North Korea Announces 3rd Nuclear Test, Anti-US Aims 597
As reported by Reuters, The New York Times, and Fox News, among others, North Korea's nuclear saber-rattling has reached a new peak. North Korean officials have made clear their intent to conduct a third nuclear test (earlier tests were in 2006 and 2009), as well as further rocket launches specifically designed to demonstrate missile reach extending to the U.S. From Reuters' story: "North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States, although its December launch showed it had the capacity to deliver a rocket that could travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles), potentially putting San Francisco in range, according to an intelligence assessment by South Korea. 'We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are targeted at the United States,' North Korea's National Defence Commission said, according to state news agency KCNA."
A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the monetary interest North Korea has in appearing to be a credible threat to peace. But someone over there needs to look at the end of this game.
If they launched something no more damaging than a dishwasher at San Francisco, their great defenders, the Chinese, would tell them "you're on your own." They have to know they wouldn't last 3 weeks against a U.S. military onslaught. Hundreds of thousands of good people on both sides would be dead, for nothing. No one in the US wants any resources North Korea has. There isn't even the weak excuse of fighting over oil (sorry, "energy security").
It's just so tragically pointless.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:4)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Informative)
If I were China, I'd already be backing away from them.
They already are. All this hubbub is in response to a UN vote censuring them for the December rocket launch. The vote was unanimous - China did not back them up or even abstain.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There could be many motives behind that, and it does not necessarily mean that China is upset about the launch.
There could, for example, be value in privately encouraging an aggressive stance towards the US while publicly declaring a more neutral stance. For one, it doesnt burn all your bridges at once.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They voted for the resolution, and a few years ago when NK was rattling sabers they actually cut off their oil supply.
China is all for NK being a general pain to the US. They're not really all that eager to have a nuclear war break out on their border. I think both the US and China have given up on the whole expansion-of-communism vs containment thing - neither country really wants to have tens of thousands of people dying and billions of dollars spent because some kid wants to be a big shot in his third world nation. They'll fight over oil, but not pride.
Re: (Score:3)
i think the only reason DPRK has had any support from China at all is that they're downwind from them...
US's trump card: Japan (Score:3)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day it isn't because Beijing are big fans the NK regime. They likely hate the Kims as much as anyone. What wakes up the Chinese leadership in cold sweats late at night is the idea of a regime collapse (whether internal or external factors) and millions of North Korean refugees flooding over the border.
The Chinese may be more willing to use open lines of communication to voice their disapproval of the regime's conduct than in the past, but until someone can come up with a credible plan to wind the regime down with as little violence and upheaval as possible, they will continue to back it.
Re: (Score:3)
They wont automatically disperse like a gas (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet I know why (Score:3)
All this hubbub is in response to a UN vote censuring them for the December rocket launch. The vote was unanimous - China did not back them up or even abstain.
Betcha I know why.
If war were to break out and China supported NK, we would technically be at war with China. Or at the very least consider them hostile and sever ties. Which wouldn't be in China's best financial interests at all, seeing as how they own over a trillion dollars of US debt. [about.com] If things went that way I think they would have a hard
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Funny)
I was thinking why not use the stealth bombers to drop a little cloud of leaflets with the american flag on one side and the word "boom" on the other over their major city?
Re: (Score:3)
Do that with an NK flag instead and over San Francisco and tell me how it went.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Funny)
Dropping pr0n instead would certainly make them change their minds about the US.
"These poor, capitalist women cannot even afford clothes! Glorious Leader would never allow this to happen here!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:4, Insightful)
They surely know that we can.
If a kid with down's syndrome comes up and punches you in the face, you don't beat the shit out of him in response. You gain nothing by such a hollow victory, and you cause more trouble for yourself than you solved.
Re: (Score:3)
They surely know that we can.
The leaders do. The populace is fed fairy tales about how the army will easily smash any imperialist yankees should they ever dare come. An American bomber dropping leaflets over the capital unmolested would actually make a powerful propaganda statement, but only assuming that it can actually be done (i.e. their anti-air won't be able to detect and intercept it) - and I wouldn't bet on that. Stealth != undetectable.
