Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Conducts Fifth Nuclear Test -- The Largest One Yet (cnn.com)

TMB writes: As reported by CNN, North Korea has conducted its 5th nuclear test, the largest yet at 10 kilotons. Before the test was reported, Slashdot reader hcs_$reboot reported: A magnitude 5.3 earthquake has been detected in North Korea, amid reports the country had been preparing for its fifth nuclear test. South Korea's Yonhap news agency said it had been an "artificial quake." The U.S. Geological Survey said the tremor had been detected in the north-east of North Korea, close to a known nuclear test site. The earthquake occurred close to the surface, the USGS said. The shallow depth and precise timing of the quake suggests it was man-made. North Korea says it has tested a nuclear warhead and that the test showed the warhead "has been standardized to be able to be mounted on strategic ballistic rockets."

243 comments

  1. aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...

    1. Re:aggression inevitable? by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...

      I am much less worried about them than Muslim countries with the bomb. North Korean rulers are ruthless and power hungry but rational to the degree that they don't want to be wiped out in a counter-strike. Many Muslims would see a counter-strike as an advantage, with millions of people becoming martyrs and getting their millions * 27 virgins.

    2. Re:aggression inevitable? by drnb · · Score: 2

      Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...

      You mean attack something again? There was the North Korean invasion of South Korea back in the 1950s, before a prepared US military and a prepared South Korean military were sitting on the border.

    3. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm...it's not quite so simple as that. Before the Korean war there was no concrete North Korea and South Korea. Neither government recognized the border or each other. Poor old Korea split up due to the meddling of the super powers.

    4. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 72 Virgins. Get your Virgins straight buddy!

    5. Re:aggression inevitable? by f3rret · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nah, this sorta thing is pretty much SOP for NK, they'll be all like "Raaaah look at us we are like SUPER dangerous! Give us oil and food or we use our spooky new powers!"

      Then we give them oil and food and they step back down, when that stuff runs out - they go "Raaaaaah!" again.
      They've done it before.

      Besides there's a long way from a functional nuclear device to a missile deliverable one.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    6. Re:aggression inevitable? by drnb · · Score: 2

      Umm...it's not quite so simple as that. Before the Korean war there was no concrete North Korea and South Korea. Neither government recognized the border or each other. Poor old Korea split up due to the meddling of the super powers.

      Actually it is quite simple. In 1950 and today North Korea does not recognize the legitimacy of the South Korean government and considers reunification by force to be a legitimate option. There is no peace treaty ending the Korean War, just a Cease Fire. North Korea has occasionally conducted raids into South Korea and killed South Korean over the decades of this Cease Fire.

    7. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's 72 daemons in the Key of Solomon.

    8. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious; how does one arrive at the martyr to virgin ratio and has it been backed up by any published studies?

      As an aside, my cousin Tom is still a virgin and still lives with his elderly parents. Does he count?

    9. Re:aggression inevitable? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its a bit more complicated than that - the partition of Korea only happened in 1948, two years before the Korean War started, and *both* sides were making aggressive noises and movements toward the other, it was simply the North that first moved en mass south of the border to reunite the country. The South at that point was still building its military in preparation for its own invasion of the North, as well as disenfranchising a huge number of its own citizens who were communist or didn't support the US-and-UN imposed elections.

      By the start of the Korean War in 1950, the South had imprisoned 30,000 communists, and had interred 300,000 more in "reeducation camps". They had also killed more than 60,000 of their own citizens in various quellings of uprisings by disowned groups. The North were doing their own similar thing, sure, but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War. After all, you hardly ever hear that, in the early days of the war, the southern president, Syngmam Rhee, ordered the executions of between 100,000 and 200,000 of his political opponents in the Bodo League massacre.

      The North today may be run by nut jobs, but do not mistake the cause of the Korean War as solely the Norths fault, nor on the same level as todays North Korea...

    10. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in the Bible, or whatever.

    11. Re:aggression inevitable? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...

      North Korea is the buffer between China and the US forces, a North Korean attack would lead to the regime's fall and probably a reunification into a strong pro-western country which I'm sure China doesn't want. Despite all the saber rattling I'm fairly sure Kim wouldn't try pulling it off alone. In fact, I think China would tell him that in case of a unilateral attack they'd roll in and occupy North Korea themselves before US-led forces could do it. Even if 99,99% of the population is ignorant some must know the real state of the country and its technology, this is not Nazi Germany. This is a backwater podunk with a not-so-unwarranted paranoia after being named in the "axis of evil" and the invasion of Iraq. Fuck what everyone else thinks, it's better to have the arms to defend yourself and act like you could use them. He'd be right at home in the US, in another life.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:aggression inevitable? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Most of us don't have to care - until all cheap stuff from South Korea, Japan and Taiwan and possibly China ends due to a local war.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    13. Re:aggression inevitable? by drnb · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Its a bit more complicated than that - the partition of Korea only happened in 1948, two years before the Korean War started, and *both* sides were making aggressive noises and movements toward the other, it was simply the North that first moved en mass south of the border to reunite the country. The South at that point was still building its military in preparation for its own invasion of the North ...

      And it is not as simple as you suggest. While both sides claimed to be the legitimate government of all of Korea and desired reunification, only one side had the actual capability to force reunification. The North, far better armed than the South due to Chinese and Soviet support, had the capability to completely overwhelm the South. The South had no such capability.

      By the start of the Korean War in 1950, the South had imprisoned 30,000 communists, and had interred 300,000 more in "reeducation camps". They had also killed more than 60,000 of their own citizens in various quellings of uprisings by disowned groups. The North were doing their own similar thing, sure, but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War ...

      Failing to indicate that the North engaged in such practices on a far larger and even more brutal scale is a whitewashing of the North.

    14. Re:aggression inevitable? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I'm quite confident that if Kim Jung Asswipe actually ordered the use of a nuclear weapon, it would be the last thing he, or any other member of the current Nork regime, ever does.

      Most likely, a Chinese agent would take him out before any launch, and the Chinese goverment would have a story ready to go about how he died heroically saving children from a house fire or some such bullshit.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    15. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is in the Quran, but it is not clear how to interpret it. 72 may be the actual number, or just 'a very large number'. Furthermore it is not clear if you get virgins or 'grapes'. Obviously you will not get 72 grapes, but this likely means that you will get 'infinite food'. This is actually likely, as in the times it was written hunger was an even bigger problem compared to today.

    16. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...

      Can we assume one day the US will attack something ? Strike that, the US is already attacking half the world with drones for the last couple of years, and bombed the shit out of southeast asia for over a decade 40 something years ago. Whom did North Korea attack in the last 50 years ?

      If you're worried about North Korea, you should be much more worried about Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. Since they are extremely willing to use them against the Indians. And vice versa. And what about Israel ? Why does it have a nuclear arsenal that's bigger than that of the UK and France combined ? Why does Israel have boomers ? Are they preparing to attack Cina ?

      Stop reading US propaganda. NK is many things, one it is not is that of being a belligerent state considering there is no peace treaty between it, South Korea and the US.

    17. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China just doesn't want millions of starving poor uneducated refugees pouring into China

    18. Re:aggression inevitable? by ecotax · · Score: 2

      Not inevitable, but not impossible either, I think. The NK perspective/official party line is that they are under permanent threat and need to be able to defend themselves against SK, the US, and, through heinous manipulations, most of the rest of the world. That's a pretty paranoid perspective, and while it's defensive by nature, this can go wrong in many ways. The country is lead by a small, corrupt, misinformed elite, has a huge and soon nuclear-equipped army and, outside the capital, a poor and suppressed population. An internal crisis, or a diplomatic fuck-up, both seem realistic possibilities.

      --
      "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
    19. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically north and south is a civil war that has not ended.

    20. Re:aggression inevitable? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You ignore the fact that the South is well documented as being as aggressive toward the North over the border prior to the invasion, and indeed again it is well documented that it was the South which started many of the skirmishes and exchanges of gun fire that blighted that period. Syngman Rhee is on record that he wanted to conquer the North by any means necessary.

      And no, concentrating on one side while *explicitly* saying that is what I am doing does not in any way diminish the acts of the other side - especially when the point is to dispel the very polarised image that people have of the North and South during the Korean War. Trying to say otherwise is merely an ad hominem attack rather than engaging in the discussion.

      At that point in time, the South were every much the bit as brutal as the North - hundreds of thousands forced into reeducation camps, hundreds of thousands executed, tens of thousands killed in up risings etc etc etc.

      But it would seem that people like you don't like that side of history being brought up - to people like you, the South is completely innocent, and *that* is quite disturbing because it means you arent willing to look at the history of the region in a dispassionate or detached manner...

    21. Re:aggression inevitable? by ecotax · · Score: 1

      They'll be all like "Raaaah look at us we are like SUPER dangerous! Give us oil and food or we use our spooky new powers!"

