Slashdot Mirror


Japan Activated Air Raid Sirens During North Korea's Missile Test Monday (cnn.com)

"No country should have missiles flying over them like those 130 million people in Japan," the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said Monday. Though it was only a test, the scene on-the-ground is described by Slashdot reader AppleHoshi: Our phones went crazy on receipt of an automated alert from the "J-Alert" system. Shortly afterwards, loudspeakers broadcast another alert (there are loudspeakers everywhere in Japan, to warn of earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons). As normal with any disaster situation in Japan, all of the available television channels immediately switched over to full-coverage mode, with a repetition of what the situation was ("There's a missile heading in the direction of north-central Japan") followed by basic instructions of what to do ("If it comes down in your area, try to extinguish any fires and immediately inform your local police and fire departments").

Shortly before twenty past six we got the news that the missile had over-flown northern Japan and landed in the Pacific, about 1,000 km [621 miles] from the coast of Hokkaido. The "all-clear" was broadcast over the local speakers a short while later. Strange as it may seem, this all had an air of normality about it. Japan gets more than it's fair share of natural disasters, so anyone living here gets plenty of exposure to this same routine. (It's just that the reason is usually an earthquake, typhoon or tsunami, rather than a megalomaniac).

52 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Precision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFS seems to imply that the alert was activated everywhere in Japan. The subtitle on the linked CNN page mentions Northern Japan.
    I live in Tokyo, and heard or saw no such alert.

  2. Re:North Korea is a bastion of peace . . . by rfengr · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yep. Too bad we can't trade PDRK political prisoners for ANTIFA members. The latter could live in their utopia.

  3. Re:Dear Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear American Taxpayer,

    As part of our surrender to YOU we agreed to allow YOU do defend us against external aggression instead of rebuilding our military.

    Sincerely,
    Japan.

    P.S. Maybe Trump should think about renegotiating that tax payer nightmare.

  4. Re: Nazis are Scum by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

    To be fair, it was easier when there were still real Nazis.

  5. Nuke Math by flopsquad · · Score: 1

    Trying to settle a bet with a friend. Can anyone come up with a reasonable estimate of how many nukes it would take to destroy N. Korea's warhead collection and neutralize their military forces? Would the number and placement have massive long-term health effects in Seoul and the region? Or is it possible the S. Korea and neighbors come away mostly unscathed?

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    1. Re:Nuke Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't like Steve Bannon, but I think he had a good talking point on this:

      “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”

    2. Re:Nuke Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... reasonable estimate of how many nukes ...

      The first problem is, most of NK's known missile batteries are empty, making it difficult to know which ones should be disabled as a precaution and which turned into a radioactive desert. The second problem is that detection of hidden missile batteries is done by eyes-on-the-ground, especially in NK where most of the real missiles are mobile; which the US is bad at, is extra-difficult in enemy territory, and the US uses for political point-scoring (eg. WMDs in Iraq), not actual military intelligence. The third problem is that NK has an ally, China, that makes sure nobody starts a full-scale attack. The fourth problem is history: The US war machine is 1,000 times more dangerous than 70 years ago but NK/China have proven they can/will fight the US to a standstill. The USA doesn't want to risk that happening again.

    3. Re:Nuke Math by Xest · · Score: 1

      Only 1 - Once you've hit Pyongyang's annual military parade with it you've destroyed the entire North Korean leadership and 90% of their military capabilities all in one shot.

    4. Re:Nuke Math by gtall · · Score: 1

      I see you have never heard of "nuclear fallout" and "prevailing winds" in the same sentence. What kind of an idiot would decide to nuke a country upwind from the U.S....oh shit, never mind....

    5. Re:Nuke Math by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I've always thought military parades were a very bad idea for that very reason. However a pre-eminent strike that also kills thousands of innocent civilians is not going to win you much support.

      Anything that happens, Seoul will be leveled by traditional artillery. The NK leadership must know that any military conflict is a suicide mission and they simply want to inflict as much damage as they can.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    6. Re:Nuke Math by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Anything that happens, Seoul will be leveled by traditional artillery."

      Apparently this is largely a myth, North Koreas only long range artillery is pretty large and slow to move around. It's also not particularly numerous. As such whilst it would do some nasty damage in Seoul you'd probably only be talking a few hundred dead before counter-fire destroyed all that long range artillery.

      The rest of the artillery would have to come close to the border to hit Seoul, and so would likely have already been flattened by an armada of M1 Abrams and A-10s before it even got close enough to fire.

      Hence why the argument that North Korea could level Seoul with conventional artillery is basically entirely false - at most it'd probably kill a few thousand in a city of 10 million.

      Honestly the primary reason not to start a war with NK is the risk of the Chinese marching South and a potential repeat of the last Korean War (well, technically the current one given that that one never ended). But really, it's getting to the point where people are rightly questioning whether it's sufficient to just topple the NK regime and let China do what the fuck they want with the country after that. To be clear, many more people have died to NK dicking around over the last 70 years than would die to a NK attack on Seoul, and a nuclear armed NK would risk a far greater number of lives - this would genuinely put all 10 million at risk, rather than just a few thousand.

