Slashdot Mirror
After Two Months of Quiet, North Korea Launches Another Ballistic Missile (arstechnica.com)
South Korean and U.S. officials have confirmed that North Korea has launched another ballistic missile into the sea of Japan. The ballistic missile test -- launched just after 3am Wednesday local time from Sin-ni in South Pyongyang -- is the first since an intermediate-range missile test in September. Ars Technica reports: In a statement to the press, a spokesperson for South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "North Korea fired an unidentified ballistic missile early this morning from Pyongsong, South Pyongan [Province], to the east direction. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff is analyzing more details of the missile with the U.S. side." The U.S. Department of Defense and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have made an initial assessment that the missile was an ICBM, according to Office of the Secretary of Defense spokesperson Col. Robert Manning. The missile traveled 1,000 kilometers, flew over Japan, and landed in the sea east of Japan within its exclusive economic zone.
... about sovereign airspace violation?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So in other words are we going to wait until it flies INTO Japan to do anything or is this all just for show and anyone that matters is in on it?
I know this is a complicated political mess but does Japan really need to put up with these Twitter flame wars when they're literally having hostile ICBMs flying over them?
I'm not calling for military action, this just seems overly strange/irresponsible from both sides.
Surely there's something I'm missing out of all this? Surely?!
I tend to rant.
Has China ever figured it out that Peking is closer than Santa Barbera?
Nah, they'll try to sooth things over. Japan isn't a sovereign nation so much as a petri dish in which to develop Humans with a high tolerance to radiation so we can sequence the genes and apply them across all of Humanity to make space colonization easier. Fukushima is wearing off so a rogue nation popping a wave of nukes off onto their coast would make a great third exposure.
Has NK ever shot a missile across Peking?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Your comment is as useless as tits on a boar.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
a. India is not in any kind of state of war with the US, and
b. India never signed the NPT, whereas N. Korea did, and then "pulled out" after being found to be in violation.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's not their "jurisdiction". It is their neighborhood. But any conflict they get into is also our conflict, due to our commitment to their security.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Japan refuses to have nukes.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Other than we (USA) disarmed Japan and took away any nuclear weapon ability they had.
Not quite, we (USA) disarmed them and removed that ability later. It would require a treaty change that has US tax dollars riding on it.
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan
Not quite, we (USA) disarmed them and removed that ability later. It would require a treaty change that has US tax dollars riding on it.
Um, not quite at all. It would take a change to the Japanese Constitution to allow nuclear weapons, it has nothing to do with the US.
FYI, the US actually considered suggesting that Japan have nuclear weapons in the 1960s, but due to the sensitivity of this suggestion, decided to just STFU about it.
... with NK.
It's Japan's jurisdiction.
Sadly, this really ignorant post is currently modded "Insightful", which it most certainly is not. And I have no mod points to mod it down with.
North Korea has no diplomatic relations with Japan, nor is it interesting in "settling" any issue at all with Japan. The purpose of the ballistic missiles is to threaten the USA. The only player in this game that North Korea wants to settle anything with is the USA. And just so you know, in the past a Japanese administration tried the "play nice" tactic with North Korea and it didn't accomplish anything except end up with Japan giving up food aid for nothing in return.
You cunts bitch when we get involved and you bitch when we don't. Make up your fucking mind already.
Nukes are not the weapon of choice to knock down a missile.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"ignorant?"
Did NK violate Japanese airspace or not?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The US did not fire the missile.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So what?
If the US gets fired upon, it's other people's conflict by reciprocity.
Are you suggesting the US is bound by your logic to defense by committee?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Trump is doing a magnificent job. One of the all-time great brains. His tough talk has really put Kim Jong-un in his place.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This actually makes a ton of sense. GTFO of South Korea, sell them, Japan, and Taiwan nuke missiles with plenty of range to nail China. Also sell them the whatever it takes to get full radar coverage over China, so we know not only where every one of their F-16 copies and battleships go, but also their Cessnas. Then watch China shit their pants A) getting rid of the Nork problem; and B) negotiating to get all those missiles/radar systems dafuq away.
Lets be honest, the only reason lil' Kim can continue his nuke program is because of China. Diplomacy hasn't worked in getting China to stop lil' Kim, maybe flat out terror will.
Up up and away.... in my beautiful, my beautiful ka-boom!
It has always been a dangerous situation. Even without the nuclear weapons there was always the threat of a conventional war in which North Korea has enough conventional artillery near the DMZ to kill tens of thousands in South Korea in the first day alone.