      That has indeed been their peculiar form of diplomacy during some past crises.

      Besides there's a long way from a functional nuclear device to a missile deliverable one.

      Also true, but how far are they on their way by now? They're determined, have been busy for years, have taken several tests, and announced they're done. Hard to verify, but that might actually be the case.

      --
      "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
    22. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, in the last 75 years...

    23. Re:aggression inevitable? by hoofie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Saudi's already have nuclear weapons - who do you think paid for the Pakistani program ? It just happens that they are stored in Pakistan arsenals. If things went tits-up and the Saudi's [specifically the Royal Family and Government] found themselves on the wrong end of a Nuclear-armed Iran those weapons would quickly be moved to Saudi territory. Note the Saudi's bete-noire isn't, and never has been, Israel. [The Saudi Government considers Israel a convenient whipping boy but that's just to keep the punters in the Mosque and Souk happy. In reality they know that tangling with Israel would be a very, very bad idea and anyway they both have the same enemies]. The threat comes from Shia-dominated Iran whose population and ruling Theocracy are very, very unhappy with the way the Saudi's treat their own Shia minority in the East. Iran is not, and never has been an Arab country.

    24. Re:aggression inevitable? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The OP pointed directly to the 1950 invasion as their point, so that is what I talk about - and if you read my comments in full, you would note that I accept that NK today is run by nut jobs, but that doesn't change the situation back then.

      Its also worth noting that South Korea never signed the 1953 Armistice Agreement which resulted in the "permanent" partition of Korea into the North and South - it was signed by the UN and the North, but not the South. Odd that...

      Meanwhile, the South hasn't exactly seen a great 75 years itself - coups, assassinations, martial law, political murders, torture of dissidents, dictatorships etc etc

    25. Re: aggression inevitable? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Furthermore it is not clear if you get virgins or 'grapes'.

      Riiiiight.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    26. Re:aggression inevitable? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the senior military are quite happy with the current situation, and should the leader of North Korea seek to alter that wholesale by resuming military activity in any serious way against the South, I have no doubt that there would be a quick and sudden illness and subsequent replacement of their supreme commander...

    27. Re:aggression inevitable? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the North does have a huge army, its main value (note I said "value", not "intention") is in its defensive ability - its artillery, bunkers, sheer weight of numbers etc. By and large, the NK military is still stuck in the 1960s, and would be decimated should it choose to cross the DMZ - it lacks serious armour, air support and mobility, and the NK supply chain is pathetic.

      The nuclear option adds a certain ... flavour to the mix, but NK only have a few bombs, and those are questionable. Seoul may get nuked, it may not - for any chance of a nuke hitting Seoul, it would need to be either mounted on a rocket, or fired as an artillery shell, and both of those options require some serious technical ability which the NK's lack. Airborne delivery is out of the question, as any NK aircraft wouldnt get far into the South before being shot down. Hand delivery is a distinct possibility, but nuking Seoul doesn't win the North the war, and it would have no effect on the US troops in the South.

    28. Re:aggression inevitable? by Calydor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, if we don't require the virgins to be straight it gets a lot easier to reach the quota.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    29. Re: aggression inevitable? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's right. Early Arabic is a wonderfully ambiguous language; something that is a valuable asset to any religious text.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    30. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have a point, but using phrases like "white washing" loses you most of your credibility.

    31. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think North Korea is really pushing their luck. At the point when they could meaningfully destroy any three of: Beijing, Tokyo, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Moscow, there will need to be reasonable assurance that they WON'T do any of that. If you watch the slow progression of countries into nuclear powers, there's generally an assurance of the state having a serious interest of staying in power, and some kind of mandate from at least a reasonable number of the governed. North Korea is definitely a wild card. Given that no one seems to bat an eye, I assume that the general opinion from Russia, China, Japan, and the US (at minimum) is that NK meets this level of stability in some fashion.

      But do we know that for sure?

    32. Re:aggression inevitable? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Why? You fail to provide an argument - it sounds like you simply don't want to agree that I have a point, and thus need to look for any excuse in order to discount said point.

      You do realise what "white washing" refers to, right?

    33. Re: aggression inevitable? by cheekyboy · · Score: 2

      Ive been to sk. Its nice and darn nicer than nk

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    34. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of factories in eastern Europe that would love to take over some of the manufacturing, they are already competing with China on some stuff.
      Cheap labor is also plentiful in Africa as long as you also buy a private army to defend your factory so we might see someone try to exploit that.
      With the class differences in South America you have the nice combination of people rich enough to start up new factories and poor people that are willing to work with dangerous chemicals for next to nothing.
      A war in eastern Asia will suck majorly, but cheap gadgets will only be 10% more expensive. (Number pulled from ass.)

    35. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Virgins? I'd rather have 72 slutty girls who knew what they were doing.

    36. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only peaceful solution will come from China. The best way to strong arm China is hitting them with trade sanctions.

    37. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, they already starved all their own uneducated people back in the 50s and 60s.

    38. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all the top brass will do anything to keep the current situation, they know that if things change they'll be dirt poor starving nobodies just like like everybody else instead of living in relative luxury. or they'll be hanging from a tree

    39. Re: aggression inevitable? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I never said it wasnt.

    40. Re: aggression inevitable? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It does make me chuckle. Muslims go on about the koran is perfectly written, so much that a human couldn't have done it. Something to do with a rhyme scheme all the way through or something. Yet if it was perfect there really would be no room for misinterpretation, of which there is plenty.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    41. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...

      I am much less worried about them than Muslim countries with the bomb. North Korean rulers are ruthless and power hungry but rational to the degree that they don't want to be wiped out in a counter-strike. Many Muslims would see a counter-strike as an advantage, with millions of people becoming martyrs and getting their millions * 27 virgins.

      I quite agree. Nork is all about an egomaniac running a Communist monarchy. Massage his ego, and he's happy.

      With Muzzies, everyone wants to demonstrate to the other that theirs is the 'true Islam', as blessed by allah, and that their victories demonstrate that imaginary support. Iran getting the bomb wouldn't be new for the ummah - Pakistan already has it, but have been in too much of a turmoil to actually use it against India

    42. Re: aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      According to Walid Shoebat, the actual number is 72^3. Also, the grapes claim is easily debunked by the description of the voluptuous bosoms - something that even Arabic raisins ain't known to have. Nor would people - even Muzzie fanatics - blow themselves up for grapes - something that they can easily get as much as they want from their local bazaar

    43. Re:aggression inevitable? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      You are absolutely correct. The history of nuclear weapons is that one country getting them, means other countries get them:

      The US bomb begat the Soviet bomb.
      The Soviet bomb begat the Chinese bomb, the English bomb, and the French bomb.
      The Chinese bomb begat the Pakistani bomb.
      the Pakistani bomb begat the Indian bomb.
      In recent years, the US conventional war machine and dubiously-justified invasions begat the North Korean bomb, and progress on the Iranian bomb.

      The one exception to all this seems to be South Africa, who had a nuclear weapons program and then voluntarily gave it up after Apartheid ended.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    44. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of companies will look at this as high risk and have at least some of their manufacturing in the US: they wouldn't wanna run dry if the supply chain gets disrupted by a war. And in such an event, they'd also review the security situation in all these places - South America, Africa, India, et al before they start building more there.

    45. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Pakistan is a US ally in the same way that Saudi Arabia or Qatar or Emirates are US 'allies'. All of them recognized the Taliban regime before 9/11, and only pulled the plug due to a fear of US retaliation. Pakistan also played Bush for a major sucker by telling US that Osama was hiding in caves in no-man's lands b/w Pakistan & Afghanistan, when in fact, he was happily and safely ensconced in Musharraf's backyard. One thing good about Trump that's not true about the GOP has been his willingness to call out the Muzzies and offend them, so that that charade of 'friendship' gets blown. Obama has actually done good by pissing off the Saudis and the Qatari's over Iran: let's hope Trump completes the process of isolating those Muzzie countries.

    46. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Pakistan's nuke program was paid for by Gadaffi's Libya in the 80s. Saudi, Qatar and Emirates are potential clients/customers of Pakistan in case Iran does get the bomb.

    47. Re:aggression inevitable? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Well, there's two different ways of making a nuclear ballistic missile.

      1. Make a huge fucking rocket and put your big heavy crude weapon on top of it. See: Titan series of ICBMs, also used to launch Gemini capsules into orbit.
      2. Use a staggering amount of resources to miniaturize your nuclear weapon, and use a smaller more efficient rocket. See: anything currently in the US, Russian, or Chinese arsenal, such as the Minuteman or Trident series of ICBMs.

      North Korea has had very public issues with #1, and they just haven't had the resources or time to do #2. I have a feeling that these test detonations are more about dick wagging and telling lies then actual milestone progress towards #2. Isn't it odd that these tests always coincide with some other event happening that North Korea hasn't been invited to (G20 summit in China), or some military exercise involving a country close to North Korea (South Korea, Japan, etc.)?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    48. Re: aggression inevitable? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Note the use, some years back, of "bad" meaning "good" in American English. Or "bad" meaning "tough". Among MANY other changes over the years.