Re: (Score:3)
To complete the picture, give the kid a hand grenade while you're at it - because they are a threat to everyone in throwing distance including themselves. You certainly don't want them to keep it, but you can't just rush it either.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't really see the point in that. Everybody already knows the US can do this. The only thing a demonstration might show is that our targeting isn't as good as everybody thinks.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical gunk-ho talk from an American that gets his knowledge of the world from Fox News.
What you think is not the same thing as "no one gives a damn". And if the US didn't "care what the hell they were up to", then they wouldn't want to do such a demonstration of power in the first place.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long run, they have three options:
1) cave to foreign pressure, which eventually means the end of the regime
2) rattle their sabers enough that they continue to be a threat worth placating/negotiating with, which keeps food coming in and the regime in place
3) overplay their hand, and end up absolutely leveled by superior forces.
They've done pretty well with (2) so far, but the trouble is that they actually have to keep hobbling themselves to make it work. If they're not seen as a genuine threat, they don't have a position to negotiate from. If they become an immediate threat, they will be destroyed. They have to occupy a medium position, where they are perpetually a few years away from being a major threat, but also constantly held back by the concessions they make in exchange for aid and trade.
It's the aid and trade they want to keep the regime going. If the U.S. stops negotiating, they have to either put up or shut up, which either ends the regime with a bang or a wimper.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They see (2) more as Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e. protection from US invasion. Just like the US was willing to spend untold trillions on protecting itself from the USSR, because after all if you have no country nothing else matters, North Korea is willing to disadvantage itself to create a viable defence system.
The threat to them is real. The US on their doorstep and declared them to be part of an "axis of evil". Afghanistan and Iraq have already been invaded, Iran is being actively attacked with cyber-weapons and trying to build up its nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible. It doesn't help that even the wider international community applies the double standard of congratulating most countries on their space programmes while condemning NK. Why would India be allowed such a programme when NK isn't? Why should the US for that matter? It just makes them more determined to succeed.
That's the problem with this game. You can't choose to not play. The only reasonable move is to develop the capability to nuke the US, and MAD keeps the peace. Then the US starts talking about an ICBM shield again and you suddenly need a few hundred instead of just a few, and the game escalates...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Evacuated where, exactly? We're talking about 20+ million people. That isn't just 20 million able-bodied people, it's young, old, sick and healthy alike. Hell, we couldn't even get New Orleans (population 1.3 million) evacuated properly before Katrina and the ones that did had hellish experiences for weeks.
Be realistic. Even if you got half of Seoul evacuated (very unlikely) you'd still have no place to house them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The stateless Al Queda managed to hurt the US just by hi-jacking a few planes. Most certainly NK could hurt the US. Just not necessarily with an ICBM.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you re-write history, or just ignore history much? Did you forget already that there were no WMDs in Iraq? Hell, that's an easy target to pursue if you want to look. It's in their playbook if it fits their agenda. People took great joy in severely beating the shit out of the Iraq military, which was (yes, passed tense) the same technology as NK currently has (and yes, that is current tense). Let us not try and fool people. NK is a puppet, plain and simple. A puppet used by both the East and West.
Re: (Score:3)
You're wrong. Iraq was not a nuclear state, though it had aspirations to be one. NK is a nuclear state, and it's nuclear tests have been confirmed.
And no, NK is not a puppet of anyone. Their independence is their most important political belief. NK has proven to be the least easily manipulated state in the world.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you forget already that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
But there were. Of course, they were inoperable (and all stamped "made in USA"). And Iraq had a working WMD program. Though the output was solely propoganda to make people think he had them because if he was shown to be as impotent as he actually was, there would have been a revolt without US intervention. And Saddam had "links" to al Quaeda because Osama called and asked to train in Iraq, and Saddam told him "no". That is an "association," even if Saddam didn't help.
What gets lost in the news is that everything is true or false based on perspective.
What I can't get is that Clinton told the truth under oath (causing no harm, truth or lie) and got impeached, and Bush lied to kill millions, including Americans, and that's ok, he was obviously too stupid to know what he was doing.
It all goes back to the anti-intellectual slant in the US. The dumb aren't responsible for their actions, but the smart should be held to a higher standard.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the guy who had Osama killed is not going to do anything about the latest Kim to rule NK if he steps over the line?