But then for the US the only thing that matters is what happens to the US. The vast majority of Americans only ever talk about their casualties from the latest Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It's rare to hear an American talk about the people killed on both sides, mostly civilians. The US had the sympathy of the world after the 9/11 attacks and have thrown it away through the invasions and attitude they have shown towards people that are different to them. That has only reinforced the cycle of hatred in the world. Not caring about the innocent victims in North Korea, and surrounding area, with the president wanting a military solution is just another example.
Lots of folks like it. Especially The dropping bombs part. After Saddam and Gaddafi disarmed we invaded and bombed. You think North Korea learned nothing from that? We as a nation are not to be trusted.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I honestly don't follow your logic, but maybe you don't understand mine. I simply mean that the US is bound by treaty to defend Japan. Seemed like a good idea right after they killed a couple of hundred thousand Americans.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You are probably right, but I think it would depend on the nature of the threat, the current US president, and the political mood of the time. As it is, none of that matters and it would simply be automatic - even if that meant war with China or Russia. Without the treaty, I think it would be more like the situation in Taiwan, where the involvement of the US would very much depend on other circumstances and would not be automatic.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Or as useful as a bump on a log. The effect is the same.
What's America got to do with this story?
To review:
NK fired a missile over Japan and it landed in Japanese economic waters.
North Korea
Japan
Watch the ball.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
We would, and should, turn their whole country to dust.
That seems a little harsh on the people who are being held there by the army, which, it appears, is the entire civilian population.
Say, did you ever hear of Hassan I Sabbah? He had some interesting ideas with regards the moral superiority of assassination over warfare.
(Smug DBZA Vegeta voice) Just... saiyan.
You are being deliberately obtuse. The US is bound by treaty to defend Japan. If you didn't know that before, you certainly do after reading my last comment. Treaties have the force of law. So any security problem for Japan is a security problem for the US, even if you neglect the thousands of US troops stationed in (drumroll) Japan.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
would just shit themselves if Japan finally said " Fuck this " and started testing their own ballistic missiles by launching them over the North Korean peninsula and landing them in the South China Sea.
Hell, just to watch the drama unfold, I would even give them a dozen ICBM's to play with were I sitting on a stockpile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Well, I apologize for your lack of relevance.
And mine.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Just curious why did you pick Santa Barbara here?
Giving nukes to Japan is somewhat complicated. Giving them to South Korea is easier and could be done tomorrow. Since South Korea is probably in greater danger, it just makes sense that they have the nukes they need to retaliate in case NK attacks them (either with nukes or conventional forces). It might just wake up that maniac with the bad haircut.
You seem to be repeatedly (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that the United States is responsible for the defense of Japan per the treaty we imposed on them after WWII.
...that Japan isn't retaliating after repeated WMD incursions of its sovereign airspace.
Can the Japanese even be sure just from the missile's trajectory that it isn't actually aimed at Japan? I mean the most effective way of using a nuke is actually not to hit the target but to detonate it in the atmosphere above the target.
It really makes me concerned about what would actually happen if the missile failed in flight and inadvertently landed on Japanese soil.
Maybe they really just want to nuke the moon into the shape of Kim Jong Un's head.
What other country is bound to defend Japan by treaty?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Japan is not allowed to protect its own sovereignty militarily. The United States assumed full responsibility for Japan's military defense. It's not like the NATO treaty, we required Japan to be militarily helpless and completely dependant on the United States militarily. Japan is allowed defensive forces only and those forces are not allowed to leave Japan.
It might just wake up that maniac with the bad haircut.
Yep Trump does need to wake up.
Oh you meant someone else?
>>. They can fly a missile some 50 min..How far can they get this thing to go if they are not shooting it straight up?
Some quick back-of-an-envelope calculations show they are probably pretty close to hitting California in 50 minutes, Assuming their missile is hitting about 7500 mph which according to Wikipedia at least, is apparently not unreasonable.
That said their test missile may not have contained a payload (and almost certainly didn't if the actual goal of their test was just to sscare other countries about their capabilities) so the extra weight of an actual nuke would probably be a very significant factor in the missile's actual maximum range.
Or it might cause North Korea to invade South Korea and steal the working nuclear weapons, allowing them to make a big leap in their nuclear program.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The treaty needs to be dropped with a 10 year time frame to allow Japan time to get a military going. It's silly that the US defends the world for no upside. Same for South Korea.
