North Korea Kills Phone Line, 1953 Armistice; Kim Jong Un's Funds Found In China 330
eldavojohn writes "Last week, North Korea promised a "preemptive nuclear strike" prior to a UN vote on new sanctions. Despite the threat, the sanctions were unanimously approved. North Korea has responded by killing a Red Cross hotline with Seoul and claims that it has canceled the 1953 Armistice although the UN notes this cannot be done unilaterally (North Korea attempted the same thing in 2003 and 2009). While everyone thought that Kim Jong Un would ride out the sanctions on slush funds, the United States claims to have found his funds in Shanghai and other parts of China totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Beijing has reportedly refused to confiscate these funds despite voting for the very UN resolutions sanctioning North Korea that read: 'More specifically, States are directed to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer of any financial or other assets or resources, including 'bulk cash,' which might be used to evade the sanctions.'"
Oh? (Score:5, Funny)
North Korea again? I've seen this movie before. It sucked the first time.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sequel is even worse.
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton's character in "Multiplicity" wherein he says "You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as... well... the original." Each iteration of the "<insert adjective> Leader" gets a little less stable than its predecessor. Given this one's extreme youth and actions thus far, I wonder if we will ever see round 4 of this franchise.
I somehow doubt that someone of his age and inexperience is really in charge. I suspect Kim Jong Un is really a figurehead while North Korea is being run by the top brass of their army.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Insightful)
This kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton's character in "Multiplicity" wherein he says "You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as... well... the original." Each iteration of the "<insert adjective> Leader" gets a little less stable than its predecessor. Given this one's extreme youth and actions thus far, I wonder if we will ever see round 4 of this franchise.
I somehow doubt that someone of his age and inexperience is really in charge. I suspect Kim Jong Un is really a figurehead while North Korea is being run by the top brass of their army.
He seems to have had enough power to cut phone lines with the south and break a 60 year old treaty and place them in a condition of war. He may be a five year old with his daddy's gun but he's still holding a gun that looks like a couple of nukes and a large army.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Informative)
To put it in perspective, this is the 13th time North Korea has cut the phone line with the South and "broken" the Armistice Agreement since this crap all started.
Re:Oh? (Score:4)
indeed and if he tried to open up he would soon be dead
I doubt it. The Kim line is a personality cult. Control of the country without a visible Kim presence would be extremely difficult, at best.
If Un started running his mouth stupidly, they'd probably pump him full of drugs until he started talking about rainbows instead. Killing him would be drastic.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Funny)
If Un started running his mouth stupidly, they'd probably pump him full of drugs until he started talking about rainbows instead. Killing him would be drastic.
Why, that's Un possible.
Re: (Score:3)
"If Un started running his mouth stupidly, they'd probably pump him full of drugs until he started talking about rainbows instead. Killing him would be drastic."
Oh so THAT'S how the unicorn story came about!
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is my exact view: North Korea wants to be invaded, because of the spoils of war that the US will bring it. Imagine getting wiped off the globe by the US in a 3 day war, and then have the next 10 years of "Nation Building" infrastructure improvements that we've become accustomed to giving the vanquished foes. It is brilliant plan!
I do believe there was a movie with this same plot, though I don't recall the title off hand.
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Informative)
There was a book, subsequently made into a move: "The Mouse that Roared". The only flaw in their plan was that their tiny little invasion force actually landed on the East Coast, managed to capture a Doomsday device the US had built, and thereby won the war. Hilarity ensued!
Re: (Score:2)
The movie faithfully reproduced the machine guns glowing red cuttng down legions of Chinese troops.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea again? I've seen this movie before. It sucked the first time.
Movie and TV series, remember MASH was about the Korean war. Knowing their love of remakes Hollywood is probably already developing MASH 2013.
Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
That way they can point to a country and say to its people: "See, you CAN do worse. Now get back to work."
Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it goes a little more like " So, your fat rolley butt is threatening us with a pre-emptive nuke? You want to be , just another part of China? Better settle down and take what you're given and like it , porky."
Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right and it should also be pointed out that one reason that China supports them is that they do not want hundreds of thousands of NK refugees coming over their border.