I seriously doubt that.
With bin Laden, Obama just had to approve the plan. No real risks would be taken since bin Laden is just a thug in hiding with little power. Here, if Kim Jong-un steps "over the line", any world leader has to consider what consequences would come, such as a bloody attack on South Korea or some sort of nuclear strike.
Obama just doesn't strike me as the sort of politician who likes to take such risks.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama carried out a black-ops strike in a supposedly "friendly" country without informing them at all. That was incredibly brazen. He regularly conducts drone attacks, though it appears always with approval of the countries involved. Nevertheless, it is a fairly aggressive posture. He wasted very little time at all going into Libya.
He might not talk like Bush, but he acts a lot like Bush. The main difference seems to be European acceptance. I don't see anything to make me doubt that he'd respond appropriately.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
you can do absolutely anything you want in the world as long as your allies agree. because the will of the world is the will of the world. nothing has been violated if a thug like osama bin laden is taken out, no one serious on the world stage stands with this thug. pakistan can go fuck itself, because pakistan had elements of its government protecting bin laden
and the reason north korea is so advanced nuclear wise is because of a pakistani scientist who copied dutch technology when he was in the netherlands, then sold it to north korea, iran, libya, and other regimes. this scientist is seen as a hero in pakistan. so fuck you again, pakistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan [wikipedia.org]
"thanks" pakistan
why are we allied with this country?
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't quite see it like that.
He's actually more like Clinton than Bush when it comes to responding. Clinton used cruise missiles and Obama uses drones. Though drone attacks started under Bush, Obama has increased their usage. Clinton relied much too heavily on cruise missiles rather than other tools available to him in responding to crises. Many of the troublemakers accepted that they could do something and the cost would be a cruise missile that would be unlikely to find them specifically. Sadam Hussein said as much after he was captured - he believed that that his failure to acknowledge the weapons inspectors would only result in some more cruise missiles and that the U.S. was bluffing about an actual invasion. Clinton's response to Bin Laden in Afghanistan was also cruise missiles. Bush changed the rules of the game, for better or worse, by committing ground troops. Obama appears to be flowing back into Clinton's strategy of using drones tactically rather than committing ground troops. That's why I believe that Obama's military strategy is more akin to Clinton's than Bush's.
I disagree with the characterization of going after Bin Laden in Pakistan as being brazen. Imagine that your entire national security team has been coming to you for months claiming that they have finally tracked down Bin Laden. The intelligence infrastructure has placed assets on the ground in houses near where Bin Laden is believed to be and they also believe that Bin Laden is in the house. The only real voice against going after him in Pakistan comes from your Vice President. You ran for office highlighting that Bush's failure to capture or kill Bin Laden hurt the stature of the United States and, unlike Bush, you would bring him to justice. You also turned over responsibility for the final recommendation to the head of the CIA and he comes back with a "let's go for it" kind of recommendation.
What would have been brazen would have been to ignore all of that and NOT go after him.
What would have been even more brazen would have been to go in and taken Bin Laden alive and never say a word about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about where Osama was hiding. He was practically within shouting distance of a major Pakistani military base. Do you really think that's a coincidence?
No. It's a ridiculous Kabuki dance. The Pakistanis are our enemies. They protected Bin Laden.
Pakistan doesn't want to announce to the American people that they are our enemies, because then the US might actually do something. So they pretend. Similarly, no US administration wants to publicly admit the Pakistanis are our enemies, because they don't want to fight a nuclear nation. So, everybody pretends.
They pretend they help us fight Al Qaeda. We pretend they weren't protecting Bin Laden. So, hey, sorry abou
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, although I'm not sure any U.S. president would. It'd certainly be a tough decision: attacking North Korea is very likely to result in retaliation against Seoul, which has millions of people living within artillery range of North Korea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look what he did after the Benghazi terrorist attack. I expect no more than a finger wag with the "and next time we mean it" rhetoric.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that? Right now, North Korea is a nice bargaining chip for China. The US doesn't want a direct conflict with China so cannot directly attack North Korea. When the time is right, China will reign in North Korea (for a time) in exchange for some concessions from the US. It is a poker game with an element of risk, but North Korea is a high face card in China's hand.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is that? Right now, North Korea is a nice bargaining chip for China. The US doesn't want a direct conflict with China so cannot directly attack North Korea. When the time is right, China will reign in North Korea (for a time) in exchange for some concessions from the US. It is a poker game with an element of risk, but North Korea is a high face card in China's hand.