This missile flight lasted 50 min but went only 600 miles... Nearly straight UP and straight DOWN. I point out that DPRK is obvious testing by lofting the missile way up and watching the reentry where they can see it. They are testing phases of fight other than assent, which means they have the booster they think they need.
Now think a little about what this means. They can fly a missile some 50 min... How far can they get this thing to go if they are not shooting it straight up? I'm guessing they can go far enough to threaten more than just Japan.
This is getting *really* dangerous folks. We either need to start building bomb shelters, deal with this threat or more likely both.
Bring back Starwars stuff and pay for it by pulling back from silly conflicts like Iraq / Afghanistan / Yemen / etc. Being able to shoot down incoming missiles should be more feasible now and will create non-H1B jobs as a bonus.
Woops, I posted as an AC, didn't realize I wasn't logged in.
Another big win for Trump's "We're tougher than you" diplomatic strategy.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Very few people like war, including the dropping bombs part. You don't seem to have a useful understanding of the conflicts involving either Iraq or Libya. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear technology for weapons since the 1950s. Your views are not to be trusted.
1950s to 1960s: Early Developments
In the early 1950s, North Korea began developing the institutional capability to train personnel for its nuclear program. In December 1952, the government established the Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Academy of Sciences, but nuclear work only began to progress when North Korea established cooperative agreements with the Soviet Union. [2] Pyongyang signed the founding charter of the Soviet Union's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in February 1956, and began to send scientists and technicians to the USSR for training shortly thereafter. In 1959, North Korea and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy that included a provision for Soviet help to establish a nuclear research complex in Yongbyon, North Pyongan Province. [3]
In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union provided extensive technical assistance to North Korea in constructing the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, which included the installation of a Soviet IRT-2000 nuclear research reactor and associated facilities. North Korea used this small research reactor to produce radioisotopes and to train personnel. [4] Although the cabinet and the Academy of Sciences were given operational and administrative oversight of the nuclear facilities, then-North Korean leader Kim Il Sung retained ultimate control of the nuclear program and all decisions associated with weapons development.
. . . Reportedly, Kim Il Sung asked Beijing to share its nuclear weapons technology following China's first nuclear test in October 1964, but Chinese leader Mao Zedong refused. [5] In any case, shortly thereafter, North Korean relations with China began to deteriorate.
Oh yeah, that has Iraq and Libya written all over it!
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The scenario you present is the one that China would like to avoid. No nukes in NK means no nukes in South Korea or Japan.
That said, I would suggest that putting nukes in SK makes it much less likely that there would be a war with the North. OTOH, have a pretend defence policy that bends more and more whenever NK pushes is very dangerous.
More to the point, a bomb of the coast of Tokyo would just be a warning shot, prior to escalation.
If a Democrat was in the white house, they would think of many reasons not to do anything, not least of which is NK missiles that could reach the USA.
If a Republican was in the white house, the Chinese would invite them over for dinner, pour on the charm, mention a business opportunity and the Republican would soon forget all about NK.
Then NK might send their next missile to an isolated spot in Hokido...
When, in a few years, NK has the capacity to send a missile to the USA, and they look crazy enough to do it, then treaties will be quietly forgotten. A Democrat would make excuses and do nothing, a Republican would talk tough and do nothing.
The USA should threaten to pull out of the region now. Then Japan and South Korea would need their own nukes to protect against NK. Then China would take a different view of the situation, and the NK nukes would be gone.
NK wants to be able to bully SK and Japan into giving them more and more aid and other concessions, more and more of them.
The question I have wondered is aside from the PR value of missile launches for show, wouldn't it be much easier for NK to smuggle a nuke into NY or DC? Just buy an apartment, park the nuke in the lead lined fridge and sit tight until needed. Much more straightforward than attempting to accurately aim an ICBM, dealing with re-entry, dealing with anti-missile defenses and so on.
I know what the public documents say. But do you actually believe the Japanese have no nukes? I find that implausible.
The Japanese have a huge civilian reactor program; first rate engineering ability; worrisome neighbors; and enough nationalist spirit for some top people to disobey the US-imposed ban. Therefore I believe it likely the Japanese have at least some nuclear retaliatory capability.
Vandenberg airforce base maybe? I believe that used to be (maybe still is??) home to many nuclear-armed ICBMs.