      Languages change, for better or worse. Why should Arabic be any different?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    49. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But Pakistan is a country that likes both sides of the Iran-Arab divide, reason being Islam. They have military alliances w/ the Saudis, but at the same time, Pakistan is the country where Iran is the most liked. They will probably balk at diverting their nukes away from India and towards Iran, as that will invite charges of treason against the ummah - going against an Islamic Iran as opposed to a secular-Hindu India.

    50. Re:aggression inevitable? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's Kim Jong Un trying to consolidate his power. His health has deteriorated a lot since he came to power, he walks with a stick and has become obese. It's put down to stress.

      He is trying to look strong by showing he can stand up to the US and defend NK from it. He wants to prove he is a great military strategist.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re: aggression inevitable? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Well, on the plus side, the grapes could be strung together to make anal beads.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    52. Re:aggression inevitable? by shortscruffydave · · Score: 2

      27 virgins could be correct. If millions of martyrs turn up at once, it's bound to affect the market rate....supply & demand, and all that

    53. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What was Obama going to do against Iran, anyway? Launch the biggest war since WW2 or Korea? Use nuclear weapons?

    54. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you Walter.

    55. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More reason to be worried about USA and it's constant aggressions than relatively peaceful NK.

    56. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the grapes claim is easily debunked by the description of the voluptuous bosoms

      Because it's actually voluptuous blossoms, early typo

    57. Re:aggression inevitable? by dwpro · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Between Stuxnet and assassinating scientists of the backs of mopeds, short of military action we've been as aggressive as we can.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    58. Re:aggression inevitable? by TMB · · Score: 1

      Another exception is Israel -- the only country on that list that's at all hostile to Israel is Pakistan, but Israel's nuclear weapons program predates Pakistan's.

    59. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Virgins? I'd rather have 72 slutty girls who knew what they were doing.

      Heard more than one comedian, some of them Muslim, make that joke. A more creative one was "72 virgins? I hope not. I don't want 72 phone calls about 'So, where is this going?' and having to meet 114 parents."

    60. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reality they know that tangling with Israel would be a very, very bad idea...

      Why? Why would it be a "very, very bad idea"? The USA backs BOTH countries, one for oil and the other to keep the oil-rich country in line. If the Saudis attack Isreal, what do you think would happen? Uncle Sam would site his butt down in his bases in Europe, stretch his legs out over Afghanistan, pop open an ice-cold Bud and ask Russia to pass the chips.

      When the Arabs and the Jews both look to Uncle Sam for backing, he'll just shrug and say "I told you not to do this" and that would be it. Whichever nation is still standing at the end of the fight gets to run the other one and no one will care.

      The Cold War is over, Hoofie. Whichever country brings the dark and greasy is a-ok with us.

    61. Re: aggression inevitable? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Because they're very resistant to such changes because the language and everything has been handed down from god and is therefor perfect, completing the circle. Kind of different to slang.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    62. Re:aggression inevitable? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Japanese news is reporting that analyst think NK has the ability to accurately target short range missiles now. They can't get as far as Japan, but South Korea can be hit with precision, they say, as well as shipping off the NK coast.

      I don't know how accurate those claims are, but thought they were worth mentioning.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    63. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there any STD's in the afterlife?

    64. Re: aggression inevitable? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      So they can just go to their local bazar and buy 373248 grapes?

    65. Re:aggression inevitable? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      By the start of the Korean War in 1950, the South had imprisoned 30,000 communists, and had interred 300,000 more in "reeducation camps". They had also killed more than 60,000 of their own citizens in various quellings of uprisings by disowned groups. The North were doing their own similar thing, sure, but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War. After all, you hardly ever hear that, in the early days of the war, the southern president, Syngmam Rhee, ordered the executions of between 100,000 and 200,000 of his political opponents in the Bodo League massacre.

      You didn't mention it, but the only reason you have that information to talk about is because South Korea is a well functioning democracy and you have no access at all to information about what North Korea did at the time. We don't know if they did the same, more or less. And as far as white-washing goes, that may simply be your view of the situation from outside South Korea. For all I know people in South Korea have a really good understanding of what went on and it's not white-washed there at all. The Korean War wasn't glamorous like WWII kind of was and the last 2 years were basically a stalemate so it doesn't get a lot of attention in the USA and maybe almost none at all in the EU, where most European countries sat it out and only the UK contributed any decent numbers of troops. Well, unless maybe you count Turkey as part of Europe but even they only supplied roughly 1/3 what the UK did. The US contributed over 20 times the number of troops the UK did.

    66. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I supposed AIDS gets to go to heaven when it dies too.

    67. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tom Sawyer.

      SK: Gosh I sure love whitewashing this fence.
      USA: Ohh please let us take a turn.
      SK: IDK
      USA: PLS, PLS, PLS.
      SK: Ohh alright send all your troops over here.

    68. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been their stated goal for decades that they want to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems to attack the US. This threat is intolerable and should be dealt with immediately. Just destroy the military infrastructure and doctoral leadership and be done with it. I can't imagine that chaos that would ensue would be any worse for the people there than the oppressive government that intentionally keeps the country in a state of constant poverty.

    69. Re:aggression inevitable? by khallow · · Score: 2

      but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War

      [...]

      The North today may be run by nut jobs, but do not mistake the cause of the Korean War as solely the Norths fault, nor on the same level as todays North Korea...

      Nor should you. Despite your attempts at some sort of reverse whitewashing, it remains that North Korea started the war and would have finished it with a brutal tyranny over the entire Korean peninsula, if it weren't for the direct intervention of a superpower. It wasn't solely North Korea's fault. They had considerable help from the USSR and China.

      But to cast blame on South Korea because they did evil things that were irrelevant to North Korea's interests? Well, I guess they showed weakness by not invading first with a superior force, so sure, let's blame the South Koreans too.

    70. Re:aggression inevitable? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Well they seem to have quite unreasonable expectations when SK wants to install that missile defense system.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    71. Re:aggression inevitable? by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      The Korean War wasn't glamorous like WWII kind of was and the last 2 years were basically a stalemate so it doesn't get a lot of attention in the USA and maybe almost none at all in the EU...

      Let's be honest, almost everything westerners know about the Korean War comes from watching M.A.S.H.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    72. Re: aggression inevitable? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Yet if it was perfect there really would be no room for misinterpretation

      In a nutshell, this reduces to the notion that there is no way for something to be perfect unless everyone is exactly the same. I'm not saying the Quran (or anything else, necessarily) is perfect, but I think your argument is flawed.

    73. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that North Korea is a big player on the international arms trade black market... so where might a terrorist go if they wanted a large bomb? Retaliation in kind may be more complicated if North Korea could come up with any sort of plausible deniability...

    74. Re:aggression inevitable? by johanw · · Score: 1

      They can leven Seoul with classic artillery, no need for nukes there. However, if they develop long range missles, the nukes are usefull as defense weapons, should some US president decide it's time for another regime change. They wouold still loose of course, but I doubt the US would tke the rist that one or two of their larger cities are getting nuked in the process.

    75. Re: aggression inevitable? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Well, on the plus side, the grapes could be strung together to make anal beads.

      That's a lotta anal grape juice.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    76. Re:aggression inevitable? by smithmc · · Score: 2

      You should begin that with: The Nazi bomb (threat) begat the US bomb. They were working on one, then put it aside because you cant occupy countries that you've turned into glass, and the Nazis were all about conquest. But Szilard (via Einstein) warned Roosevelt that, once the basic science was known, any of a number of players could develop the actual bomb, and that we should have it first.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    77. Re: aggression inevitable? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Now. Till the 1970ies it was the other way around. Back then North Korea has been actually less authoritarian than South Korea, as funny as it may sound nowdays.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    78. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it was the US who literally disarmed the South's army and reminded vigilante citizens to go back home. The US was the North's friend if there ever was one. Played referee between the two! And the North took advantage of this peace to invade.

      Look, these two are ancient rivals (a common theme around the world), and both sides were equal jerks to each other even before the 50's. Un-neighbourly conduct was played on both sides for a hundred years but here's the difference: The South's disorganized skirmishes & rhetoric at the time was minimal, but the North completely invaded the whole Southern peninsula and executed civilian citizens, officials, teachers, etc. This is a horrific fact. In other words: the North proved itself very dangerous and willing to overrun anyone they don't like.

      In summary, the South's provocative actions were in the 1940's immediately after kicking the Japanese out- and not recent. Yet the North continues to beat the war drums and their society rotates around the military and chest-thumping. Remember what they did when given the chance. Now who's the current threat?

    79. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem comes when the north immediately invades the south.

