Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
North Korea's Nukes and North Korea's Neighbors

By circletimessquare in Op-Ed
Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: not gonna end well (all tags)

North Korea announced recently that it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon. Watch this map. And watch these seismic activities. Assuming verification by its neighbors, this is not going to end well for the region. A South Korean is set to assume stewardship of the United Nations, and the Koreas are already shooting at each other. Foes China and Japan are getting more friendly and expressing joint concern. The New York Times covers the growing political turmoil.


Contrary to North Korean propaganda, North Korea having nukes has more to do with Russia, Japan, China, and South Korea than it does with the United States. Northeast Asia is currently the most economically dynamic area of the world. And yet, in the center of this region sits a basket case. A country in a cult of personality throwback to the early 1950s, still fighting the Korean War.

While China continues its relentless march to economic modernity and eventual superiority, while South Korea has the most advanced internet culture in the world, and while Japan is pretty much the most advanced nation on the planet, according to a number of measures (GNP, life expectancy, etc), North Korea keeps its citizens in prisoner camps, rummaging for leaves to eat, while it focuses every ounce of its words to the world and every drop of its resources on military belligerence. And counterfeiting currency. And making methamphetamine. And now nukes.

North Korea can easily kill a quarter million people in Seoul anytime it wanted to with conventional weapons in a couple of hours. Its rockets could carry a number of nasty things to Tokyo very easily. And now nukes.

I really don't see North Korea's neighbors tolerating this scenario much longer. I don't see how they can. China has been reluctant to muzzle its maddog little psycho neighbor since it frightens the hated Japanese more than anyone else, but surely China can see now how North Korea's insane belligerence threatens China's economy just as much as it gives the Japanese nightmares. And North Korea, famously, when presented a line in the sand, does all it can do to cross it. But going nuclear may be a line in the sand it should not have crossed, if self-preservation was ever its goal. But self-preservation never seems to have been North Korea's goal. More like a headlong rush into self-realized armageddeon.

I don't see this ending well, I really don't. Don't go to Seoul or Tokyo for awhile folks, I'm really worried about Northeast Asia right now, I don't see this ending well. North Korea has too much of a deathwish. And now nukes.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o successful ly tested a nuclear weapon
o Watch this map
o And watch these seismic activities
o set to assume stewardship of the United Nations
o the Koreas are already shooting at each other
o expressing joint concern
o growing political turmoil
o the most advanced internet culture in the world
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
North Korea's Nukes and North Korea's Neighbors | 265 comments (222 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden)
Indeed.../nt (1.66 / 6) (#2)
by mybostinks on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 11:43:36 PM EST



We Need a Hero (2.50 / 4) (#7)
by Gruntathon on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:32:45 AM EST

To take down the North Korean Government. Like James Bond did.
__________
If they hadn't been such quality beasts (despite being so young) it would have been a nightmare - good self-starting, capable hands are your finest friend. -- Anonymous CEO
i nominate hugo chavez nt (2.66 / 3) (#8)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:36:08 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
he'd do a better job than the Shrub in Chief. (none / 1) (#210)
by shm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:02:17 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Kim Jong Il is doing a splendid job (2.42 / 7) (#48)
by Entendre Entendre on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:03:03 AM EST

His methods differ from those of Bond, though.

--
Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.
[ Parent ]

activity? (2.00 / 4) (#9)
by CAIMLAS on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:40:55 AM EST

There's a 4.2 recorded on that seismic activity map for Monday, October 9, 2006 at 01:35:27 (UTC), at a depth of 0km. I wonder if that means anything.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

most definitely nt (none / 1) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:43:28 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
One actor is still missing in this story (2.60 / 5) (#11)
by United Fools on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:52:20 AM EST

Where are the Muslims?

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
worried, just like everyone else (2.57 / 7) (#12)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:55:28 AM EST

unless you are talking about the 0.0001% of muslims, the militant muslim FANATICS, that's a different story

they're in pyongang, trying to buy some plutonium


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think you meant to ask: (2.00 / 2) (#188)
by sllort on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:44:50 AM EST

Where is the Muslim outrage?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Wondering if it's haraam or halal to buy nukes (none / 1) (#224)
by shm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:54:58 PM EST

from slanty eyed commie kafirs.

[ Parent ]
Not the Muslim angle, (none / 1) (#249)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:48:55 PM EST

but I'm really curious as to the extent of AQ Khan's involvement in the North Korean bomb.

As an aside, most people don't realize that Muslim involvement in nuclear weapons is already here; Muslims have, on both sides of the Wagah border, been involved in making the bomb. (Obviously, neither were involved as Muslims of the Islamic civilization, as much as they were involved as Indian and Pakistani nationals, but heck.)