China tried reining them in 2 months ago, when they were getting ready to do the missile launch test. They still fired the missile, which is why China voted in favour of the current round of sanctions.
NK knows that China doesn't want US military presence on their borders, and that the US will not leave SK as long as NK is still a threat to the south. Thus, it's in NK's interest to be just annoying enough that SK still considers them a threat, but not annoying enough to trigger an attack. And yes, they are a credible threat to the south, with the amount of artillery they have embedded in the hills. They don't need nuclear weapons to do a lot of damage to the South, and are doing this for the attention.
As long as they don't do anything that would cause China to attack them, they're safe. (personally, I think that's how it's going to play out in the long run, btw... they'll piss China off enough that China attacks them, possibly with UN support, and then the US leaves SK). That means that they can ignore China's warnings and chidings all they want, as long as they don't actually do anything that directly affects China. Sadly, their current administration appears to be aware of this.
Interestingly enough, I was listening to a discussion on the radio this morning about Munchhausen syndrome, and can't help but wonder if NK's behaviour is a form of it.
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason the US went into Libya was because Gaddafi wanted to create a new currency based on gold to be used in the oil trade.
Or - and I don't mean to dismiss the conspiracy sites here - it might be possible that the Europeans were about to drag us in to the conflict one way or another, creating a big fat mess unless we got involved immediately and in a big way. The UK sent an almost undefended "warship" [telegraph.co.uk], for goodness sakes.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither side wants a war there, NK has a pretty good memory of how the civil war went.. so NK, SK, China, Japan, US... all are quite aware that actual hostilities would be a bad idea. Symbolic gestures on the other hand have value... not on the international scale, but on the local one.
The military in NK is very powerful.. while people like to talk about the place like it is a simple dictatorship, the political reality is the Leader needs the backing of the generals, otherwise his power-base dissolves. One way to do that is build up the internal public image of military streght and show that he is willing to snub the world in favor of the generals. In essence, it is the Leader demonstrating his allegiance to his military and reasserting their primacy within the country.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what one would hope. But with NK you can never be sure. Anyone old enough to have been an adult during the Korean War is well past the average life expectancy. You think it's bad that the U.S. labeled them as part
Re: (Score:3)
Three weeks?
If they ever actually launched something at the continental US it would be be a matter of minutes before all of NK was a glowing wasteland. There would be no build up/airstrikes/conventional assault, one of the dozen SLBM armed Ohio's would wipe NK out in 20 minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
The nearest NK ICBM bunker would be slightly more than 35 miles from Seoul. Please explain how these nukes work that could destroy such a bunker, but not kill most of the 2.4 million people in Seoul.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:5, Insightful)
> the Chinese, would tell them "you're on your own."
Very likely, yes.
If they launched a *Nuke* at San Francisco, China would actively participate in dismantling the DPRK.
> They have to know they wouldn't last 3 weeks
> against a U.S. military onslaught.
I'm not sure exactly what the Kim family knows. If they had even a basic grasp of macroeconomics, for instance, they wouldn't be running the country the way they are. And economic differences are the main reason why they wouldn't have a prayer, militarily speaking, against a first-world power.
Isolationism always leads to economic stagnation, and people who grow up under it usually are not fully aware of the extent to which the world is passing them by. When we think of the development of nuclear weapons, we think of the WWII era, which for us in the first world seems like a very long time ago, technologically; but that's because we've lived all our lives around modern technology. living in isolation, you don't necessarily *notice* all the changes taking place in the rest of the world. Time slows down, and the WWII era doesn't seem so different from today. Yes, the Kim family knows about some advances that have been made. They know about the internet, for example, and they have at least a passing awareness that cell phones exist; but those are just specific examples of a much larger trend, a trend they very well might not be aware of at all. Like I said, if they did understand this stuff, it's unlikely that they would be running the country the way they are. I would lay odds ten to one that Kim does *not* realize that low-income six-year-olds around with hand-me-down cellphones over here, and even if he did find out this fact, he would not understand its socioeconomic significance.
