North Korea Accused of Testing an ICBM With Missile Launch Into Space (examiner.com) 287
MarkWhittington writes: Reuters reported that North Korea launched a long-range missile that is said to have placed a satellite into space. The launch happened much to the consternation of North Korea's neighbors, South Korea and Japan, as well as the United States. Pyongyang claimed that the missile launch was part of that country's peaceful space program. But, other countries are pretty sure that the launch was a test of an ICBM capable of placing a nuclear weapon on any target in the world, particularly the United States.
Of course it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only difference is the payload.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In my opinion the most iconic example of that is the Soviet R-7.
World's first ICBM.
Launched Sputnik.
Launches Soyuz and Progress to this day.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Informative)
Most of them.
Re: (Score:3)
The Jupiter and Redstone/Juno were essentially Army programs and launched numerous early satellites and space probes and a modified Redstone launched Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom on Mercury flights.
It's moot anyway, the premise of the GP is invalid.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Informative)
I did my own checks to see how many US military missiles were used for space launch.
Two Mercury launches (the suborbital ones) occurred atop PGM-11 Redstone missiles, which were operated by the US Army. The remaining four used SM-65 Atlas missiles, which were operated by the US Air Force. They technically had a new designation, but the modifications were mostly additional safety measures, so the actual launch system was essentially Atlas.
All twelve Gemini launches used Titan II missiles, used by the US Air Force. Again, they had a separate designation, but adding abort systems and backup navigation systems doesn't really make it "not a missile".
Apollo, as you stated, used only Saturn I, IB and V rockets, which were never used for military purposes. However, the Saturn I/IB's first stage was derived from PGM-11 Redstone. Only Saturn V was completely free of military history. The same is true of ASTP and Skylab, since they reused Apollo launchers. This definitely doesn't fall under "atop US Army boosters", but you can't deny that there was some history there - mostly because the design of Saturn started before NASA or even NACA existed.
The Space Shuttle did not directly use any military components, but the design was informed by the capabilities of the military-industrial complex. Solid rockets had, by that point, become the obvious choice for nuclear missiles, so much of the American rocket industry retooled around solid rockets, and so the Shuttle used solid boosters for much of its power. And the US Air Force did plan to operate their own Shuttles, even building a launch site for them (Challenger convinced them to go with expendable launchers instead). But it can't reasonably be claimed the Shuttle itself was a military product.
Re: (Score:3)
While not a military product exactly, the Shuttle design did account for military needs and it was used to do military missions like launching and maintaining spy satellites. Hubble's design also also driven by the needs of the military, particularly the mirror which was used for earth observation satellites too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the purpose of this discussion? Who cares if the most rockets had a military use? NASA's drive was always directly related to the Cold War; when the Cold War ended NASA's funding got cut over and over again. So frankly anything NASA did had a military use behind it.
And quite frankly, just about everything has a military use behind it to. We're currently writing on computers that likely use the same or similar hardware to power military weapon systems. We're using the Internet that has it's gene
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Funny)
He seems to have had a really bad aim then as he kept hitting London.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
As the great Tom Lehrer put it...
"Once rockets are up, who cares where they come down.
'That's not my department', said Wehner von Braun"
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Informative)
All except Vanguard were atop converted ICBMs until the Saturn boosters came along, and the first Saturn was basically cobbled together from ICBM parts so it could also call it ICBM based, The Saturn V was mostly not ICBM based.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Informative)
Which is of course irrelevant. The US (nor USSR) were not under international sanctions with agreements not to do it at the time, unlike North Korea.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea is possibly the worst country on the planet, but arguing international law is a bit rich considering the US and USSR ignore international law any time it's inconvenient. If you want international law to have any weight behind it, the big boys have to play along too.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, according to space age legends, the attempt to avoid using military boosters is what held us back long enough to let the Soviets get Sputnik up first.
Re: I bet it annoys Kim Jong... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not about actually attacking the US. It's about perpetuating the propaganda. Our media hypes the threat for him. All he has to do is the NK version of shouting "ooga booga" and we all jump. I'm not saying there isn't a credible threat here, but it actually benefits NK to keep us all wondering. they can spin the hell out of it to their citizens.
Greetings, Professor Falken (Score:2, Funny)
How about a nice game of chess?
Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:5, Interesting)
They will be tolerated in so much as they keep a buffer between them and South Korea. They do not want another democratic neighbour to stir up trouble.
The limits to this arrangement are of course in question.
Re: (Score:2)
This is sort of a strange argument, given that South Korea has been democratic for barely 30 years.
Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the NK's current state, I don't think they have much to lose. Really, becoming part of China is the best case scenario for their population. So much hatred between them and South Korea due to both side's propaganda, that reunification seems practically impossible. Whole generation been raised on hatred.
Sadly, the longer this stalemate takes the more damage eventual conflict will inflict on both parts of the Korean peninsula.
The truth about China and its influence (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've seen, even China is getting sick of North Korean antics and have started applying political pressure behind the scenes for them to chill out. Unfortunately, it seems as though NK is ignoring it and going rogue, which is a really bad idea as it's really only the influence that China wields that keeps them from getting steamrolled by any of several other countries or groups.
If anybody here would like to understand the situation in North Korea better, I highly recommend reading Victor Cha's book _The Impossible State: North Korea, Past and Future_. Cha worked for the George W. Bush administration and he's an expert on North Korea. Not to digress, but it would really be helpful is President Obama would make somebody in his staff who pays attention to North Korea read this too. Secretary of State Kerry keeps demanding that China do more. If he'd just read the book or have a staffer summarize it for him, he'd understand why they won't.
Here's the deal. North Korea started the Korean War on their own and Mao and Stalin weren't really happy about it. Stalin refused to get involved although he was willing to for Soviet pilots to serve as the de facto North Korean Air Force during the war. China committed troops only when it looked like MacArthur might actually get up to the border with China and possibly invade China. China paid a real price in blood to save North Korea. Mao's own son was killed in the fighting. So while the old line of North Korea and China being "closer than lips and teeth" is no longer really true, China does feel involved because a lot of her soldiers died in that war and they don't want it to be for nothing.
What Kerry, Obama and others in the US need to understand is what Cha points out in his book. Namely, that China really doesn't like North Korea causing problems but it views all possible outcomes of a post-North Korea version of Korea as really bad for China. China feels stuck in that it knows that North Korea's regime can't last forever, but if it puts too much pressure on them, they may collapse soon and remember, they view all post-DPRNK outcomes as very very bad for China. China fears that a unified Korea will have US soldiers stationed in what is now North Korea, so that means right on its borders. China also fears that once North Korea falls, the border will be overrun with North Koreans (there is an area of China near the border that is majority ethnic Korean, so refugees would likely go there) and China will have a humanitarian disaster on its hands that it will have to spend time and resources to deal with. Additionally, in exchange for their financial support, North Korea is basically selling its rare earths to China at below market prices, so China is financially very vested in maintaining this. A unified Korea is not likely to let China continue to destroy the North Korean countryside to get rare earths at a discount. China doesn't see any possible outcome of a post-North Korea world where things aren't a lot worse for China, so they are caught in rarely using the influence they have. However, outsiders, especially the Obama administration, seem to greatly overestimate what influence China actually has. The reality is that China has more influence than they are willing to use, but not as much as everybody else thinks. The Kim regime will do what it can to survive and if that means going against China, no problem there. China is simply never going to stop providing money and assistance as long as the regime exists, so expecting China to do anything but maintain the status quo is not very likely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno . . . take a look at the fearless leader's latest invention: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01... [cnn.com]
I think North Korea created this, because the fearless drinks so much.
Or they used this hangover free alcohol as rocket fuel for their new ICBM . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it's more like the west does. Remember the infamous "unicorn cave"? That was pretty much entirely fabricated by the west. They made a genuine archaeological discovery relating to their mythology (note the "myth" part), but the west was more interested in painting them as crazy.
It's the same with TV broadcasts. North Korea's state broadcaster transmits a 1080p signal on satellite, which can be received easily in many neighbouring countries. Yet when you see it on western TV, it's usually a low quali
Anything the US does is suspicious (Score:3, Insightful)
For what bizarre reason shouldn't North Korea be "allowed" (by whom?!) to have ICBMs when the US - its biggest enemy - also has has them? And why would China "need" to prevent one of its closest allies from protecting itself from a possible american aggression?