    80. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These more ancient cultures were, (and remain today), very phobic about cleanliness- in both body, house, meals, law, lifestyle, and spirit. So unfortunately virgins are the only ones that qualify.

    81. Re: aggression inevitable? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      It's not about change but about ambiguity. Most muslims insist that the only valid version of the koran is in Arabic (and all copies I've seen will have the original Arabic printed next to the translation). That's for a good reason: the ambiguity in the original language is lost in translation. I have 2 copies, each with different (in many cases fundamentally different) interpretations of the original text.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    82. Re: aggression inevitable? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Freeze them first- and work quickly.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    83. Re:aggression inevitable? by drnb · · Score: 2

      You ignore the fact that the South is well documented as being as aggressive toward the North over the border prior to the invasion, and indeed again it is well documented that it was the South which started many of the skirmishes and exchanges of gun fire that blighted that period.

      While the South may have made futile impotent symbolic gestures the North planned and prepared and executed a full scale invasion.

      At that point in time, the South were every much the bit as brutal as the North

      The political oppression and political indoctrination and violence of the South pales in comparison to the North.

      But it would seem that people like you don't like that side of history being brought up

      Untrue, I just don't believe in logical fallacy of false equivalency.

    84. Re:aggression inevitable? by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      72 virgins is a good investment.
      The afterlife is long, and these 72 virgins will probably get a lot of experience along the way. And while you can turn a virgin into a slutty girl, the opposite is impossible.
      If, for some reason, you really can't stand virgins, you also get 8000 servants in the package, so you can pick a few of your virgins and send them for training.

    85. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and having to meet 114 parents.

      It seems that around 21 per cent of parents die before their child marries.

    86. Re:aggression inevitable? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...

      I am much less worried about them than Muslim countries with the bomb. North Korean rulers are ruthless and power hungry but rational to the degree that they don't want to be wiped out in a counter-strike. Many Muslims would see a counter-strike as an advantage, with millions of people becoming martyrs and getting their millions^27 virgins.

      Took care of a little mistype for ya. ;)

    87. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Quran says North Korea will attack? Wow. Somehow I don't think it says that.

    88. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is in the Quran, but it is not clear how to interpret it. 72 may be the actual number, or just 'a very large number'. Furthermore it is not clear if you get virgins or 'grapes'.

      If it's 'grapes', could I have 72 cherries instead?

    89. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      114 parents.... so some of them are dead?

    90. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in such an event, they'd also review the security situation in all these places - South America, Africa, India, et al before they start building more there.

      South America is light years more advanced than Africa and India when it comes to social/human development(*). South of the 20th parallel you have essentially a replica of the USA, in terms of geography, people, HDI, etc. If you are worth your salt, you never confuse these regions.

      (*) A fratricide war just ended in Colombia, making the Americas [except for the drug cartels] the most peaceful continent on Earth.

    91. Re:aggression inevitable? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I thought it was 72-year-old virgins

    92. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note the use, some years back, of "bad" meaning "good" in American English.

      I like this post. I like it badly.

      Captcha: Tautly

    93. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sequence was actually China -> India -> Pakistan.

    94. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one exception to all this seems to be South Africa, who had a nuclear weapons program and then voluntarily gave it up after Apartheid ended.

      Brazil, Argentina, ring any bell? Come on.

      Furthermore, Brazil has acquired independently the technology for the H-bomb via modelling. Our break out time is 3 months. Never forget this little giant.

    95. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, deal -- alllah

    96. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But do they also die before becoming grandparents?

    97. Re:aggression inevitable? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Seoul may get nuked, it may not - for any chance of a nuke hitting Seoul, it would need to be either mounted on a rocket, or fired as an artillery shell, and both of those options require some serious technical ability which the NK's lack.

      Currently.

      That's why all the practice runs firing missiles into the sea of Japan are troubling. They are getting better at it.

      Your statement is true - today - but it won't be here in a decade or so. And it's not likely NK will be less nuts ten years from now.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    98. Re: aggression inevitable? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Obviously you will not get 72 grapes

      I like how you're talking about the reward in the afterlife for people who die in the name of a religion according to some guy who wrote a book of mythology 1400 years ago or whatever.

      "Well, obviously you're not going to get 72 grapes..."

      yeah, because that would be ridiculous, haha, right? But 72 virgins or infinite food totally makes sense. Because everyone knows exactly what happens after you die.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    99. Re: aggression inevitable? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      All I'm saying is if somethings meaning isn't clear and unambiguous, you can't really claim it's perfectly written.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    100. Re:aggression inevitable? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War.

      I noticed that last night. When reading about this nuclear test I noticed that the article was referring to the South Korean president as Ms. Park, so I looked her up ( I didn't realize they had a female president). She's the first female president, and the daughter of Park Chung-Hee, who led a military coup against the government and is described as a strongman dictator who led the Third Republic of South Korea after the coup, then in 1972 he declared martial law and made the constitution much more authoritarian (which led to the Fourth Republic of South Korea), before being assassinated by the chief of his own security services in 1979. That eventually led to the Fifth Republic of South Korea, which lasted until 1987 and now they are the Sixth Republic of South Korea. His daughter Park Geun-Hye is the sixth president of the sixth republic (11th president overall, and the 18th presidential term). So yeah, it's definitely a bit complicated.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    101. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel can take care of itself militarily without help from the US. They have their own nuclear arsenal with the ability to deliver a second strike from both land and sea launch vehicles. The surrounding Arab countries know without a doubt what would happen to them if they launched an all out attack on Israel. Israel has never asked or needed US approval before they attack anything they see as a threat. The surrounding Arabs also know that Israel is ruthless and unforgiving when it comes to taking care of it's enemies.

    102. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 of them have single parents?

    103. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am much less worried about them than Muslim countries with the bomb. North Korean rulers are ruthless and power hungry but rational to the degree that they don't want to be wiped out in a counter-strike.

      So worry about cash-strapped norks selling a bomb or two to rich muslims who have (oil)money & an agenda but no bomb of their own manufacture.

    104. Re: aggression inevitable? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is "clear" and "unambiguous" are actually subjective notions. The inability to clearly comprehend something that requires a level of comprehension that has not yet been achieved is not a failing in what is being communicated.

    105. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Basic insecurity. Males who prefer virgins have a fear of being compared with the girl's previous companions, and coming up short.

    106. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise what "white washing" refers to, right?

      Other than painting a fence? No. Why don't you go ahead and explain it to us?

    107. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?

    108. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "72 grapes" is a bit of an apologist sop because many of the Sahih Ahadith talk in terms of very large numbers of Houris (that's the "virgins" that everyone talks about - in reality houris are supernatural creatures and some of them ironically fit the description of sex dolls),

      In addition to the 72 houris, there are of course also the massive numbers of little boys, described in terms that would make NAMBLA proud.

      To conclude, Muhammad's promised heaven called 'Jannah' is nothing more than an afterlife brothel.

    109. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I wonder about Venezuela, though, once Comrade Chavez was done w/ it. Also, some places, like Bolivia, seem to be very high crime spots

    110. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      You are talking about 20th century Israel - the Israel of Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Those people - and that Israel - is dead. What is left today is a wussified Israel shaking in the safespace granted to them by the Obamas, and hoping to contain their Mohammedan neighbors to microaggressions from Gaza. Bibi Nothingyahu is someone who could have totally checkmated Obama by switching alliances to Putin, who would have been glad to support the world's other quasi-Russian nation, but did squat!

    111. Re:aggression inevitable? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      South African here, we actually dismantled our nuclear weapons program well before apartheid ended in 1994, it was only announced then once the international inspectors were allowed in. I think the end of the program started in 1988 and took two years to complete.

      Officially it was ended to build peace and stability in the region after the end of the Angolan war, but there are whispers in the air that it was done to prevent the ANC from getting their hands on WMDs and possibly selling them on to the highest bidder.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    112. Re:aggression inevitable? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You guys are missing the obvious: all the parents are alive, some of them share parents.

    113. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you are talking Muslimahs here, where a husband is allowed up to 4 wives. So some of the virgins may have common fathers, but different mothers. Not to mention, some may easily be sisters

    114. Re:aggression inevitable? by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Actually, no. What they want is purity - that the girl's you-know-what be touched by them and them alone. Which would be one thing if they were as pure as the girls they want, but rank hypocrisy if they themselves had been gigolos, but wanted virgins here.

    115. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Can we assume one day the US will attack something ?

      Yes.

      Whom did North Korea attack in the last 50 years ?

      South Korea, in several raids and "accidents". And kidnappings, both from South Korea and Japan, of course.

      NK is many things, one it is not is that of being a belligerent state considering there is no peace treaty between it, South Korea and the US.