Re: (Score:3)
I put some numbers against this the other day in the last discussion about North Korea, basically even if the whole entire population of North Korea crossed the border it would still only be about the same population increase China sees naturally despite having a one child policy in 2 years anyway, or a less than 2% increase in population.
This is still non-negligible and would be a big problem of course, but also as I pointed out the whole population wouldn't cross the border. When you factor in disease and
Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like taking a bandage off.
Nah, it's more like taking a diaper off.
Re: (Score:2)
That is deeply flawed reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but this [bintouch.org] is why I would think China would be concerned if NK is able to throw a nuke even as far as Tokyo.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of a newsgroup with one post, almost a year ago?
You think this is a joke??? !!! 11one
Re: (Score:3)
So far NC has not built one that I know of ...
I assure you that North Carolina has no intention of building submarines or cruise missiles.
Re: (Score:3)
The historical precedents of invading Russia in the winter contain very valuable information regarding how to not invade Russia during the winter.
That is, make sure you have a supply line. Napoleon was forced to retreat from Moscow towards Smolensk which had previously been torched by Russian troops as they retreated from Smolensk to Moscow. After his army got checked trying to advance on St. Petersburg he had hoped that taking Moscow would force the Russians to capitulate. The Germans had planned for their
for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
Story's closed, no more comments needed.
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is - governments outside of North Korea feel it would be a bad move to cut them totally off and let their population starve to death. So they keep going back to the bargaining table, basically offering to trade food for nukes. We give them the food, then NK realizes that their nuclear program is their *only* bargaining chip... so they find something trivial to get mad about regarding the food shipments and pull out of the agreement (after a fair amount of the food has been delivered, of course).
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Interesting)
The game theory here is very frustrating. Given the goals we want to achieve (nuclear disarmament) and the constraints we have (the North Korean people should suffer as little as possible) and the methods available (diplomatic attempts at disarmament, full embargo, all-out war, and brinksmanship) there's really no way to go forward and get what we want without either a lot of North or South Korean blood on our hands.
Then we have brinksmanship. Up until the 1990s our strategy was to attempt diplomatic disarmament, but during the 1990s that broke down pretty badly. Today we're playing a brinksmanship game while still attempting to send aid and trying to work on disarmament. This is just peachy for the NK top brass. They get to make any ridiculous proclamations they want, refuse to disarm, and get food aid anyway. Meanwhile, China is backing them in order to keep from dealing with refugees.
I can't see any way out. I'd be hopeful of revolution, which makes sense if it were a country with a Westernized culture, but the NK regime is too powerful, and the people are too uneducated and isolated to free themselves. It's a perfect storm, and any solution to the problem of NK is going to be VERY ugly to say the least. It won't have any net positive for many years, any way you try to slice up the situation.
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Interesting)
Your rationale is sound.
My alternative:
There might be the surprise olive branch, with China breathing down their necks. Then they could be Gadaffi'd out of business.
Or, nice palace military coup with a few years of malaise wouldn't be too rough, although crappy for the civilians. Then, a pseudo-democratic autocracy, followed by a more popular revolution when people actually get some food in their tummies.
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:4, Interesting)
When the rules of the game prevent victory, youchange the rules.
In this case, you either give up on nuclear disarmament (personally I don't think nukes themselves are problematic, just the size and particularly number we have), or you give up on the North Korean people (personally I favor precision missile strikes against their leadership and military threats).
Or we find a new method - I would think negotiation would work better if we openly recognized that, without China propping them up, NK would have collapsed decades ago - so we need to figure out what China wants out of the deal. Simply put, they're worried about the big US army that's been stationed there, just as they were during the Korean War. So, oddly, negotiation could probably proceed without either of the Koreas at the table - just China and the US. Get the US to pull out the 8th Army in exchange for China dropping all support for NK, and we'd be getting somewhere. NK would then either quickly starve, or would start listening when we tell them to knock it off.
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:4, Interesting)
This sounds good, but that would be absolutely terrible for Japan. Remember, Japan isn't allowed a standing army or navy (officially). They do have the JSDF and the JMSDF, but both forces wouldn't be able to protect them in all out war, which is what their insecure about. Japan is a major trading partner, and they're going to throw a fit if we make them feel vulnerable. There's been a lot of saber rattling between Japan and China in the last few months over minor islands of little value. If we appear to be too chummy with China over diplomatic and military strategy, Japan's going to make a world of hurt for us since we're their ally in the saber rattling (unofficially)
Re: for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:3)
Change the rules...