North Korea is a sovereign nation and it has the right to have nuclear weapons and ICBMs, so that it will be safe from any possible Iraqi-style american invasion.
There Are No Sovereign Rights (Score:2)
Re:Anything the US does is suspicious (Score:5, Informative)
So within the bounds of international law and politics, North Korea is indeed disallowed to have ICBMs. Who's disallowing them? Everyone. As of the last few resolutions, even China has decided to withdraw their support, making the resolutions passed unanimously. Nuclear weapons aren't something you get to unilaterally decide you'll develop and own, and if you do, other countries will be extremely suspicious of you and for good reason.
Let's not kid ourselves here: North Korea is a farce. Its people is continuously under threat of famine, is being brainwashed, held back on just about every level, because the leadership of the country wants to conserve an iron grip on their small patch of land. As such, it's one of the poorest and most isolated places on the planet, and politically is extremely unstable and dangerous. You can't consider them on a rational level because they are not a rational actor. They have severe delusions of grandeur, regularly threaten just about every neighbor of armed conflict, often for no apparent reason, etc. The best possible thing that could happen for NK and the rest of the world would be a slow transition towards democracy and a complete reconstruction of its political sphere (including eliminating all current military and political personnel, up to Un himself). Failing that, I hope that one day the rest of the world decides to act upon this retarded stepchild and cut the head off - the transition would be far more traumatic, but at least it'd happen.
Re: (Score:3)
In case you forgot, the nonproliferation treaty states that aside from the "nuclear weapon states" (China, France, Russia, the US and the UK), no other nation state should receive, manufacture or acquire nuclear weaponry. [...] Who's disallowing them? Everyone.
Except for some countries who never signed that treaty: India, Pakistan, Israel. North Korea is also no longer a signatory (they withdrew in 2003). Shouldn't there be sanctions against the other three?
Let's not kid ourselves here: North Korea is a farce.
Agreed.
The best possible thing that could happen for NK and the rest of the world would be a slow transition towards democracy and a complete reconstruction of its political sphere (including eliminating all current military and political personnel, up to Un himself).
You're talking about eliminating ten million people (in the military alone). 40% of the population. Please specify which method of "elimination" you had in mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for some countries who never signed that treaty: India, Pakistan, Israel. North Korea is also no longer a signatory (they withdrew in 2003). Shouldn't there be sanctions against the other three?
Touche!
That is a very good point. I guess Israel is immune because US has such close relations with that state. No idea why the hypocrisy regarding India and Pakistan.
Re:Anything the US does is suspicious (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea is currently under international sanctions for violating several UN Security Council resolutions. That means that the majority of the UN considers North Korea's missile/nuclear program to be a problem, specifically destabilizing the region and undermining the global nonproliferation regime. In case you forgot, the nonproliferation treaty states that aside from the "nuclear weapon states" (China, France, Russia, the US and the UK), no other nation state should receive, manufacture or acquire nuclear weaponry. The NWS are also the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Try to see it from NK's point of view. It's biggest enemy, the one that keeps playing war games off its coast and supplying SK with military hardware is part of a powerful club, and no-one screws with them. To get into the top ranks of this club and wield all this, you need nuclear tipped ICBMs. The goal of the club is to make sure no-one else ever gets them, although it's both ineffective (India, Pakistan, South Africa) and corrupt (the US tolerates Israel's nuclear weapons and won't allow sanctions or inspections).
If the rest of the world really wants NK to abandon its nuclear programme then it first the US needs to stop antagonizing it, and then every effort has to be made to normalize relationships. Despite the impression you may have been given, NK isn't a closed state or unable to participate in world events. They hold international sporting events, you can do business with their technology companies.
Yes, they have work camps and a lot of other horrible stuff. The US has Guantanamo and various other black sites, including one in New York where inmates are tortured. Various European countries violate human rights and ignore legally binding UN rulings. The way to address that stuff is to engage, not to stand off and pile on more and more sanctions.
Finally, can we stop calling Un a mad man please? He isn't insane, he isn't stupid. None of them are. They know the game, they play it because it benefits them to do so. It's not unlike how many western politicians bemoan the fact that the political system is broken, but do little to fix it because its how they got there in the first place.