      It absolutely is a belligerent state, it just doesn't have the capability to do more than swagger and make threats at this point. China doesn't want them to attack because they don't want a unified free Korea (and make no mistake, the South would not lose the war if it really becomes hot again). And why would there be a peace treaty between NK and the US? Those two countries were never officially at war. The US was just leading the UN forces.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    116. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men who chastise other men for this are likely the ones redirecting attention from their own small penises.. Wanting a girl who hasn't had 200 partners in college is understandable.

    117. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      As long as you live outside of NK, yes. But I'd argue that the constant, horrifying human rights abuses that go on there should probably be stopped, ideally sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, there's no clear good way to do that.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    118. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      No, the problem comes when NK immediately reduces Seoul to rubble with conventional artillery, because they actually have the capacity to do that. An actual invasion wouldn't be as big of an issue - the military can repel NK's troops fairly well - but there's not a lot you can do about artillery strikes when there's that much artillery pointed at you.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    119. Re: aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the suicide bombers get raped 72 times per day....

    120. Re:aggression inevitable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was a war of wacky hijinks and bountiful gin.

    121. Re:aggression inevitable? by jcr · · Score: 1

      if things change they'll be dirt poor starving nobodies just like like everybody else instead of living in relative luxury.

      Not necessarily. A lot of former Russian apparatchiki were able to grab a fair bit of loot for themselves as the Soviet Union came unglued.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Great Filter, here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like we are headed inexorably towards a Nash equilibrium where everyone has a nuclear arsenal. Hard to see how that ends well.

    1. Re:Great Filter, here we come by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Well, the US military plays for keeps, and while NK is figuring out how to build / launch nukes, the US Navy is testing out its shiny new rail gun...

      And that's just the stuff the military feels like showing off. We probably have some bombs, in Area 51, that do "things" that most PhD-level Physicists / Chemists would have trouble grasping, let alone the military guards laughing about a small plane dropping a single bomb like that would do any damage...

    2. Re:Great Filter, here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's adorable you think there's some Hogwarts stuff going on in Area 51.

    3. Re: Great Filter, here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else do you get inside?

  3. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The US nuclear missile fleet is still using 8" hard disks.

    I'm sure the North Koreans are not.

  4. Can't have happened ... by drnb · · Score: 3, Funny

    North Korea says it has tested a nuclear warhead and that the test showed the warhead "has been standardized to be able to be mounted on strategic ballistic rockets."

    This can't have happened, Bill Clinton signed an agreement with North Korea.

    1. Re:Can't have happened ... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Their claims for what the test showed is false. Successfully detonating a weak nuke doesn't indicate that it's been standardized, or it will function on a ballistic missile. (Rockets have no guidance, so only a total F'ing moron would put one on a rocket.)

    2. Re:Can't have happened ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Their claims for what the test showed is false. Successfully detonating a weak nuke doesn't indicate that it's been standardized, or it will function on a ballistic missile. (Rockets have no guidance, so only a total F'ing moron would put one on a rocket.)

      V2 rockets hit London from French territory during WW2. North Korea could hit Seoul, its only 35 miles from the border.

    3. Re:Can't have happened ... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not quite but close. Then the "axis of evil" speech happened and it all went to shit.
      Maybe it would have gone to shit anyway, but by 2006 they were setting off nukes. Personally I think an approach other than Bush's of insults and perpetual vacation would have had different results.


      Here's what happened as a list of events from someone far more careful to avoid bais than I.
      https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

    4. Re:Can't have happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably even without a missile. NK did covert operations in SK before, so they might be able to just sneak in the nuke, even if not miniturized...

    5. Re:Can't have happened ... by drnb · · Score: 2

      Not quite but close. Then the "axis of evil" speech happened and it all went to shit. Maybe it would have gone to shit anyway, but by 2006 they were setting off nukes.

      Over a year before Bill leaves office North Korea is flying missiles over Japan and his administration suspects that North Korean is cheating on the nuclear deal.

    6. Re:Can't have happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably even without a missile. NK did covert operations in SK before, so they might be able to just sneak in the nuke, even if not miniturized...

      If NK want to hit Seoul they don't need a nuclear arsenal. They just use those thousands of covert artillery positions along the DMZ.

    7. Re:Can't have happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only rockets without guidance are the ones without guidance.

    8. Re:Can't have happened ... by dbIII · · Score: 2
      That and a lot of other things are mentioned in that link I gave. I suggest you look at it.

      Over a year before Bill leaves office

      So a halt for close to a couple of years is the same as missiles every few months since plus atomic fucking bombs being detonated?


      Besides it wasn't really Clinton doing the work but instead of bunch that were mainly military. Powell was set to finish the job but then baby Bush decided to pretend to be "strong" and absolutely fuck everything up.
      Could it have been solved? Maybe, maybe not, but now that we decided to step back and decide to leave N.K. alone and let them build the bomb there is no going back.

    9. Re:Can't have happened ... by ecotax · · Score: 1

      Their claims for what the test showed is false.

      As a claim, yes, it's false. Which means we don't know whether they actually have those standardized nukes or not.

      ...so only a total F'ing moron would put one on a rocket.

      Yes, indeed, he would.

      --
      "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
    10. Re:Can't have happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually very few V2 were sent from France, most launch sites were in Belgium and the Netherlands.

      The first V2 was sent in September 1994, 3 months after D-day, and the Calais was taken by the Allies on October the 1st after a one week battle. A few V2 may have been sent from between Calais and Dunkirk, but even then there was a Canadian battalion very close to Dunkirk as early as September.

      This said, Dunkirk remained a German pocket and only surrendered on May 9th, 1945, one day after the third Reich.

    11. Re:Can't have happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the "axis of evil" speech happened and it all went to shit.

      Somebody needs to make the "axis of it's complicated" speech. I'm not seeing either of the candidates from the leading parties making it, however.

    12. Re:Can't have happened ... by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Bunching Nork w/ Iran and Iraq in the axis of evil to give it a non-Islamic tinge was really stupid of Bush. North Korea did not support terror in the world. Iran and Iraq were both supporters of Hizbullah and Hamas when Bush gave that speech.

    13. Re:Can't have happened ... by jittles · · Score: 1

      Actually very few V2 were sent from France, most launch sites were in Belgium and the Netherlands.

      The first V2 was sent in September 1994.

      I KNEW Hitler was a time traveler!!

    14. Re:Can't have happened ... by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      You've read some of the claims about dear leader, right?

      I mean, the man wrote 1,500 books in three years while at a University. He picked up a golf club in 1984 and hit a 38 with no fewer than 11 holes in one. They couldn't possibly be crazy liars, could they?

    15. Re:Can't have happened ... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      ...(Rockets have no guidance, so only a total F'ing moron would put one on a rocket.)...

      So you're saying he'll do it..? Har.

      Some people in some parts of the world don't understand what "real world" is when they've been brainwashed since birth.

    16. Re:Can't have happened ... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      ...I KNEW Hitler was a time traveler!!...

      But there's less lead in the water now. This one could be.. uh... well they're already out of their real-world minds in NK, so.. yeah.

    17. Re:Can't have happened ... by whodunit · · Score: 1

      "Just sweet-talk the insane power-mad dictators, that'll surely work!"

      No matter how many times I hear it, you left-wingers blow my fucking mind with your delusions.

    18. Re:Can't have happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can an artillery shell... Or for that matter if they stole an armored car from a bank they could probably drive it close enough to light it off before someone was able to get heavy enough weapons on site.

    19. Re:Can't have happened ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he is. Just watch "Kung Fury" :)

    20. Re:Can't have happened ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's not the approach Powell and the advisors from the Pentagon were going to take.
      This isn't a left versus right issue. It's an issue of whoever would be in power at the time of a deal taking the credit - until it was totally fucked up.

  5. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the risk of accomplishing nothing more than feeding a troll, I feel compelled to note that you appear to be suffering from a great deal of ignorance regarding the scope of nuclear warfare. -PCP

  6. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    All they need to do is put it on a missile, then they can wipe out the US

    Not yet. NK is still stoppable. This is probably why nobody is doing anything.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  7. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, we are all South Koreans today. The nuke doesn't care.

  8. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by meerling · · Score: 1

    Nope, the NKs are probably still using chicken wire and chinese duct tape.
    North Korea isn't that technologically adept, their regime certainly doesn't foster the kind of environment where the required talent can exist readily.

  9. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat shit and die Mecca and Ping Pong Pyongyang!

  10. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean 8" hard dicks.

    NorthKoreans are barely 2" in warm bath water.

  11. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry... You mean 3.5.

  12. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

    Actually the reason why no one is doing anything is that despite the posturing of the US and friends, North Korea is a rational actor. Same as Iran.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  13. NK technology by ecotax · · Score: 1

    North Korea isn't that technologically adept, their regime certainly doesn't foster the kind of environment where the required talent can exist readily.