  6. You'll LOVE IT! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Try to extinguish any fires? Sure, right after I put myself out. Go ahead Kimmy, shoot one over the USA to test our reaction. You'll LOVE IT!

  7. This would work by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone thought of putting a small thermonuclear device in Dennis Rodman and sending him back over to Pyongyang.

    1. Re:This would work by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      Next time on Celebrity suicide missions.

    2. Re:This would work by oobayly · · Score: 2

      Celebrity suicide missions

      From the producers of "Big Brother Death Match" - the show where the contestants have to kill one household member a week.

    3. Re:This would work by gtall · · Score: 1

      I thought Dennis Rodman was a small nuclear device. Maybe el Presidente Tweetie will start hosting him the Oval Office, it's all about the ratings y'know.

  8. Seoul will take big damage from shelling and maybe by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Seoul will take big damage from shelling and maybe even some chemical attacks

  9. Re: Trump will ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, but Hillary would have just ignored the problem if Dear Leader "donated" a few million to the Clinton Foundation.

  10. if north korea hits some one they will be gone by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    if North Korea hits some one they will be gone.

    They are playing a big game of chicken and no china will not save them

    1. Re: if north korea hits some one they will be gone by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      We are going to wait until they build up a huge arsenal?

    2. Re: if north korea hits some one they will be gone by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      a first strike will need to be big and fast or at the very least Seoul will take big damage from shelling. And the nukes are bigger thing to take out then stopping Seoul from being hit.

    3. Re: if north korea hits some one they will be gone by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Brilliant. Lets start a nuclear war now while it'll be small. A lot of powerful people thought like you back in the Cold War. I'm glad they never got to try out their idea.

      We also might try to avoid war all together.

  11. Re:Dear Japan by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Wow, the communist think is strong in this one.

  12. Re:Dear Stupid American by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Right. Because Kim Jong Un wasn't pursuing ICBMS and nukes till comrade trumpsky came along.

    Just because the USA is being run by a nutjob doesn't mean the NK isn't being run by a nutjob. It's not like there's only one such in the world.

  13. Re: Trump will ignore it by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Enough with the OMG Hillary BS. She's not president. Trumpsky is. And he's doing EXACTLY what every president before him has done... trying to apply pressure via China to stop NK. His "secret plans" are apparently so secret even he doesn't know what they are.

  14. Tuesday, the missile was fired on Tuesday by at10u8 · · Score: 1

    The headline writer is in the wrong time zone.

  15. Here's a crazy ballz idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    America could stop doing wargames in North Korea's backyard twice a year.
    What am I thinking? What's a few million civilian deaths in determining which psychopathic government are the biggest assholes?

  16. Scaremongering by djinn6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's the point of scaring everyone with this? If it's a missile test, it would have been announced beforehand to anyone who cares to listen. If it's a real attack, then there's no point telling people to put out fires started by the missile. I suspect there's a political reason they're doing this, maybe to get the public riled up to join a US-led coalition agains NK, or maybe just for more defense budget.

    1. Re:Scaremongering by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is no political reason. The U.S. would be involved whether or not they activated the sirens. The U.S. is obligated by treaties wrapping up the loose ends of WWII to provide for Japan's defense against foreign attack. The treaties and Japanese Constitution limit Japan's military to operating domestically to repel an invasion. The JSDF is not allowed to operate outside Japan, though that clause has been stretched recently to allow Japan to participate in UN peacekeeping missions. Since that leaves Japan extremely vulnerable to foreign attack, the treaties make defending Japan from outside Japan's borders the responsibility of the U.S.

      So in this particular case (foreign missile overflying Japan), not only is a U.S. response warranted, it's required.

    2. Re:Scaremongering by gtall · · Score: 1

      Because allowing the Norks to perfect their missile technology is a bad idea for the future when they might use it?

    3. Re:Scaremongering by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the point of scaring everyone with this?

      What's the point of an alert system?

      If it's a missile test, it would have been announced beforehand to anyone who cares to listen.

      Ahh but was it? As far as I could tell this came as somewhat of a surprise. And even if it was, and even if the intended destination was announced, NK's missiles do not have a reputation of reliably getting all the way to their target. Many seem to fall out of the sky early.

      If it's a real attack, then there's no point telling people to put out fires started by the missile.

      Of course there is. Context of what happens in a disaster is important to an emergency response. Was that explosion right now a terrorist attack with local threats still present, or was it a one off ordinance where we can go in and provide aid and mittigate further damage straight away? Maybe it was a gas explosion and therefore people shouldn't go into the area. There's a lot that can change with a bit of context.

      I suspect there's a political reason they're doing this

      Yes there is. An emergency alert system that doesn't announce an emergency due to someone in the government deciding it shouldn't definitely would have political consequences if an incident happened.

    4. Re:Scaremongering by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      North Korean missiles aren't the most reliable... it was completely plausible for the thing to fail and land in Japan, even if they had intended for it to land in the ocean.