Re:Anything the US does is suspicious (Score:4, Informative)
What right does the US has to invade North Korea?
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], US and South Korea are in a military alliance.
From what I understand, North and South Korea are currently in a state of war.
Based on these two factors, US does not need any extra international justification to once against wage war on North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
The US never needs "international justification" to start wars. Really, look at the near term history and the US looks like the "rogue state" they* like to call whoever doesn't like their* boots. Not that the US ever starts a war - not officially at least, how many declarations of war have the US delivered before attacking recently?
(* the leaders of US)
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing that NK still has the means to play serious games with the rest of the world.
Well, they only have the one card to play, and it's the same one they've been playing for the past several decades. What I can't believe is that western countries keep making agreements with them, giving them aid and apparently believing that this time - no really, honest to goodness, this time - the Norks are really going to away their only card.
One has to ask what's better for the North Korean people over the long term... keep giving them enough food and goods so that the crazy family can continue to rule
Re: (Score:2)
Long before revolution there will be a lot of explosions in South Korea and Japan.
Remember that generations have been brainwashed into thinking that all their troubles are due to the outside world. I talked to a lady that got out in 1959 (it was that or be executed for marrying a Chinese man) - NK was a scary place with deliberate isolation and is now a lot worse.
The reasons are far from unknown. (Score:5, Informative)
China needs to do more to keep NK under control, unless NK's games are tolerated by China for reasons unknown.
The reasons are far from unknown. China is currently grabbing as much territory as they can, anywhere they can:
Baekdu Mountain (North Korea) ...)
Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet (Bhutan)
Demchok, Chumar, Kaurik, Shipki Pass, Jadh, and Lapthal (Taiwan, India)
Hong Kong (Taiwan)
Jiandao (North Korea, South Korea)
Kula Kangri and points West, Haa District (Bhutan)
Macclesfield Bank (Taiwan, Vietnam)
Paracel Islands (Taiwan, Vietnam)
Scarborough Shoal (Taiwan, Philippines)
Senkaku Islands (Taiwan, Japan)
Shaksgam Valley (India)
Arunachal Pradesh (Taiwan, India)
Spratly Islands (Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei)
Taiwan (Taiwan)
Eastern Bhutan (Taiwan, Bhutan)
Mainland China, Hainan (Taiwan -- but the PRC has a pretty good claim here 8^)
Western Heixiazi / Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Taiwan)
Penghu, Jinmen,Matsu Islands, Pratas Islands (Taiwan)
Songling District, Jiagedaqi District (Mongolia)
Pamir Mountains (Tajikistan)
Yalu River islands (North Korea, South Korea)
Shaksgam Valley (India)
Anything that keeps peoples attention focussed elsewhere is all to the good, as far as China is concerned. The territorial waters claims in the South China Sea, in particular, are important to them in terms of extending their range of control, in order to control fishing rights, since their population is still rising, despite sterilizations after the second child, and similar measures.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important reason PRC tolerates DPRK is stability. The idea of millions of Koreans flooding China is disturbing to the Chinese. They've served as a policy foil for the Chinese, but the previous fearless leader was more cooperative and malleable.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of millions of Koreans flooding China is disturbing to the Chinese.
They should have a word with Angela Merkel and get advice.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that they lifted the ban on second children last year, right? And that it never applied to everyone, just certain areas where there was overpopulation. Obviously many in the west would condemn their methods, but it isn't true to say that they have a problem with the rate that their population is expanding. They have it under control, at the rate they desire.
Re: (Score:2)
I typed some of it, and pasted others, and manually formatted. I went to 5 sources.
A lot of countries have a lot of disputes; Taiwan is about as bad a China, actually, and there are areas of the Middle East that are pretty fired up, currently (particularly if you consider ISIS a state actor, rather than a marauding horde).
Re: (Score:2)
China will trade with anyone, but have far less control over NK than people seem to imagine. That's not saying that China is sunshine and puppies but just pointing out that they don't have much of a handle on that rogue state either.
Re: (Score:2)
The Norks provide much to the little weenies running China. Being a buffer between S. Korea and China is okay for starters. But what really causes the Chinese leaders to wet their pants would be nice prosperous S. Korea on their border showing China how its done. It might give Taiwan, I don't know, ideas that they can run their own country and not bow down to their future Chinese masters.