They don't need it. It has already been said, a nuclear attack on Japan will be treated like a nuclear attack on the continental US.
It's difficult for NK to test their missiles. They have trouble avoiding other countries' territory and these countries don't like that. I think the fact that they are testing their missile straight up is a nod to Japan that they did an effort not to cross their territory - this time.
The point of the missiles is to deter the US. There is a huge difference between a missile which is aimed in the general direction of the US and one which can target a city but for deterrence it's enough they can reach the territory and blow smoke about the precision.
The threat to Japan and South Korea is more complicated. They have sufficient deterrence towards them and it's unlikely they want to see them build their own nukes. The US also doesn't want Japan and South Korea have a nuclear arsenal because it prefers a more dependent relationship.
The aim of NK is to deter and to achieve a form of normalization, that they are officially accepted by the US. I think that's a reasonable aspiration, even if it comes from such a dysfunctional regime.
If you want a reason for bombshelters, keep poking Russia.
I wonder how much 'paint' like substance they would need to paint Kim Jong Un's head on the moon.
North Korea has no diplomatic relations with Japan, nor is it interesting in "settling" any issue at all with Japan.
That's not correct. Japan has been discussing the issue of kidnappings for decades, and NK has made some quite considerable concessions. There is also a small population of NK citizens living in Japan, with a school and some NGOs based in Tokyo.
Japan is one of the major routes in to NK for visitors too. NK likes to host international sporting events like the Pyongyang marathon, with Japanese athletes competing and Japan acting as a gateway for travel.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yeah, and everyone who believes this please stand on their head. What...no one?
Trump generally does not believe in treaties. Any country relying upon a defense treaty with that fellow in the White House needs to reassess their security.
And you are completely ignoring the bozo in the White House who will decide whether or not to honor a treaty obligation. If his current behavior is any precedent, you'd be nuts to rely on the U.S. and any defense treaty you think you have....at least until he and his alleged administration have been repudiated in an election....and not by some left-wing nutjob who similarly won't think it of worth to honor a defense treaty.
"Due to gross incompetence by multiple administrations". Really, which one of this administration should have dragged S. Korea and Japan into a war on their soil? The Norks have never been interested in negotiations. Their defectors say the Norks only think of negotiations has kicking the can down the road while they build up more arms. They think if they can just get enough arms, that S. Korea will be theirs, with or without its people.
China would immediately invade Taiwan before they got their first nuke, it is that important to the bastard regime in Beijing that they appear to have big dicks by non-allowing a free group of approx. 23 million free Chinese. It makes them look bad.
Probably not given the typical altitudes of ICBMs.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I actually agree with you - in general I'd like to see US policy be to have a long-term goal of extricating ourselves from our position as World Police. With that said, existent treaties have a history and need to be honored. I think I agree that Japan is not the same place it was in the early-to-mid 20th century and can be entrusted with their own defense. However, I'd change our relationship very cautiously, and only in concert with Japan's wishes. We may no longer be in a Cold War with the USSR, which makes our current strategic situation look like a pointless mess - but China will soon be a superpower and we need to bear that in mind. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think a oligarchy can be trusted to act in the best interests of the world without a counterbalance to their power, and the only way the US stands a long-term chance to keep up with China is in league with the other rich democracies of the world. IMHO, the EU and Japan will continue to be very important allies in the coming century.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
No no no, this has nothing to do with 'security'.
North Korea has multiple times offered peace to the US, which has always been rejected.
Makes one wonder why?
Banks.
North Korea has an independent central bank and prints its own money, instead of borrowing it from the international money lenders (I won't mention any names).
The people (banks) that control the US don't like this at all.
So North Korea's regime has to go. Not because it's so dangerous, or crazy, no. Only because of money.
Now what's the easiest way to remove a regime? By letting it go bankrupt, for instance by forcing it to spend the largest part of its national budget on defense.
That's why the money lenders instructed the US to never accept peace from North Korea, unless of course it surrenders to the banks.
So the US is playing this game, NK is forced to spend most of its money on defense, and the banks are waiting for the people in NK to revolt and remove the regime, after which the banks can come in.
Some other countries that don't (or didn't) play nice:
Afghanistan, Irak, Syria, Venezuela, Russia.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Japan refuses to have nukes.
Japan, having been nuked, might get kinda PO'd by now?
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Of all the doomsday scenarios you can project this into, here's the darkest one I see as having merit.