    That's nonsense, or wishful thinking at best. Obviously there are talented people there too. I'm assuming the 'kind of environment' you refer to is the Western ideal one: creative, free, entrepreneurial etcetera. But people can be pretty creative is the alternative is horrible enough too, and that seems to work quite well there. As you can see, for example, here their computer technology may be somewhat outdated, but well past the 8" hard disk stage - more like beginning of the 21st century. Looks like the US has the 'handicap of a head start' here.

    --
    "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
    1. Re:NK technology by unixisc · · Score: 1

      If their regime has rolled their own distro of Linux - Red Star Linux - it's a safe bet that they're not using 8" floppies. Or even 3.5"

  14. NONSENSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, Norks don't have a V2. Second, there is no border. It's a DMZ. Third. Seoul is HUGE. Norks needs 10 puny "10 kiloton" nukes to put a dent in it!

    1. Re:NONSENSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Little Boy" had a yield of ~15 kilotons. "Fat Man" had a yield of ~21 kilotons. You may want to reconsider your personal definition of "dent." -PCP

    2. Re: NONSENSE! by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      Back then japan was made of paper . concrete structures survived well. Infact after 2 blocks the pressure wave is on par to a hurricane tho a little warmer

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    3. Re: NONSENSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please review more information on the physical effects of Little Boy, and consider the key metrics as they would apply to present day Seoul. I trust your perspective will have changed after a bit of further contemplation. -PCP

    4. Re: NONSENSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buildings surviving and human surviving are completely different things.... Trees can still stand in the epicenter of the blast for example but they won't live.

    5. Re: NONSENSE! by fnj · · Score: 1

      It is terrifying to think that there are people who have no conception of the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

    6. Re: NONSENSE! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      It is terrifying to think that there are people who have no conception of the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

      Amen. And the idea that if they send one out to punish some entity that they will be around to appreciate it for more than a day, if that. WTF?

    7. Re: NONSENSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Nk has nothing but ballistic missiles.

    8. Re: NONSENSE! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      concrete structures survived well.

      Before, after.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  15. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Too bad some USians often confuse Iran, Iraq, Taleban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda into a sweet, Hollywood entertainment mix with the motivational spices of Shia vs. Sunni ignorance and "They gonna get us all" lunacy.

  16. US, UN, Security Council, China have all failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kim Jong Il keeps thumbing his nose at these flaccid weak limp dicks who keep looking the other way. China is protecting Kim Jong Il. Why?

    Pro-tips for China:
    1. Do you realize if Kim Jong Il attacks anyone with these nukes all bets are off?
    2. Do you realize if he does the USPACFLT will steam into a big and humiliating battle on your doorstep?
    3. You think you're a big tough new superpower now but America would kick your ass. You have no idea how the US is at war. Yeah the Taliban give them a hard time but China is the conventional enemy the US could beat to a bloody shitty mess without breaking a conversation?
    4. If he does use nukes then China's name will forever be mud.
    5. China if you don't want a remilitarized Japan then China's support for Kim Jong Il gives them no choice.
    6. And stop trolling South East Asia. You're meant to be making friends but there is no one in South East Asia you haven't pissed off: http://www.scmp.com/comment/in...

    1. Re:US, UN, Security Council, China have all failed by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Il is his late father, that champion golfer who once hit 9 holes-in-one

    2. Re:US, UN, Security Council, China have all failed by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Il is his late father, that champion golfer who once hit 9 holes-in-one

      Does "un" indicate that he is incapable of the same? Wait.. base language barrier. "My bad". /humor

    3. Re:US, UN, Security Council, China have all failed by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Well, his father fell IL and died. So the Norks are UN der

  17. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    No, they have Dear Leader calculate everything in his brilliant head.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Iran != NK. Israel considers Iran as a threat, and many countries worry about the Middle-East conflict. Who really cares about NK? SK and Japan, mainly. Who *really* cares about SK and Japan? Unfortunately...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  19. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shia? Sunni? You give them too much credit if you ask me.

    If you do a poll, my guess is that the result would be that Shia is some comedian, Sunni is what California is, and over there in that Arab desert is one big homogeneous mass of brown skinned towelheads that wanna kill the American way of life.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. It is amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To see that people from the only nation in the world to actually use nuclear weapons in an attack and that regularly wages proactive genocidal wars, is so critical of others following the path it created.

    1. Re:It is amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole "only nation in the world to actually use nuclear weapons" smacks of the same kind of "logic" as the people who banter on about slavery in the US a full century and a half after the fact. Why don't we just blame the modern day Egyptians for the troubles of the ancient Israelite while we're at it? Or maybe we can fault Theresa May for the sacking of Jerusalem during the first crusade?

    2. Re:It is amusing by johanw · · Score: 1

      The critique is on the warlike culture in the US, not on the past slavery. Slavery is outdated anyway, modern capitalists concluded long ago that it is much cheaper to pay their workers a little and let them care for themselves and let them compete with each other. Slaves are expensive property that has to be kept alive and fed and healthy to be productive. Free-market workers are easily replaced.

  21. Poor old Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As an aside, my cousin Tom is still a virgin and still lives with his elderly parents. Does he count?

    Yes, there is a muslim terrorist (literally) dying to meet him.

  22. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    What can anyone do? An invasion would be a disaster, China would get involved... Diplomacy is difficult while the US and SK continue to antagonise with military "exercises" of their cost.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  23. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    All they need to do is put it on a missile, then they can wipe out the US, the bully of the world!!

    Could Russia have even wiped out the US in the height of it? I don't think so, destroy a lot of places and kill a lot of people, sure, but wipe out? The NK's are going to need to get their production skates on if they want to wipe out anywhere!

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  24. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8" disks should be enough for everybody.

  25. North Korea is itching for a fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we had any leadership in the White House we would implement a regime change in North Korea. The country is getting more and more unstable and developing weapons that seriously are beyond the scope of controlling. Yes, ISIS is a fundamental challenge as it spreads across nations recruiting lone wolfs which do need to be addressed. But countries like North Korea with unstable leaders need to be silenced as well. I think we have far more concerns today with the rogue countries than eight years ago. We do deals with countries like Cuba but ask nothing in return for our support. What happened to demanding at least a country act civilized to its own people to do business with them? Iran, North Korea, Cuba. Really, we don't seem to be the nation of promoting freedom anymore.

    1. Re:North Korea is itching for a fight by ecotax · · Score: 2

      If we had any leadership in the White House we would implement a regime change in North Korea.

      Exactly who is itching for a fight here? It's not that the NK leadership is exactly peace-loving, but can we blame them for being somewhat suspicious about the US' intentions if this is an accepted way of thinking about foreign policy there?

      But countries like North Korea with unstable leaders need to be silenced as well.

      'Unstable leaders' ... and this is coming from a country where Donald J. Trump could be chosen as the next president?

      --
      "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
    2. Re:North Korea is itching for a fight by CaptnCrud · · Score: 2

      ...well...yes, its called an election in the free world. Any nutjob can run....it doesn't mean they get elected. I distinctly remember some guy locked up in jail trying to run for decades. For better or worse you get what the majority vote in and the "people" are responsible for that.

      That's part of the beauty of the election process, and it sure beats being stuck with the same ass nugget for life, Amiright Comrade?

      By the way, what happens if he losses, are we back to Bush being the strawman?

    3. Re:North Korea is itching for a fight by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      ...'Unstable leaders' ... and this is coming from a country where Donald J. Trump could be chosen as the next president?

      I feel you limited your logic "is a bit unstable" when you limited "unstable leaders" to only Donald J. Trump. The only other possibility is just as, if not more unstable. Speaking of instability, I heard a nuclear reaction was triggered in NK. *drum roll*
      I'll be here all week. /humor

  26. Re: US, UN, Security Council, China have all faile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to 50 years of outsourcing manufacturing jobs the US military is the same sort of paper tiger Nazi Germany was - formidable yes, but completely unable to replace its losses in any prolonged conflict. So spare me the bravado

  27. virgin count by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Okay, he transposed the '2' and the '7'. Happens!

    1. Re:virgin count by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      yhe, ti hpasnpe ot em lal het mtie!

    2. Re:virgin count by unixisc · · Score: 1

      htere yuo og

  28. virginity of allah's houris by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Their 'virginity' seems to be a permanently recycled process - they service one martyr, then their virginity returns as the next one comes in. It's not like there is the martyr population * 72. It's like zipping open your pants on & off every time you take a leak. I like Debbie Schlussel's description of them as the '72 Helen Thomas'.

  29. Nukes are obsolete by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Nukes are so 20th century. Precision weapons are much more useful. Somebody should send O'l Kimmy the memo - obviously he never got it.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Nukes are obsolete by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Precision weapons are much more useful.

      If you are the worlds police force and you care about humanity yes, that is true. If you are looking for an effective deterrent and you demonstrait routinely to your potential enemies satisfaction you don't really care about the lives of the innocent than it isn't true.