In addition, nothing makes the Chinese leaders happier than irritating Japan. Japan only makes things worse by never apol
Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:5, Interesting)
That sounds logical. The only other reason I can see is that they are letting NK force the West into developing more advanced ICBM counter measure technologies because they are confident that they will then be able to steal it and thereby undermine the West's ICBM capabilities. Ask yourself what would Sun Tzu do?
Interesting thought and the US was/is (?) developing that tech with variing results and more for propaganda reasons against russia, which upset them on hillarious levels, even with the knowledge that they have enough firepower to overcome any of these systems.
Beside their wanna-be nuclear ordenance NK has also enough firepower at the DMZ that they can easily shell Seoul into ground zero with conventional weaponary which seems even more dangerous, because MAD (without the M in NKs case) is not really effectiv as they still can fire at billions of people even after the capital was nuked to the ground.
Probably the only acceptable answer to them firing an ICBM would be return fire by the 5 permanent members of the security council, with total annihilation of NK damn the consequences, because if one gets to fire it and nothing happens afterwards, others will try as well (looking at you India/Pakistan/Israel/Iran).
China already mentioned quite public that they don't like NK acting up, but in contrast to my statement above they also might not be in the position to intervene without a major incident and are now between a rock and a hard place:
- Keep that shitty dictator and send him enough money to keep his kingdom and hope that it destabilizes from inside and stays inside or
- actively act against him and try to explain why half SK would look like the eastern french border after WWI
Would be interesting to see how Sun Tzu manages this one.
Re: (Score:2)
"the quickest way between two points is a straight line".
-- Sun Tzu
If china wanted to attack / defeat the US, they would just find a way to do it directly, they woudln't play out a james bond supervillian complicated spy novel plot attack plan.
Re: (Score:3)
"Bar their ships from any port, deny them all trade, inform their population, remind them of what they once achieved and can achieve again."
Because it worked so well back in 1940 with Japan.
"They are a totally paranoid government"
Not that you aren't right in your assess about North Korean leaders but I miss the most straight idea: that amid all their paranoia and psychopathy they are honestly scared about what happens to non-nuclear countries once USA tells them "you are not my friend" and how different it
Re: (Score:3)
Because it worked so well back in 1940 with Japan.
Aggressive military dictatorships aren't always deterred by anything less than war. Can you think of a measure less than war that would have deterred Japan from its path of conquest in Asia and war against America? Surrender doesn't count.
. . . amid all their paranoia and psychopathy they are honestly scared about what happens to non-nuclear countries once USA tells them "you are not my friend" and how different it is when the one at the receiving end is an ICBM-capable country.
Your theory needs some adjustments. North Korea was at war with South Korea, the UN powers, and through that the US before there were ICBMs. You're trying to paint a 60 year old war with a 10 year old brush and it doesn't work. Many countries have had an interest in n
Re: (Score:2)
they are honestly scared about what happens to non-nuclear countries once USA tells them "you are not my friend" and how different it is when the one at the receiving end is an ICBM-capable country.
This. The US labelled North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil, and then invaded on of the three countries on the list. In fact, the one they invaded for their former best buddy when it was fighting another part of the Axis. Their fears are well grounded in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Already happened.
NK is a crazy guy on the street with a sign "will threaten for food".
Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more that the US isn't willing to do anything about it because it guarantees thousands to hundreds of thousands of dead allies and unpredictable results for geopolitical balance in the region. By chiding them publicly, it sets up a history of warnings in case something does happen, but lets all those people keep living for now.
Also, South Korea doesn't want to fight over it, preferring to wait until the regime collapses on itself and then figuring out how to clean up that mess, which would be easier than cleaning up that mess plus the leftovers from a war.
Re:Anything NK does is suspicious (Score:4, Informative)
2 things are keeping the western world from taking more action against North Korea. The first is that any military moves against North Korea would result in North Korea lobbing massive firepower (missiles, artillery and other things) at South Korea long before the US or others could stop them. And the second is that regardless of what China may say about the North Korean nuclear program, China would likely take action to stop a democratic unified Korea right on their doorstep just as they did in the early 50s.
so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. They are parties to the outer space treaty but as long as the US and others have ICBMs I find it hard to argue that ICBMs are covered by that treaty. Makes sense since the weapons don't reside in space nor are designed to target space objects but just pass through space on the way to their targets.