Bring it around to warfare, we're so far beyond Hiroshima that we consider that kind of weapon primitive, and I would bet money that Kim doesn't understand this. Even as nukes go it was primitive (we developed H-bombs just a few years later, then submarine-launched nukes, and so on and so forth), and even the most advanced nuclear weapons have been thoroughly obsolete (as an indicator of real military power) for about a quarter of a century now. If we actually thought North Korea was considering launching a nuke at us, we would not respond with nukes of our own, because that would be clumsy and ineffective and old-fashioned and politically unpopular and have unnecessary civilian casualties, among other things. No, we would respond with much more precise and effective methods of warfare that have been developed in the intervening decades. We wouldn't do Shock and Awe the way we did in Iraq, obviously, because that was ten years ago, and limiting yourself to ten-year-old military technology isn't how you get to be the most powerful military on the planet. To you as a first-world citizen this is so obvious it probably wouldn't have occurred to you to even mention it; but to think that way you have to have a feel for how fast technology can develop, and you don't really get a feel for that when you live as a hermit, never leave your house, and barely ever receive any visitors.
Re:A strange game.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would the US even need to send in ground troops?
US ground troops are already there [wikipedia.org]. Bombing would almost certainly escalate into a ground war, with an NK offensive through the DMZ towards Seoul, which is only 35 miles to the south.
Re: (Score:3)
> FTFY
FTFY
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would be FAR LESS than hundreds of thousands dead on the US side
Sigh. It's not just about American deaths - It's hundreds-of-thousands of dead in South Korea - Our ally. It's not always just about you 'muricans.
Re: (Score:3)
A first strike would then be needed to disable the artillery position in a shock and awe campaign, right?
The sheer amount of artillery (and other stuff) NK has is such that you'd have to use tactical nukes to take it all out before it can do what it's meant to do.
And if the proverbial shit really hits the fan I wouldn't be surprised to see most of the NK army defect in a whim.
I very much doubt that. NK is very isolated, and its citizens are thoroughly brainwashed. A great many will be eager to stand up and die for their Dear Leader. Some might have doubts, but they know that they're likely to be shot by their comrades if they try to surrender.
Re: (Score:3)
The Pyongyang subway system is the deepest in the world. It's build that way so it's bomb proof. You think if they did that for the public subway, the military defenses aren't equally built with bombardment in mind? NK has been preparing to be bombed for the last 60 years.
And you have no basis to presume the NK military would defect. There's nothing to suggest that at all. They are one of the most disciplined armies in the world.
Test just for show (Score:4, Insightful)
If they really wanted to deliver a nuke, they'd ship it in on a tramp freighter or submarine, land on some remote area of the coast, and walk the thing in somewhere. The whole missile thing is a national prestige exercise for domestic and regional consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
>If they really wanted to deliver a nuke, they'd ship it in on a tramp freighter or submarine, land on some remote area of the coast, and walk the thing in somewhere.
Since you can't have a colonoscopy and cross a bridge in the US without getting pulled over by DHS, I'm *sure* the above is going to work. You'd much rather have one of your give nukes delivered in 2.5 months, over a route filled with inspections and radiation detectors, than have it delivered in 12 minutes via missle.
Re: (Score:2)
Splattering it across the Pacific Ocean doesn't do much to scare people.
Just threatening to put it in a container full of Tupperware would be a more credible threat than launching something at us.
Re: (Score:3)
How's the coast guard doing at keeping all the cocaine out of America?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, did I say something about the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Since you can't have a colonoscopy and cross a bridge in the US without getting pulled over by DHS, I'm *sure* the above is going to work
Just wrap it in a layer of marijuana, then it will get through without being detected.
Put it in a shipping container (Score:2)
Re:Test just for show (Score:4, Insightful)
>If they really wanted to deliver a nuke, they'd ship it in on a tramp freighter or submarine, land on some remote area of the coast, and walk the thing in somewhere.
Since you can't have a colonoscopy and cross a bridge in the US without getting pulled over by DHS, I'm *sure* the above is going to work. You'd much rather have one of your give nukes delivered in 2.5 months, over a route filled with inspections and radiation detectors, than have it delivered in 12 minutes via missle.