      I am plenty frightened that DPRK would use a weapon like this as a response against South Korea, Japan or any other first world aligned Asian power if an attack on them was made and failed to immediately cripple these assets. I fear they would/will target a US city for response in a few years if we sit back an allow them to improve the technology to the point where they could dependably do that.

      Its clear the deterrent is working to I suspect at least during the Bush administration we would have taken a more aggressive policy stance toward them than just sanctions if there had not been a real fear they could kill a whole lot of people in South Korea before we could stop them. Obama/Hillary have done next to nothing to address DPRK upping their nuclear game, some of it is China sure, but a lot of it is that they are now a nuclear power and do have the capability and demeanor to harm lots of innocent people. I have to believe even the Chinese are more tolerant of DPRK BS than they otherwise would be because even if they are not likely to find themselves on the receiving end of DPRK ICBM they recognize the potential they might use one and set off a massive economically destabilizing Asian conflict where the Chinese government would have to decide to side with the USA probably.. which domestically would be challenging for them.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Nukes are obsolete by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Nukes are better for influencing public opinion. Threaten to send a nuke at Washington DC and millions of ordinary people panic. Threaten to send precision strikes against the pentagon and the white house and only those people head for the bunkers.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Nukes are obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you want to wipe out an entire country's grid via EMP.

    4. Re:Nukes are obsolete by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Precision weapons are much more useful.

      More useful for what? Until someone describes the problem they're trying to solve, I'd hesistate to talk about the relative merits of various solutions.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    5. Re:Nukes are obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threaten to send a nuke at Washington DC and millions of ordinary people panic. Threaten to send precision strikes against the pentagon and the white house and millions of ordinary people say "yeah, bring it on!"

      There, fixed that for you.

    6. Re:Nukes are obsolete by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Nukes are so 20th century. Precision weapons are much more useful. Somebody should send O'l Kimmy the memo - obviously he never got it.

      Oh, don't start with that crap again. He'll try to get in the Guinness Book for being the leader of a country with the most body/stunt doubles in history.

  30. The day after by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to just hurry up and fire something at us. The day after that, the North Korea problem will essentially be solved.

    1. Re:The day after by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      They need to just hurry up and fire something at us. The day after that, the North Korea problem will essentially be solved.

      ..but but..what about all of the innocent people?

  31. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we have someone running for office who knows all about destabilizing foreign nations and making it look like an uprising from the inside. I wonder why the powers that be haven't pulled out the CIA book of dirty tricks out on the North Koreans yet. Maybe they serve a better purpose...

  32. This is total bs by HBI · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mainly because it ignores that the only reason North Korea exists is that a local, unpopular Communist sympathizer named Kim Il-Sung was set up as a puppet ruler in the North in the wake of Stalin's invasion of Northern China. Stalin had negotiated a withdrawal from Manchuria with Chiang prior to the August 1945 invasion. No such agreement applied to Korea, and Stalin chose to keep it as a buffer state under a compliant puppet ruler.

    Self-determination for Koreans was non-existent in the North. Complain and die.

    You sound like a Communist yourself.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  33. Re: Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plenty of six foot pricks in the usa - you call them Americans.

  34. Celebrating Star Treks 50th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I knew Kim Jong-un was a fan but this celebratory firework is really out of proportion... or is it?

  35. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're right, people in that part of the world are all so unforgivably stupid for thinking that people in some other part of the world are all so unforgivably stupid. It's certainly not you who is unforgivably stupid.

  36. Clinton 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016!

  37. Maybe this asshole actually thinks he can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he really does think he's invincible or can rule the world.

    1. Re:Maybe this asshole actually thinks he can do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Jong Il, is an asshole who is tryig to be th real life Mini-Me.
      He must have spent many years growing up watching "The Spy Who Shagged Me" while munching junk food to get that ugly body.

    2. Re:Maybe this asshole actually thinks he can do it by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Sorry, sorry, but I have to...

      "Pizza..The..HUT!!!"

    3. Re:Maybe this asshole actually thinks he can do it by erapert · · Score: 1

      Kim Jong Il is dead. His son, Kim Jong Un, is the current leader of NK.

  38. The Northern Express? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shallow depth and precise timing of the quake...
      the warhead "has been standardized to be able to be mounted on strategic ballistic rockets."

    They have rockets that travel underground? Are they planning to nuke a subway?

  39. Cherry Bomb? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    So instead of a firecracker, this one was the size of a cherry bomb?

    1. Re:Cherry Bomb? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      So instead of a firecracker, this one was the size of a cherry bomb?

      Speaking of cherry bomb... That wasn't the strength of an earthquake that was being presented with 5.3. I'm going to say "cm" and let people have a ball with it.

  40. How much can he keep testing? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

    With North Korea's nascent industrial capacity, I'm oddly of the opinion that he should test until he's out of bombs and should test missiles until he runs out of missiles.

    Fire the gun into the ground until the clips empty...

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:How much can he keep testing? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      With North Korea's nascent industrial capacity, I'm oddly of the opinion that he should test until he's out of bombs and should test missiles until he runs out of missiles.

      Fire the gun into the ground until the clips empty...

      Sometimes when one has absolutely no way of winning a fight, but was raised with the highest level of narcissism the brain can achieve, it just keeps punching the ground until there are no intact bones left. Chest pounding ensues... Oooh, did I just accidentally make a reference there? Sorry, "Un"-realistic moron....Kim..whatever.

    2. Re:How much can he keep testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With North Korea's nascent industrial capacity, I'm oddly of the opinion that he should test until he's out of bombs and should test missiles until he runs out of missiles.

      Fire the gun into the ground until the clips empty...

      Sometimes when one has absolutely no way of winning a fight, but was raised with the highest level of narcissism the brain can achieve, it just keeps punching the ground until there are no intact bones left. Chest pounding ensues... Oooh, did I just accidentally make a reference there? Sorry, "Un"-realistic moron....Kim..whatever.

      OOGAH BOOOGAH!!!!

  41. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia could definitely have "wiped out" the US. Maybe not killed every last person, but every major city and suburb could have been eliminated easily. With all the fallout it is likely that most people not immediately killed would have severe health problems.

    Some farmers and mountain men may have survived but "the USA" could have been completely and totally wiped out.

  42. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by KingBozo · · Score: 1

    Lets seem then hack into 8 inch floppies, Anything newer is going to be easier to hack. The old tech works well, no reason to upgrade and connect to the internet of hacking.

  43. Oh this'll be worth watching with popcorn by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    If North Korea launches a 10kt bomb on any of our allies in the region it'll be fun to watch Pongyang get turned into a glowing parking lot in the matter of minutes it'll take to launch a missile from a U.S. boomer.

    1. Re:Oh this'll be worth watching with popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow two disasters for the price of one!

      Do you think NK gives a shit about its people? (Hint: It doesn't)
      Do you think NK leadership would even BE in NK if they did a strike on SK or Japan?

      This is a cowardly country playing with the only poker chip it has left IF it's dumb enough to actually strike another country with a nuke the people in power would vanish faster than you can say "NAZI war criminal", people would lose their lives in at least 2 countries and then the world would have to move in and clean up -at great expense- the left over mess

    2. Re:Oh this'll be worth watching with popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "watch Pongyang get turned into a glowing parking lot in the matter of minutes"

      Do you seriously think that would happen? If North Korea nuked a US ally I would be shocked if the US fired a single nuke. The US would reinforce missile shields and then use conventional weapons to take out North Korea military facilities and conduct a more conventional war. There would be lots of talk of "we will not be drawn into nuclear war". In fact, unless North Korea timed the launch with a full scale attack, I would suspect no large scale war to break out at all but more talk, but this time coupled with military strikes that take out Nuclear capabilities in the country.

    3. Re:Oh this'll be worth watching with popcorn by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Do you think NK gives a shit about its people? (Hint: It doesn't)

      Of course it does give a shit.
      NK may not care about its people well being but it still has to do the minimum to keep them alive. Without subjects, rulers can not exist.

    4. Re:Oh this'll be worth watching with popcorn by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      "watch Pongyang get turned into a glowing parking lot in the matter of minutes"

      Do you seriously think that would happen? If North Korea nuked a US ally I would be shocked if the US fired a single nuke. The US would reinforce missile shields and then use conventional weapons to take out North Korea military facilities and conduct a more conventional war. There would be lots of talk of "we will not be drawn into nuclear war". In fact, unless North Korea timed the launch with a full scale attack, I would suspect no large scale war to break out at all but more talk, but this time coupled with military strikes that take out Nuclear capabilities in the country.

      They're already surrounded and covered. We've learned from history not to wait for the first punch when it comes to the splitting of atoms. Civilian lives would be lost, but it's the unfortunate base "cost" (I'm sorry to use that word) of preventing WWIII. 3 is the lucky number, so I don't think we'll be too concerned about civilian loss in a small country to prevent Human loss in pretty much every country. Hell, if the countries with nukes bombed each other out, the fallout would make the rest of the world wish they were vaporized, given the ensuing nuclear winter and horrible mutations/etc.