I suggest a PR war. Isn't that what Americans are good at? At least at home... Jam/destroy/takeover broadcasting within the country, give the people a message that would actually help them help themselves. Hide messages in food/medical aid.... Basically out communicate the NK gov't.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming, that is, that North Korea is able to do so. I've seen some speculation by relatively-knowledgeable people about a Korean War that has South Korea winning it before the US even gets clearance from Washington to join in. I think that's a bit over-optimistic, but I don't doubt that if it were just South Korea versus just North Korea, the Korea with the main battle tanks, modern fighter jets and robotic sentry turrets will beat the Korea whose soldiers barely get a survival ration and whose rockets ha
Re: (Score:3)
In one sense yes, if they starve if we stop giving them food it's their own fault for not building the infrastructure to support themselves. But it also can be interpreted as our fault as well for getting them hooked on handouts in the first place and then withdrawing aid.
It really depends on which interpretation you choose. If you're willing to achieve your political goals at the expense of the innocent populous, it's easy to reason that the starvation of the people is the fault of the regime l. But on the
Re: (Score:3)
That can't work. Who's the next in line for Kim Jong Un? He's 26 and doesn't have a kid (or if he does it's a very young child). He wouldn't have died of natural causes other than congenital defects or accidentally. Both notoriously hard to replicate in an assassination attempt. The death for any reason of Kim Jong Un would be blamed on us. The next guy would likely be a military officer. His death would probably only be explainable as assassination.
It's not that simple or easy. Even unhealthily hea
The new HSBC (Score:2)
Macau's Banco Delta Asia, the new HSBC for hiding your money.
Re:The new HSBC (Score:5, Funny)
I'm shocked, shocked ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Every Year (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's breaking a cease-fire. What they were trying to do was cancel it in a more politically-friendly way. You've played Civilization, right?
Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise they send you a strongly worded letter. Ask Mr Brix about that.
Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.
Yep, ask anyone with a sibling or kids... "Mom, he's touching me again!!!" "Northie, I thought I told you..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.
No one said otherwise. It's easy to contradict something that wasn't actually said. (And on Slashdot, apparently it's "insightful".)
What cannot be done unilaterally is cancelling the armistice agreement. North Korea is legally bound by it, no matter what they say, and subject to still more sanctions if they violate it.
Yes, they can break the cease-fire, as they have several times before; but that's violating their agreement, not cancelling it.
China supports them.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they wont at least freeze the funds, then they are supporting North Korea and all they stand for. China would benefit from a war between Korea and the USA. they can sell to both sides.
If you dont agree, then what is your reason as to why they wont freeze the funds?
Re:China supports them.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:China supports them.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
if you freeze the funds then the country tanks and you have a flood of very poor people into your country.
-nb
Cut off line == didn't answer (Score:2)
"We called at 9 a.m. and there was no response," a government official from South Korea said. The line is tested each day."
Maybe they were all doing a duck-and-cover drill at the time and couldn't answer the phone?
Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (Score:3)
Re:Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (Score:5, Informative)
China likes to have a client state as a buffer between them and South Korea.
Culturally it would be a problem for NK to be adsorbed into China - Korea and China have been hostile towards each other for thousands of years. Their cultures are quite different.
I spent a little time in South Korea a few years ago; one thing that my hosts were adamant on was the eventual re-unification of North and South, much like Germany was re-unified.
The depravity of conditions in NK are a great shame. This picture is the best illustration of it I have seen:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2012/12/new-highly-detailed-image-north-koreas-lack-electrical-infrastructure/4201/ [theatlanticcities.com]
Unfortunately that little dog is developing a nuclear bite. Combine that with conditions in NK and you have potential for great disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
..nuclear bite..
Yeah, the worst-case scenario I've imagined involves them attempting to launch a nuclear missle, only to have it massively malfunction, never leave North Korea, and detonate. Then the rest of the world would have to deal with the literal fallout of their insanity.
