Slashdot Mirror


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!"

53 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

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

    4. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You sure? He's friends with Dennis Rodman.

      Enough said.

    6. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    7. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Opportunist · · Score: 2

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    9. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    10. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by tsotha · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by dargaud · · Score: 2

      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 ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    13. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't the deterrent by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    3. Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      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.
         

    4. Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:The silver lining around every (mushroom) cloud by phantomfive · · Score: 3

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Yawn by bigfinger76 · · Score: 2

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

  4. ALL IN by Dorianny · · Score: 2

    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

  5. It's just all bluster. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's just all bluster. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:It's just all bluster. by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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..

  6. He had to up the ante by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

  7. Re:ICBM ? by Dahamma · · Score: 2

    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...

  8. Re:ICBM ? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    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?

  9. This is when editors really need to step in by rebelwarlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is when editors really need to step in by aralin · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  10. Well its been quiet with ISIS by future+assassin · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  11. Re:He won't do it by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  12. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles by drnb · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Re:Nuke North Korea by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  14. His numbers don't add up. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles by drnb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  16. Come on, China. Just end it already by istartedi · · Score: 2

    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!!!!

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  17. Instead of armchair explanation... by three27 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  18. They'll only ever get one shot... by jcr · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  19. Re:Is there a trend, here? by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  20. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles by drnb · · Score: 2

    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.

  21. Re:Nuclear weapons aren't necessarily missiles by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  22. Re: North Korea's next target ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:North Korea's next target ... by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  24. Re:Is there a trend, here? by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  25. Lankov may have an agenda by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  26. Re:North Korea's next target ... by dcw3 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  27. Re:North Korea's next target ... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  28. Re: North Korea's next target ... by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  29. Re:Shut up by Mishra100 · · Score: 2

    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.