An estimated 1,000,000 people secretly cross the border into the US every year; that's about 2,700 people per day.
I fear your confidence in the success rate of American border agents is overly optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
it's mainly for domestic and regional.. and mainly domestic at generals(it's not like you need to tell this stuff to domestic peons..).
but the funny thing about this is that the terms used make no sense at all.
"Aimed at USA" "High level!" ... so wtf are they going to do? aim a rocket at usa and explode it at high altitude over the pacific as a training?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like Starfish Prime?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime [wikipedia.org]
"Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlight
Re:Test just for show (Score:4, Insightful)
Like most other nukes, it's a deterrent. If the US should decide to invade/liberate North Korea like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, North Korea would like the US to know they have nukes and are bat shit crazy enough to use them. Threatening to launch a nuclear missile is a little more immediate than threatening to smuggle it into the US covertly, which would also give away the "covert" part. They want to bluster about their ability to nuke San Francisco, if they actually did it I wouldn't expect two bricks to be standing in Pyongyang an hour later. The only reason they'd use it is because they're about to get deposed anyway.
Re:Test just for show (Score:5, Informative)
Their nukes are the still huge. Think old 40s nuclear test stands. You aren't walking that anywhere. It would never fit in a sub.
Exactly! (Score:2)
That's just what I was thinking.
You don't need a missile do deliver a nuke. Heck, you don't even need fission. Just grind up a bunch of radioactive material and use explosives to disperse it into the air. There you go, you've poisoned a city forever. Game over.
Plus, if you don't care about high efficiency you have lots of options. Airburst = maximum damage, but you don't need to use a nuke as a bomb if you don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
The US could theoretically invade North Korea and shut down their ability to do something like that quite quickly. Having a missile that can reach the US means they're safe from invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey North Korea,
That country holding the other end of your leash just voted for the Security Council resolution against you rather than abstaining as they have done in the past. Maybe before you talk a bunch of shit about lobbing a nuke at the US, you should worry about China giving that leash a big yank.
Also, don't you guys only have enough nuclear material for 7-8 weapons? Please continue nuclear testing in your own country and use up all of your weapons grade material as fast as possible on making holes in the ground a lot bigger.
Cordially,
The Rest of the World.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Maybe before you talk a bunch of shit about lobbing a nuke at the US, you should worry about China giving that leash a big yank.
Uh, hate to break it to you, but when North Korea yanks China's chain, the US major media don't typically care to report it. Korea and China are traditional enemies. Read the Chinese and Korean press, to see how often North Korea plays with China. Stop being a head-in-the-sand, reactionary US-American.
And you can bluster all you want, nuke tests don't have to use the
Re:Good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good idea. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. Most of the liquid crude reserves in the US are either tapped or in environmentally protected areas. But they do have a *very* large amount of shale-based deposits available to them, not to mention enough farmland to be able to provide alternative fuels for their own need.
Pointing it the wrong way (Score:4, Insightful)
The potential power to reach the stars, yet all anyone wants to do is point it at their neighbor and make threats. We will never escape these "Dark Ages" we're all living in.
How's that for critical thinking? (Score:2)
"North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States, although its December launch showed it had the capacity to deliver a rocket that could travel 10,000 km (6,200 miles), potentially putting San Francisco in range."
And Portland and Seatle are closer than San Francisco. And all in the continental US, last I checked. And I know-- warhead + rocket, but last I checked, belief was unclear on their ability to pair a warhead vari
Re: (Score:2)
They can't make a high enough yield war head to deal with guidance errors fit on their rocket. These folks are too broke for that.
Nor are they quite that suicidal. This is saber rattling for food aid again.
Re: (Score:2)
Ggggguidance accuracy has always been a known problem, which is why I said "within 30 miles." Exploding on the platform doesn't seem to be a problem, as they are using modifications to known Russian designs etc.
Sounds like (Score:2)
they had a blast.
The new, friendly leader (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The new, friendly leader (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets just cut off the food aid (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a pretty good bet South Korea and China won't step up. We simple broadcast in Korean on Voice of America that we are cutting off the assistance and why.
The North Koreans can then do something about their government or stave. I think we should try hard to no care which they choose.