I don't get the US centric bias towards military policy. Basically anyone that becomes capable of attacking the US is automatically an aggressor that needs sanction. What about the US' ability to attack everyone? How about those pricks disarm and reduce their military to 1/10th the size, stop toppling governments because they don't like them etc?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to assume you didn't get the memo [imdb.com].
Re:so what? (Score:4, Informative)
The US and North Korea only have an armistice, not a peace treaty. Legally they're still at war with each other. Added to NK's disregard of pretty much everyone, their having ICBMs does make the US nervous for good reasons. The US respects the armistice, but NK will likely start the war up again if they ever think they can get away with it.
No country is happy with any other country having the ability to attack it. Just very few countries are in the position that the US is in of having a military powerful enough that their displeasure makes people take notice.
The US doesn't just use it's military as casually as most think, typically it waits for a large group of allies to urge it to take action. It's wars in the Middle East benefit Europe a lot more than they do the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The two Koreas have an armistice and are legally still at war. The United States was never in a declared war with North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Legally they're still at war with each other."
So if they are at war, who can be surprised that NK are arming themselves to the teeth?
"The US respects the armistice, but NK will likely start the war up again if they ever think they can get away with it."
As in "the US of A would never start a war if they ever think they can get away with it?" Not from Philippines to Irak, passing through Cuba, Mexico, Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Panama... and that's not counting covert operations all through South America, Afr
Re: (Score:2)
It's wars in the Middle East benefit Europe a lot more than they do the US.
Yes and the countries handling millions of immigrants and war refugees thank you dearly for your assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, since Un took over NK has been making a lot more effort to normalize diplomatic relations and become part of an international community. For example, the long standing issue of Japanese citizens kidnapped by NK is finally making some progress. International events like the Pyongyang Marathon are becoming better known and attended.
Also, I have to say that the "benefits" Europe gets from US lead wars in the Middle East are rather dubious. The current influx of refugees is the direct result of one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. What is funny is the convoluted terminology used for propaganda purposes by the US and NATO and repeated by everyone: When South Korea launches a satellite, they used a launch vehicle, when North Korea does it, they tested a ballistic missile that incidentally put an object in orbit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
South Korea doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, nor is it belligerent with its neighbours. It also is not ruled by crazy people.
Re: (Score:2)
It also is not ruled by crazy people
Not since the 70s.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get the US centric bias towards military policy. Basically anyone that becomes capable of attacking the US is automatically an aggressor that needs sanction.
North Korea produces a lot of propaganda showing them destroying the US [youtube.com], so it's understandable.
Re: (Score:2)
You're mixing up capability with likelihood. Total risk is the product of the two. The U.S. has had nuclear-capable ICBMs for over 50 years now, but has never used them. So while it has had the capability for a long time, the proven likelihood that it'll use them is very low, even when it's been provoked. The reason people
Re: (Score:2)
You're mixing up capability with likelihood. Total risk is the product of the two. The U.S. has had nuclear-capable ICBMs for over 50 years now, but has never used them. So while it has had the capability for a long time, the proven likelihood that it'll use them is very low, even when it's been provoked. The reason people (not just the U.S.) is concerned about North Korea's capability is because its leadership is extremely erratic and unpredictable, so the likelihood it would actually use ICBMs is a lot higher than existing nuclear powers'.
On the contrary, NK has had nuclear weapons for quite a while and has never used them beyond testing. As with any mutual-assured destruction weapon, showing a capability for something does not indicate anything about willingness to use them at any time except a doomsday scenario.
Depending on the success of this test, and certainly prior to this point, NK only had MAD capability against its immediate neighbors, China, South Korea, and Japan. The only deterrents they had against US invasion were indirect, t
Nice spin there... US being "only" biggest spender (Score:2)
Or as you put it... "only about 1.5x the world average of ~2.3% of GDP".
Or... we could look at it like this... [wikipedia.org]
USA spends ALONE as much as 9 (NINE) next biggest world military spenders COMBINED. And then some.
