric_harris_76]

Apparently, North Korea lies. A lot. Even to a country which could render it uninhabitable for decades. Who could have guessed it?

Eventually -- probably within 10 years, according to my highly-uneducated guess -- the regime will collapse or be overthrown from within.

If things go badly, it will just be another backward awful country that is somewhat less repressive to its people and even less dangerous to the United States (already a negligible danger). Perhaps a notch or two worse than Venezuela.

If things go very well, it will go like East Germany.

Re:Obama Hillary Foriegn Policy?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Eventually -- probably within 10 years, according to my highly-uneducated guess -- the regime will collapse or be overthrown from within.

We've been waiting 60 years for that to happen, and it doesn't look much closer to reality.

My big hope was, when Kim Jong Il died, his son would become a Korean Gorbachev. He might start out hard-liner, but slowly push NK in a more diplomatic direction toward openness and trade, using China since 1970 as the model.

Alas, he seems to be a chip off the old block!

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The military of all countries, with or without nuclear weapons, are trained to be ready to use them or anything at any time..

But Sanders doesn't understand foreign policy....

[bigsexyjoe]

In the debate, he said the foreign country that poses the biggest threat is North Korea. He cited the fact that they are a nuclear power and a very strange country and dictatorship.

But smart Clinton understood new that Iran was a bigger threat. She's so good at foreign policy that she turned Libya into a failed state, armed people who eventually helped start ISIS.

And dumb Sanders said we should worry about North Korea...

Re: The silver lining around every (mushroom) clou

[MachineShedFred]

At least he can use critical thinking and math. You seem to be falling short in those respects.

Here's a hint: in order to make a big-dick multi-megaton nuclear explosive, it's really HEAVY, and still has the inverse-cube law applied to it's detonation. Instead, you can use the same missile to carry *multiple* smaller independently-targetable warheads that do MORE damage and cost less.

Go back to 1963 where you belong.

Re:Nuclear weapons are a deterrent

[Pikoro]

I'm not debating the merits or not of attacking anywhere. What I'm saying is that if NK were to choose a target to do a maximum amount of damage for as little overhead as possible, as well as giving the entire region a black eye, Okinawa would be that ripe target. Of course retaliation would be swift and severe, but that won't make it any less damaging.