Re:Lets just cut off the food aid (Score:5, Interesting)
Do we want a completely desperate nuclear power? Will the people turn against the leadership, or will they vent their rage against foreigners leading to millions of deaths?
Re:Lets just cut off the food aid (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll starve. There was a documentary made when some western doctors went to NK a few years ago to do things like cataract surgeries. After they got their surgeries and could see again, the first thing they did was turn to the closest picture of dear leader and begin praying to it. Literally praying to the picture as it being the representation of their Dear Leader who is a Man-God.
I've since known people who have had dealings with NK as part of the UN. I've asked many of them if what we saw in the documentary was even remotely true and the answer was astoundingly yes. That among the population of the cities at least, that is how the leaders of the country are seen by the "loyal political" class. Even in the country side where there is mass starvation there is at least the appearance of that belief.
Can't we(US), for once, just do nothing? (Score:2)
I mean, really, there's one or two countries rather close by North Korea who don't like them either. How about, instead of waving our allegedly big nuclear dicks all over the place, just plain ignore NK? Don't talk about them; don't talk to them. At some point they'll get bored and promise that their missiles are specifically targeted at $OTHER_COUNTRY.
Defcon II or jawbone? (Score:2)
personally, I'd load up the bunker-busters, get the Aegis cruisers out in the western Pacific, and overfly Nut Korea every half hour anybody starts scuttling around the missle fields there, fly over and dig until you find sanity.
December: they aimed for Japan and hit Philippines (Score:4, Funny)
so now they are aiming for the USA?
watch out Russia!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the first strike idea is that Seoul is within easy range of a vast number of dug-in North Korean artillery and rocket emplacements. They might be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the time it would take to destroy them. Of course, the US and South Korea will have been mapping and targeting those emplacements for the last fifty years and may have found them all. Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you blanketed the area with nukes you're not going to make a sizeful dent in the amount of artillery deployed there. We're talking about an enormous number of hardened bunkers in a large mountainous area.
Re:Kill the Virus in Pyonyang (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way the civilized world is going to limit the cost of dealing with the ultimate war with N. Korea is to prepare S. Korea, with the help other friendly countries, to do a massive surgical strike to take out the entire N. Korean military and its facilities and have S. Korea able and supplied and armed with its own people who can move in to supplie staples and organization to the society.
I am not convinced the military which is ultimately in control of everything, will ever give up its power, no matter what the "Glorius Leader" says or does, as he can be replaced.
You let the cancer grow or you cut it out and deal with the consequences. Of course this could never happen within the next 4 years because of leaders in power now who have no vision other than their own personal power.
We certainly have battle plans ready that would allow us to militarily unify Korea under the south. There would be nothing "surgical" about it, though. North Korea has massive numbers of troops, rockets, artillery, etc., and South Korea's capital is only 35 miles from the border, within range of the larger NK guns. Here's a map of what could happen. [businessinsider.com] Seoul would be a pawn in the battle, and it would destabilize the entire area for some time.
I think the fundamental question here is whether this is a show of strength being done because North Korea wants to talk but has nothing else to negotiate with. If so, perhaps you meet them, acknowledge their big scary threats, trade around for some perks (maybe make Kim Jong Il the equivalent of the British Royal family in the new Korea, with a figurehead role), and unify them peacefully with everyone coming out ahead. On the other hand, maybe they want to remain independent and hold a nuclear threat over the United States' head... in which case better to strike sooner, before they have the capability. I don't have any of that information, so I'm not going to second-guess the decisions.