The world(China) is likely to continue to do nothing to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles short of strong language. So, the North WILL develop a nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the continental USA. Of course, the North has no reason to start a war with the USA so why bother? The hopeful argument is that it's defensive. That of course flies directly in the face of everything that the North says. Most importantly, reunification of Korea is still one of the North's most 'important' stated propaganda goals.
Here's the scary part to me. A North Korea that can demonstrably deploy multiple nuclear warheads onto American cities is NOT a North Korea that America is eager to wage war with. Would America even be willing to defend South Korea from an invasion from the North anymore in this future that is now inevitable? More importantly, what does Kim think the American's are willing to do if faced with nuclear retaliation? If Kim calculates that America is NOT willing to lose multiple cities to nuclear attack just to defend the South, then Kim can invade the South without worrying about American backup.
For no upside? The upside is no resurgent Japan (or Germany). The money spent, and lives not lost in that are trivial compared to another major war.
Here we whine about a handful of troops killed per week. In Vietnam, it was 200. During WWII when the US population was half what it is now, it was 2000 a week.
No thank you, says the American population. Disarming and defending them and keeping our military well ahead technologically is a much better option.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's not that simple. There are posts in this thread that claim knowledge of Japan being able to make a bunch of nukes overnight. Not to mention a home grown nuke needs to be tested, and courtesy of the test ban treaty, they can only be tested underground. Japan does not have a whole lot of "underground". Not to mention the potential of waking up Godzilla.
Seriously though, the US would never give Japan a bunch ICBM tipped nukes in silos. The international insanity that would follow would make the current international climate pale in comparison. So the Japanese Defense Force is technically a military, but Japan has no Army. The entirety of their military infrastructure is geared specifically towards defensive measures. While in light of the escalating NK program there is talk in Japan of changing this, but reorganizing their military is also not something that can happen overnight.
I suggest looking into the "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan". If fact there is a lot of contextual history and subjects like the "San Francisco System" and the "Yoshida Doctrine" the last of which is still largely applicable today.
Rather than writing a whole research paper in a post, I am going to leave it there for you to research. I imagine people will read this post and try to call me out on "this and that has changed, and then there is this and that". I am aware of these things. The bottom line is we have an overwhelming military force in Japan for a reason. We protect Japan, for better or worse. It really is all very complicated.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
The Russians are not rattling their sabers claiming that they will "bomb the US out of existence" so It's going to take a lot of poking. Historically we DID poke the bear, quite a lot and managed to best the Russians in the cold war. The Russians are not crazy, they know this.
The DPRK on the other hand IS making crazy threats on the USA and it's allies in the region. So there is a BIG difference right now. Also, what about the citizens of DPRK and their plight? Are you that cold and unfeeling that you are ready to let millions of them die at the hands of a crack pot dictator who is so full of himself and his power that he would condemn his people to live in less than third world status? The problem here is Kim and his desire to keep a firm hand on the reigns of power while he beats his little pony to keep it moving.
You and I know Kim get's one nuclear shot and can do grave damage to South Korea with his conventional weapons. He's holding a hostage and making demands. How do you handle this situation? Give him what he wants?
I don't think just giving in is a prudent approach to a hostage situation, nor is giving him more hostages by allowing him to get and deploy nuclear weapons. So what are we doing? Basically, we shutoff his supplies, turned off the electricity, refused to give him anything and wait. Of course, you never know what he might do so we stand ready to defend the hostages with overwhelming force and make it clear we won't back down. It's literally Kim's move and he's running around shooting the ceilings like an idiot in an attempt to scare us.
Problem here is we don't know what Kim will do when/if he gets cornered and runs out of supplies... Will he just go out in a blaze of glory and nuke the US? Will he give up, cry uncle and start cooperating? Or, (my personal bet) will he be put down from within? One of those options makes a bomb shelter a good investment..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That's a lovely blanket statement you make... Just because there are treaties that he believes are badly negotiated and wishes to withdraw, I doubt that he takes such a stance on all treaties we are party to, especially enough to call it "generally". A few cases does not make a majority.
I don't see NK throwing nukes around willy nilly. They will use them the same way that other nations that have them use them, which is as a deterrent.
NK has one of the largest land based armies in the world. They have also been digging into fortifications since likely the 50's.