    5. Re:Oh this'll be worth watching with popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it unlikely that the US would launch many if any nuclear missiles. They would target military, nuclear and electrical generation sites with precision weapons. I doubt they would even target Kim himself as they would want to make sure he is alive for his crimes or verification he is dead and even parade his body around for the people.

  44. Re: Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those were 8" floppies, not hard disks. Get your shit straight, this is a technical site.

  45. Big Difference - US Restraint vs Soviet Aggression by Koreantoast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No denying that the South was very nasty from the 1950s through the early 1982s, from Rhee to Park to Chun. Purges, massacres, and even a nuclear weapons program. However, trying to draw too many parallels doesn't work either because the patron states behind both regimes had very different approaches. Given Rhee's unsavoriness, fear of a Southern led invasion triggering global war, and the broader political instability in the late 1940s, the United States never really bothered to equip the ROK with the heavy weapons needed to wage an offensive campaign. At the start of the Korean War, their forces were pretty much a glorified gendarmerie, and the United States held the leash tightly to prevent a war. The Soviets on the other hand, had no restraints and fully equipped the North Koreans with the latest heavy weapons and green lighted an invasion.

    Even as you go through the Cold War, the United States played a very careful balancing act, trying to prop up the South while actively constraining them from launching a reunification campaign (that could spiral into WWIII) and actively squashed any efforts by the South to become a nuclear state. The North has always been much more openly aggressive, maintaining a forward positioned posture and threatening invasion at every turn.

    There's also still no overlooking that the South has evolved into a relatively liberal, democratic society that is a responsible global player. Whereas the North is still very much an old school totalitarian dictatorship which continues to flout international norms.

  46. Their Republicans Want To Fight Our Republicans by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Is there somewhere we can ship them all?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  47. People do care about NK posturing by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Given that no one seems to bat an eye, I assume that the general opinion from Russia, China, Japan, and the US (at minimum) is that NK meets this level of stability in some fashion.

    Not necessarily.

    IMHO, it's not so much that nobody bats an eye, it's that nobody wants to take on the expense/mess/loss of life/headaches that regime change in NK would entail. Think about the logistics involved. NK's infrastructure is notoriously weak to begin with. They just had a famine a decade or so ago that killed millions. In the best of times they have a hard time feeding themselves. The whole country is held together by duct tape as it is. It would take any militarily capable western country a week or two to dismantle, tops. It wouldn't have to be the USA that does it - I'd bet France could do it over a long weekend without breaking a sweat.

    So, you add to that the entire population is brainwashed to think that the supreme command of NK are essentially living divinities, and the rest of the outside world are bloodthirsty savages out to get them. Humanitarian efforts to help the citizens post-regime change would be rejected. They would think the aid workers were there to kill everyone, since that's what they've all been told since birth. It would be similar to the mass suicides on Okinawa. But worse, because it would be an entire country instead of a single island. Millions of civilians would die.

    It would be a humanitarian disaster of a scale not seen since WWII, and nobody wants that mess on their hands.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  48. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    All they need to do is put it on a missile, then they can wipe out the US, the bully of the world!!

    Right, all it takes is a 10 kiloton warhead to wipe out the US. A 10 kiloton warhead wouldn't even wipe out Hawaii, which is the only place they can attack with their 1 submarine capable of carrying 1 missile (maybe - assuming the submarine travels its maximum range, and the missile also travels its maximum range - then they might be able to hit Hawaii). Or I guess they do have that big ICBM, so I guess they can use that to attack Alaska. Assuming, of course, that it doesn't get shot down in flight. And assuming that the ICBM actually works in the first place and isn't going to explode on launch. Maybe in another decade or so they'll be able to attack California. And maybe only a few decades after that they'll be able to lob something all the way to the US east coast. And naturally US military technology won't progress at all in that time, so they'll totally be able to attack us without getting their century old technology shot down.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  49. Beg your pardon? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Pro-tips for China: ... 3. You think you're a big tough new superpower now but America would kick your ass. You have no idea how the US is at war.

    You do realize that the Korean war was a proxy fight between the US and China, right?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  50. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by FirstOne · · Score: 1

    Our Ohio class boomer fleet uses Magneto Optical Disks for targeting, but that was some time ago.. They may have upgraded since. N Korea goal is to detonate an EMP burst over the USA from orbit. The USA will retaliate against N Korea city''s & military and EMP their supporters China+Russia in kind, leaving neither side with a real advantage.

  51. Eeerie similarities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Clinton promised he had ended "the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula" with his deal. He had social worker and Democrat activist Wendy Sherman lead the negotiations. President Obama used the same woman to negotiate a similar "deal" with Iran. Note: here resume LOOKS good now at first glance because she was involved in this stuff, but she had no credentials for any of this before Bill used her for it.

    Compare the Clinton statement re North Korea with Barack Obama's statement re his Iran deal and you will see that we should have ZERO confidence the same team of idiots got better results from Iran. Iran will be detonating bombs within a decade, and MAY have been involved in this Korean detonation (Iran and N.K. have been caught cooperating in the past).

    Prepare for a nuclear war, possibly within the next 10 to 20 years, thanks to the social workers and community organizers of the DNC.

    Oh, and Democrats have a "talking point" for the stupid to use on this: "Bush screwed it up!". They cannot however back this up with any actual action by Bush that breached the Clinton "deal", nor can they point to ANY action Obama has take in the past 7.5 years to repair it.

    Hope you all like yer gay this, and gay that, and unlimited immigration, and global warming fixes, 'cause the price tag is going to be VERY steep. It's a bad idea to vote for foolish globalist morons (in EITHER party) in order to get the "right" to publicly celebrate activities you could have always done privately, or to "save the planet" from a degreee of temperature in a century, or prove that you are not a racist - - - particularly when it means you might not be alive to participate in those activities, might be accellerating a much more severe global threat, and the immigrants you invited in are no more bomb-proof than you are.

  52. virgin jokes by unixisc · · Score: 1

    One of those Danish cartoons which had Muzzies all up in arms was one that depicted an agent telling a group of martyrs 'Stop, stop, we're out of virgins!!!'

  53. The Arabic logical fallacy by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Yet, they have no qualms about converting and claiming more than a billion people who neither know, nor speak any Arabic (let alone the medieval Arabic in which the Quran was written). People of the East Indies, the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia (including Iran), Turkey and the Caucuses do not know or speak Arabic, even if some languages may have freely borrowed & lent words

  54. For those who have not payed attention: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. The UN fails at EVERYTHING. It was designed to be run by the "good" countries that saved the world in WWII, but one of them was an ally of necessity who had the opposite agenda (the Soviet Union) and who blocked everything good. Then the other coutries went all wobbly and kicked the "good" Chinese (Taiwan) off the security council and gave the seat to the evil communist Chinese of the mainland, making a security council that always has at least one evil member on any given proposal. Then seats were showered on to Muslim nations who use all their votes to wage a political jihad against the state of Israel, often fooling gullible moron countries to join their idiotic actions. The UN is incapable of doing anything positive. It SHOULD have been a more practical organization of democratic countries with similar economies and ethics, who COULD act together.

    2. China has no intention of stopping North Korea. North Korea is their puppet. They benefit in many ways from what the NorKs do. They get international political clout as morons come to them to talk about restraining North Korea. They get international sympathy (as in: "of COURSE they're paranoid, they have North Korea on their border!"). They get geopolitical leverage: They supply and train North Korea, who then make noise, and then they can offer to help restrain their puppet....

    3. The US has had no intention of stopping North Korea, because the globalist do not want North Korea stopped. Bill Clinton's SecState, Madeleine Albright, infamously said she did not trust America and wanted a new nuclear-armed opponent after the cold war to restrain the US. George W Bush listed North Korea in his famous new axis of evil speech, but then fixated on Iraq and did NOTHING about North Korea. Barack Obama has not only done NOTHING about North Korea, but has funneled BILLIONS of dollars to Iran, while Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and is engaged in cooperative nuclear research with the North Koreans.

  55. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad some arrogant douches often confuse USians into a sweet, self-righteous-smarter-than-thou-virtue-signalling mix of redneck obesity with the motivational spices of religion, aggression, and ignorance.

    Fuck off. If you're so much better than us then get the fuck off the internet that we invented.

  56. Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you North Korea. You aren't going to use that on anyone. Not ever. Triple dog dare you.

  57. Re:Good. We are all N. Koreans today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off. If you're so much better than us then get the fuck off the internet that we invented.

    All it takes is a K-8 to K-12 education which contains some comparative religious studies. A healthy, short term option would be to get the fuck off watching Hollywood/Network bullshit as long as they keep miss educating the public and reduce listening the certain^h all radio talk shows. Then again, who masters the canned story telling recipes like Hollywood and keep us all entertained across the world? (sniff)