Re:Kill the Virus in Pyonyang (Score:4, Interesting)
will never happen
china hates the idea of a united korea allied with the USA on its border. it prefers unstable mad dog north korea to that possibility
but as time goes on, china is going to have to make peace with the possibilty
in fact, if north korea does go full bore wackjob, and action becomes inescapable, china would involve itself actively and militarily as well, it's not foolish. any action in north korea is dependent on chinese involvement and acquiescence, obviously
but what i see happening is china going for regime change, but keeping the countries separate
simply because it hates, hates, hates the idea of a united korea allied with the USA
germany reuniting was really made possible by a sinking USSR
china is not sinking. it's rising. therefore, the prospects of a united korea in my estimation is doomed
any koreans dreaming of a united korea: i'm sorry, the geopolitical agenda of china is not going to let it happen
Re:Kill the Virus in Pyonyang (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, as soon as the fighting starts, the DMZ turns into a sea of fire. Seoul and Incheon, the capital and primary port for the South, both within easy gun/rocket range of the DMZ (you can bet those gun emplacements are already pre-sighted), are decimated within a day. 100,000 SK and 20,000 US troops hunker down to resume the WWI-style trench warfare that characterized the latter years of the Korean War, and nothing of value is gained. A fast amphibious force from the west could probably capture Pyongyang, given the current lack of Chinese support for NK and the fact that most of the NK forces are concentrated at the front, but then what? You'd still have the full stalemate at the most fortified military position in human history, and your quick-strike force would be left holding a town in the middle of a population so hostile it makes Iraq and Vietnam look like Kentucky.
The Chinese taught the N Koreans how to dig in. Dug in they are, culturally and militarily. There's a report floating around somewhere stating that the only possible way to reinitiate the Korean War without unacceptable losses, both military and civilian, is a first-strike with chemical weapons. Even with that, the report said it would take four times as much nerve gas as the US ever had on hand at any time.
Some tumors you just can't slice out. You can isolate them and try to prevent them from growing, but the surgery is just too dangerous.
Re:Kill the Virus in Pyonyang (Score:5, Informative)
The only way the civilized world is going to limit the cost of dealing with the ultimate war with N. Korea is to prepare S. Korea, with the help other friendly countries, to do a massive surgical strike to take out the entire N. Korean military and its facilities and have S. Korea able and supplied and armed with its own people who can move in to supplie staples and organization to the society.
It's a tempting thought, but it's not going to happen unless a nuclear attack on S. Korea, Japan, or the U.S. is imminent. The people of North Korea may be impoverished, but the country has the fourth-largest active military in the world:
China 2.285M
United States 1.458M
India 1.325M
N. Korea 1.106M
Russia 1.027M
(Everyone else in the world has a military roughly half the size of N. Korea's or smaller. Other members of the security council listed below)
France 0.353M
United Kingdom 0.198M
If you look at military reserve, which would be called up in the event of a strike against N. Korea, you add 8.2M people to the fray. That's nearly 10 million people who have been cut off from the outside world for generations and taught that the world is out to get them and their glorious leaders protect them. A lot of people will die, on both sides, and no one has the stomach for that -- and rightly so. Alternatively, saving our side casualties by using nuclear weapons would be unthinkable. So the people in power (the military) sabre rattle to maintain their grip on the country and to try to force aid from the rest of the world. It's not in their interest to attack us, because we would stop feeding them. But we can't afford to let them get in a position where a nutjob or nervous, clumsy individual accidentally launches a nuclear strike. Our job (as the rest of the world) is to ensure they don't gain the ability to threaten us with nuclear weapons, even if that means cutting back our aid to their poor impoverished citizens who think the aid comes from their leaders and don't know any better.
But don't think for a moment that we're going to send two helicopters full of seals into Pyongyang, dump the glorious leader's body at sea and suddenly N. Korea will become a sunny land of welcoming people with a big rainbow over it. If the military leadership ever fails there, it's going to be chaos, and the people won't want our help.
The real news here is this:
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why news articles say things like this, but Alaska and Hawaii are much closer to North Korea than San Francisco. Do you think a nuke hitting Anchorage would be taken less seriously than one hitting in San Fran?
Probably because Hawaii is too small for them to hit, and the chances of them actually hitting a populated area in Alaska are rather remote.
That being said, a launch carrying a nuclear payload from NK aimed at anything outside of NK itself would probably result in the United States turning Pyongyang into the world's largest glow-in-the-dark parking lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A parallel thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
International politics and child development are not even close to the same thing. It's scary that you even make a comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/30/north-korea-soccer-coach-kim-jong-il-kim-jong-hun/ [tmz.com]
Re: (Score:3)
no kidding. they aimed for Japan in in December and hit the Philippines:
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/50244/philippines-condemns-north-korea-for-missile-launch [interaksyon.com]
so if they are aiming for the USA now, only one thought comes to mind:
watch out Russia, incoming!