The US presence in SK is what keeps NK at bay. NK knows that the US could/would never (politically) invade NK using conventional means. That only leaves unconventional means. Remember, the only reason the US used them against Japan was due to the potential casualty count they would incur should they have tried a land invasion. NK is no fool, however if it ever has any intentions on SK, that is their primary problem. How do you counter that problem? Why you develop your own deterrent. Had Japan at the time had the ability to counter, you can bet it would never had happened. Nor would have the land invasion, as politically the US just wouldn't stand for it. Similarly if NK can show that it has the capability then it is a deterrent. They can use this to force the US into an impossible decision. Should NK move against SK, what would the US do? Unconventional would be off the table if NK could retaliate anywhere in the US. That would leave conventional, but even then, step lightly as if you back them into a corner you have the same problem. Never mind like Japan, it would never come to that, as the US casualties would be far too high, politically would never have the means to do so, and frankly likely most Americans don't really care all that much about either NK or SK all that much (in a relative sense) anyway. To put things in prospective (abet a historical to modern comparison), the estimated casualties for a US invasion of Japan was in the realm of +1,000,000 men. In 8 years of war in Iraq, the number of US casualties were 4,500. Now consider the amount of political pressure that caused, and think about the alternative. It wasn't political then, and wouldn't be now. Even if you tried to massively adjust those numbers to be a more fair comparison, it would still be too large by many levels of magnitude.
So ya, that is basically the problem, and there isn't a whole lot of good solutions (which is likely why nothing has ever been done short of sanctions that don't seems to be all that effective). Bottom line, only really China not America is going to be able to do anything about it, but so far seem unwilling to do anything about it. That said, China has its own disputes with Japan (yellow sea), and the US (Taiwan), so perhaps they don't really care all that much about the eventual result anyway should it go the way they think it will.
I haven't. A lot more than half of you voted against that prick in the White House, or have become so disheartened and alienated by the current system that they didn't vote at all.
I have to believe most Americans are still decent, generous people who have been afflicted by an evil group of tyrants who replaced England's class system with one based on accumulated wealth.
Sooner or later, America will wake up again and kick these scum to the curb.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
There are many upsides to the various protection rackets we've put in place around the world. We have benefited hugely from them. They are mostly implicit threats that get us lower prices in trade and other matters. Look into the Suez Canal for the best example of this. But, some also save us megamoney by preventing another war. This is one of those. Japan still has a faction that would love to reassert their version of the master race militarily.
As we have a negative balance of trade with most countries, and certainly Japan and South Korea, I don't see us benefiting.
Right after WW2 that argument made sense. It no longer makes sense. I think that Japan will behave now, as will South Korea. The treasure wasted defending them is immense.
The Ars Technica article appears to be uniquely wrong on this point. The Sea of Japan is west of Japan, between Korea and Japan. No overflight necessary. Such overflights have occurred in the past with the missile landing somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, but not this time. This is a conventional straight line trajectory, not a cruise missile on a pleasure trip.
http://www.nola.com/national_p...
The height of the missile was much higher than any previous one from NK. Based on that, if they had fired it at a lower trajectory, it could have reached anywhere in the US. Granted, it didn't have a massive nuclear warhead on it, but that fact alone is significant. They could still land one in NYC or wherever they choose in the US as a show of capability.
And we are the country that has our dickbeater-in-chief trading insults and playing crazy-chicken with NK.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
After dropping the world's biggest bomb on Afghanistan. Very few people will _say_ they want war. But when it starts they get in line and watch the fireworks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
-The russians are rattling their sabers a lot. They feel very threatened and the situation is very dangerous. A factor in that is that most people are unaware. They're certainly unaware that the Russians have legitimate reasons to feel threatened. North Korea also has legitimate reasons to feel threatened. That is certainly something you don't see. North Korea makes more noise but that is merely style. On a lower profile they are generally very willing to negotiate. On our side though there is little we want to negotiate about.
It is a perfectly moral feeling to want to help people in need, but there are people out there with other intentions. All too often the people who want to support people in need end up supporting enemies of the target who are only interested in destroying that target. That's why we've done such a terrific job in Iraq, Libya, Syria and so many other places. Public outrage usually has a valid basis but it is steered on demand to satisfy other purposes. The Royingha are a recent instance where public outrage becomes useful for political aims. In Yemen public outrage is undesirable.
I guess you can describe every form of deterrence as a hostage situation.
You may have point, I cannot help but wonder if NK missile staff members are aware of the use of negatives in math?
It was once the location of a Western White House, long ago.
Nope, duckduckgo "santa barbera white house." My reference is very dated.