Re:Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S. or any number of other countries could smash them flat in no time at all
That's just not true. They have a huge military and a fanatic populace. There would be no massive surrender of troops like in Iraq. Every exercise I've seen for NK involved magicking away several corps and divisions from naval gunfire or some crap to make the scenario plausible. (I am an intelligence analyst)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/kpa-orbat.htm
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they have a fanatic populace? Have you been there? How do you know most people believe everything their government tells them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So patriotism is what you are referring to as fanaticism? If so then the US also has a fanatic populace. Was anyone suggesting that North Koreans wouldn't fight a foreign invader? Obviously the whole country isn't just going to surrender without a fight.
Re: (Score:3)
is that you just catching on to that?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/arts/television/doomsday-preppers-and-doomsday-bunkers-tv-reality-shows.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/aug/30/america-religious-fundamentalists-rewrite-history [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
And that worked so well for them in 1950, eh?
Oh, wait, they got driven back to the Yalu, and the Chinese had to save their asses....
Note that what we have in Korea right now is more than what we had there at the start of the Korean War.
And our equipment is better as well, both comparatively and absolutely (for example, in 1950, the American tanks available in/near Korea were Shermans, the North Koreans used t-34/85. Now it's Abrams vs T80, maybe. Ditto aircraft - Mustangs and Corsairs vs Mig-15 at fi
Ah diplomats (Score:5, Insightful)
claims that it has canceled the 1953 Armistice although the UN notes this cannot be done unilaterally
Only in the imagination of diplomats is unilateral cancellation of an armistice impossible. The rest of us know what the North Koreans know; that they can start shooting anytime they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they can start shooting at any time. But they can't say they are canceling the armistice then continue to comply with the armistice. There is no question they could start shooting, but they have no intention of doing so. Claiming they are withdrawing from the treaty every year then continuing to abide by it proves they can't withdraw from it unilaterally then pretend they didn't a month later.
They aren't withdrawing, they are just saying they are. Anyone with common sense can see that is the case until
Re: (Score:2)
But they can't say they are canceling the armistice then continue to comply with the armistice.
Why not? Just because they *appear* to be complying with a contract does not mean that they are following a contract. Maybe they aren't interested in physical combat and instead start attacking vital systems of South Korea, US, etc. Wouldn't that be the same thing?
Re:Ah diplomats (Score:4, Insightful)
This also made me laugh. Any international agreement relies on all parties adhering to it to function. If one party in a two party agreement decides to ignore it entirely, then the legal fabrications of a powerless third party are kind of meaningless. As you say, North Korea can start shooting anytime they want, and waving around the armistice saying "You can't do this, this armistice is still in force!" is worse than useless.
Ultimately, any sanctions the UN might try to impose are limited to individual nations' willingness to adhere to them, and since China is the source of the majority of all North Korean imports, it largely comes down to if China is willing to adhere to them. If China cuts off North Korea, they'd collapse pretty quickly, but China doesn't want millions of refugees flooding their borders any more than anybody else would want that...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not all that convinced that North Korea can effectively invade South Korea. Do serious damage to Seoul, sure. But South Korea's active armed forces aren't that much smaller than North Korea (640k SK plus 29k USFK) versus 1,106k), South Korea's military is enormously better equipped (they have far greater force multiplication), is far healthier and better fed, and South Korea would enjoy total air superiority (North Korea's air force exists largely on paper). On top of that, South Korea could help on add
Re: (Score:2)
In the mean time, they have their fingers in their ears yelling "I CAN NOT HEAR YOU!" over and over. They are just throwing a fit because they don't like that the rest of the world (sans China in some ways) told them to stop being stupid by poking the bear, stop trying to build a nuclear weapon and long range rockets so we can let you play.
All we do now is sit back and ignore the provocation unless they actually do start shooting at which point we had better be ready. Any conflict needs to be two things:
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to be quick? The only way to insure a quick conflict is to walk away after whatever your time limit is. Based on the previous Korean War I don't think 'quick' would be in the cards.
The phone line wasn't cut off (Score:5, Funny)
"We called at 9 a.m. and there was no response," a government official from South Korea said. The line is tested each day.
With their assets now frozen, they weren't able to pay the phone bill.