      I'm surprised you didn't take your conspiracy theory one step farther and claim it wasn't actually a missile from N. Korea, but one launched from a US submarine in conjunction with the Japanese government to stir up anti N. Korea sentiment.

      Back to reality, the whole event didn't take very long. You honestly believe there was enough time for the government to assemble and collude on something such as this?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    5. Re:Scaremongering by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      You're really lucky that Fuji didn't go off that day. How long would it take to evacuate the approximately eleven million people from Fifth Station, first stop on the pilgrimage trail up the mountain?

    6. Re:Scaremongering by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      When WWII ended neither the US nor Japan was amicable with each other.

      We are well past the friendship stage now ... and well past the point of needing to retire that treaty.

      It served its purpose. Belongs in the waste bin of history now.

  17. Re:Dear Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Single-handledly".

    Americans are cute.

  18. Re:Which one? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

    Evidently global warming leads to widespread megalomania.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  19. Re:North Korea is a bastion of peace . . . by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, when you consider the possible impact either country can have on your life, you'll notice that the potential influence NKor has is negligible.

    Yes, it sure is the worse government. But then again, the recent storm (or whatever it was) in the US was certainly also worse than the hail we had here yesterday, yet the latter did damage my car while the former didn't really affect me.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Re: Nazis are Scum by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    So the people marching with swastikas and shouting "Heil Hitler", "blood and soil" and etc aren't Nazis?

    I'll think I'll take this chap's opinion over yours.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Har...

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  21. Re: Nazis are Scum by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Lump them together with the "only black lives matter" idiots and sell the rights on pay per view.

    Whoever loses
    We win

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re:North Korea is a bastion of peace . . . by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Four words: nuclear fallout, prevailing winds.

  23. Re:Which one? by gtall · · Score: 1

    Either the Pillsbury Doughboy or Bozo the Clown, either will do, not a dimes worth of difference between them.

  24. Re:Orbit by oobayly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It wasn't in orbit, but its apogee reached about 550 km - well above the Karman Line. I'd be interested to know how long it takes sensors to determine the rough impact location based on the launch profile. Course adjustments are possible during boost, coast and re-entry (whether NK has that ability is another unknown*), so it's probably a bad idea to look at the profile and say "Japan's OK".

    I'd actually like to see a 3d view of NK missile launches in Google Earth - some of their previous launches reached apogees of 3,725 km, which is far greater than that required normally. It also means their missiles are undergoing far higher re-entry forces than they would operationally.

    * For us. NORAD, etc probably have a good idea of the capabilities.

  25. Re:Dear Stupid American by johanw · · Score: 1

    He saw what happened to other countries the US does not like and thought that getting some ICBM's with nukes would prevent any creative American actions like regime change through preemptive strikes. And I think he's right, the US acts like the classical bully: it backs off when it's afraid the other guy might hit back.

  26. Re:Dear Japan by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Trump did complain about it before being elected, but hasn't said much since.

    In any case, it would be a false economy. A militarized Japan would only make the situation worse. The US isn't going to give us its position as close ally to South Korea, because it's really about China. If the situation escalated to a hot war, it would make Iraq and Afghanistan look cheap.

    Not to mention that North Korea and China both have nuclear weapons, and in China's case they have enough to ensure the mutual destruction of the US and the capability to deliver them.

    The only winning move is for both sides to stop waving their dicks at each other and go back to talking. Realistically the US will have to be the one that makes the move, either voluntarily or with pressure from China.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  27. WTF by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    WTF is ''more than it is fair share'' supposed to mean?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  28. Re:North Korea is a bastion of peace . . . by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Bomb away. Whoever loses, the rest of the world is a better place.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Re:North Korea is a bastion of peace . . . by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 2

    The fact is, El Grande Trumputin and his followers would love to make everything in North Korea happen here.

    Private profit, public exploitation.

    Wow, you are so incredibly deluded. I would be scared as hell to live anywhere near YOUR reality (which is pretty f'ed up).

  30. What's a reasonable response? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    Would NK freak out if Japan decided to shoot down the warhead? Technically it's flying over their territory. Does that set a bad precedent?

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:What's a reasonable response? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Not sure about equivocating de-escalation with good.

      Sorry, guys. Our nations population is now 5% of what it was before, but the diplomats are happy. Also the people who believe in overpopulation are happy also.

  31. Re:North Korea is a bastion of peace . . . by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

    Many people would like the sort of set up Un has. I'm almost certain that trump is one of them.
    Many of the people who follow trump enjoy the idea of putting a boot to someone's face but cry like babies when they're the face and not the boot.

    We're all humans we just have a more robust set of checks and balances built into our society than North Korea does.

  32. Re: Nazis are Scum by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    And... fat, ignorant Bible-thumpers still aren't National Socialists, no matter how effectively the retards have bought into the new narrative. Thanks for playing, though!

  33. Re:North Korea is a bastion of peace . . . by TuringTest · · Score: 1

    In case of nuclear war, there's no "rest of the world" where to hide in.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.