USA = China + Saudi Arabia + Russia + UK + France + Japan + India + Germany + South Korea + 14.7 billion dollars (change).
Or, you can take the other source - where USA spends more, but so does everyone else, thus USA spends "only" as much as the next top 7 spenders. And change.
Also, do note that "% of G
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the US.
http://www.sanctionswiki.org/N... [sanctionswiki.org]
Basically, North Korea is fucking crazytown, and NOBODY is happy with the idea of them being able to extend their military reach even a single meter.
Re: (Score:3)
How about those pricks disarm and reduce their military to 1/10th the size, stop toppling governments because they don't like them etc?
Why should we? It's not like anyone can make us, is it?
Trump will! How do you think you are going to pay for fixing all the pot holes?
Re: so what? (Score:3)
That depends which country you're from. I'm sure there are plenty of South Americans, Middle Easterners and Vietnamese who would disagree.
Re: so what? (Score:3)
People in South America don't have as many problems with death squads as they did when the US was supporting murderers like Pinochet and the Vietnamese would probably be better off had the US not engaged in wide scale chemical warfare.
Re: so what? (Score:3)
South Vietnam was a US client state. Their government wasn't a legitimate one. By your logic the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't an invasion because they were invited in by the puppet government.
Weighed Response (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Weighed Response (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The only vaguely viable weapons were sealed by inspectors and awaiting destruction, and were verified as still sealed and awaiting destruction after the war. What few free weapons showed up had been buried and largely forgotten and were decades past their shelf lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't have nuclear weapons there now, but did deploy them in South Korea in the 1950s. It even made a point of announcing it, which the North Koreans took rather badly. South Korea is reportedly nuclear-free and has been for decades, but at one point, yeah, there were nuclear weapons present.
Re: (Score:2)
"There haven't been US nuclear weapons present in South Korea for a very long time and North Korea knows that."
Except:
1) USA owning ICBM capability (the same capability is so awful for NK to gain, only orders of magnitude stronger) makes the need to deploy nukes on South Korean soil moot.
2) Of course there have been and currently are nuclear weapons present, both in North Korea and Japan, since territorial waters are still part of a country and USA's navy had and still has deployed ships, both over and unde
Re: (Score:2)
It is highly unlikely that the US would use a strategic nuclear weapon such as an ICMB or a SLBM to attack North Korea unless North Korea attacked the US first with nuclear weapons. The most likely weapon to use would be either a nuclear bomb or maybe a cruise missile. In either case the US would have to move the missile or bomb from its current location to attack North Korea.
And none of this changes the fact that the only nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula are North Korean. If North Korea wants the n
Re: (Score:2)
Dig the lid (Score:2)
Say what you will about Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans, but their generals have the coolest headgear ever.
http://media.themalaysianinsid... [themalaysianinsider.com]
I would totally wear any one of those hats.
And now that I think about it, "Kim Jong Un & The North Koreans" would be a cool name for a thrash-punk band.
Space denial (Score:3, Interesting)
All NK has to do to fuck the planet is loft some high explosive packed around a tonne of sand into a retrograde orbit and blow it up.
Goodbye trillions of dollars of fancy hardware once the debris cascade starts. Asymmetric warfare is a bitch ain't it.
Disregard (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If North America got rid of nuclear weapons tomorrow, you would be living in a totalitarian regime in a less than 5 years. You, and the rest of human civilization, still exist because the US nuclear deterrent.
I am sure you will sputter and argue otherwise, but the reason it bothers you so much is that you *know* that to be true but can't accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When North America gets rid of its 5000 nuclear warheads it will have the moral right to squeal at North Korea. As it stands NK should be applauded for its technological advances. Same goes to Iran.
The difference is, the US has no interest in expanding their territory. France and the UK dislike NK too, and both of them have nuclear arsenals, yet you haven't mentioned them yet. North Korea would be very happy to nuke the world if they thought they could, and the only thing that prevents that is that they're still a very small country with very powerful neighbors.
Re:Hypocrisy much ? (Score:4, Insightful)
To compare the US and NK is utterly reductionist and shows a complete lack of understanding of the differences in context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you think that, considering that no nukes were actually used in the cold war. Or did you mean "hiding" when you wrote "showing"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)