Comedy Theater trying to save face.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I see this type of stuff from NK as a face-saving measure, with more focus aimed at their own people.
The fact that the rest of the world pays attention is just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:3)
A lesson for Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lack of concrete action against NK might be a lesson for Iran.
If you don't want to be fucked with, actually having nukes is the best bet.
Re:A lesson for Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crude, innacurate, short range nukes are not the reason NK hasn't been attacked. This is all just talk: the barking of a dog that doesn't bite. The rest of the world is aware of this. There is no reason for anyone to attack them. Aside from that there is the problem that any war with NK is likely to result in, at the very least, a Seoul that consists mostly of rubble and, again, that isn't in anyone's best interest.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that's the lesson most countries learned from both Pakistan (a country with nukes) and Iraq and Desert Storm I and II (a country without nukes). It's why both Iran and North Korea are so desperate for nukes. They know they've got crosshairs aimed in their direction, and they want something to discourage the U.S. from pulling the trigger.
Kim Jong's Un's demands released (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stop it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, people still remember the Cue:Cat. :-)
I have two, and I used one a month ago. Not on a C64, on a real computer.
I wasn't the one who came up with all the privacy-invading uses.
Ummm, it read bar codes. Wasn't that it? And you actually had to rub the cat over the object being read. Now I have an app on my phone that does much more. Is it a privacy invading app, too? I can see what book you're holding, why is it a problem if I can also scan the ISBN?
What privacy invading issues might you be referring to?
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Funny)
Atari user detected.
Ah, the vaunted CueCat (Score:4, Informative)
What privacy invading issues might you be referring to?
Each CueCat has a unique identifier that is appended to the scanned encrypted data. The original software was designed to track you based on everything you scanned.
Unfortunately for Digital Innovations, their ub3r 1337 h4x0r engineers decided that "base64 encoding + constant XOR == encryption". Fail. [oilcan.org] So, alternate software was quickly created to decode CueCat output, and the CueCats were thus rendered simple, free barcode scanners.
In retrospect, this whole debacle may have been the first lolcat. Heh.
Re: (Score:2)
Each CueCat has a unique identifier that is appended to the scanned encrypted data. The original software was designed to track you based on everything you scanned.
Oh, yeah. I remember now. I never used that software, I used the perl script.
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Atomic weapons glow enough to be seen from space.
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? If it's enriched uranium the decay mode is alpha particles. The wikipedia page has a photo of someone holding a disc of highly enriched U-235 with a pair of rubber gloves.
If it's Plutonium then the decay mode will still be alpha.
Out have I just been successfully trolled?
Re: (Score:2)
lead-lined shipping container. in a submarine
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
6-7 kT, as I recall reading about their last test.
So not even up to where we were in 1945.
If we assume that their bomb is about the size of Fatman or Little Boy, then they don't have a plane capable of carrying it, even if they were inclined to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Just that citizens of a corrupt communist regime believe everything their government tells them? Let me assure you that that is not the case.
Re: (Score:3)
Nukes. And, sharks with lasers. And guns. And missiles (or the lack thereof). Global Thermonuclear Warfare.
Not to mention, we like discussing douches, whether they are from SCO, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, the US government, the UK government, or the North Korean government.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
The answer is on the front page, just a couple stories down: Apple sues Samsung. Perhaps you're familiar with the quote "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" (Charles Erwin Wilson, though that's not actually what he said). That's even more true in South Korea which is, more or less, a subsidiary of the Samsung Group.
Steve Jobs promised thermonuclear war and if he can't get it in the courts, he'll get it on the battlefield.
Side node: by now it should be clear that Steve Jobs is not actually dead -- if he was, his embalmed body would be on display.
There was a mystery passenger on Eric Schmidt's visit to North Korea. Could it have been Steve Jobs, offering iPads in exchange for war on South Korea?
Much like animals sensing a storm and fleeing a storm before it arrives, Apple has been diversifying their supply lines so as not to use any parts from South Korea. Could they know something that we don't?
Re: (Score:3)
He violated the cease fire agreement. I'd say that counts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. The bigger issue, aside from China is that while Iraq was supposedly building WMDs, North Korea actually has them.
Re: (Score:2)
If he had one, that might be a valid question.