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]

Absolute crap (1.85 / 7) (#13)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:03:48 AM EST

You misunderstand almost everything about East Asian (NOT North Asian) politics.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

please enlighten us oh great genius swami (none / 1) (#16)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:10:01 AM EST

or shut the fuck up


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Kim Jong Il... (3.00 / 5) (#21)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:52:21 AM EST

...does not want a war, as he realises that any such conflict would quickly escalate out of his control and result in the destruction of his little sandbox.

What he's done is ante up in the high-stakes poker game being played out in East Asia.

  • China wants economic and political dominance of the region.
  • Japan wants to keep what influence it has and not bend over for China.
  • South Korea wants to keep China happy and avoid a major conflict.
  • North Korea (or rather KJI) wants its neighbours to bolster its failing economy.
  • The US just wishes the whole thing would quietly go away.

He's blackmailing the countries involved to obtain strings-free economic aid in return for not causing any further problems. China would be embarrassed by NK showing that it is no longer under Beijing's thumb, Japan is scared shitless as they know they're far more likely to be targeted in a limited strike than South Korea is, South Korea wants to prove that it can work things out with its dark half without the US or Japan breathing down its neck, and the US is trying to keep KJI from showing that they don't have the resources to police the region.

It wouldn't surprise me whether the DPRK had detonated a nuke or whether they just set off a big pile of conventional explosives. What counts for them is not the military value of owning nukes, but the diplomatic currency it generates in any upcoming negotiations.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

you've made a wrong assumption (2.40 / 5) (#24)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:05:15 AM EST

that a nation that starves its citizens in order to build up its military to completely unnecessary levels does anything reasonable

you are assuming some sort of cold intelligent calculus in north korea's game

if there were anything "intelligent" about north korea's actions, it would worry more about taking care of its own citizens first! you know: stability? making your people happy so they support you? wacky idea there huh?

are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that north korea is some sort of cuba? playing off its big neighbors with wit and intelligence? dude: cuba takes care of its people. cuba has friends in the region and the world. cuba actually cares about social progress. sure, its communist ideology is fucked and archaic, but it is still trying to remain true to the actual idea that gee, i dunno, wacky concept: a country should fucking take care of its people?!

dude: what the FUCK does the DPRK care about other than kim il jong's ego? do you know what fucking goes on in the DPRK to the poor souls that live there?!

you're wrong, completely wrong. your analysis has a fatally wrong assumption about the DPRK's motivations

namely, you assume rationality where there is none


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Uh-huh. (2.83 / 6) (#27)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:15:36 AM EST

Because anybody who opposes the ALMIGHTY WESTERN WORLD must be completely out of his gourd, right?

I don't know if you've noticed, but Kim Jong Il is actually quite diplomatically savvy in his use of the tensions between the other countries in the region. He's not barmy, just totally self-centred.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

you've just restated what you already said (2.00 / 4) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:27:10 AM EST

and tried to pigeonhole me as a western apologist, which i'm not

so: same statements, same counterstatement...

you've made a wrong assumption. that such continuously excessive belligerence is rational in anyway

the central role of a government should be the welfare of its people. the insane thing is that north korea's neighbours would pump investment into the country if kim jong il would let them

if he took the reverse tactic, and STOPPED scaring the crap out of the pants of all of his neighbors, then north korea would benefit a thousand times more than its current tack

but what did you say?: "Kim Jong Il is actually quite diplomatically savvy in his use of the tensions between the other countries in the region"

so if my neighbors come by with a pie, and i point a gun at them and say keep the pies coming or i blow your wife away, in your estimation that's "diplomatically savvy"?

gee, i dunno, maybe if i took the pie, thanked them, and then offered to let them park their cars in my driveway if they mow my lawn, i benefit a lot more, no?

that's called cooperation

that's called rational

and that's called "savvy"

ergo: you're wrong


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ergo: You're an asshat. (2.20 / 5) (#31)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:37:54 AM EST

Shame on me for forgetting that.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
wow, nice come back (1.33 / 3) (#32)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:44:03 AM EST

man, you've totally destroyed my argument (snicker)

i take your nonresponse as an admission that you are wrong

so thanks for playing moron, you lose

xoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Could have predicted that one, too. (2.80 / 5) (#36)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:49:01 AM EST

You do realise that people post these sort of replies not because they concede the point, but rather because they're tired of arguing with a ranting maniac like yourself?
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
i AM a ranting maniac (1.66 / 3) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:54:37 AM EST

however, i'm a ranting maniac who seems to understand the situation in the far east better than you

i stated a logical coherent argument dismantling your flawed assumption. twice. you did not reply coherently, you merely restated oyur original argument, then degenerated into attacking me personally

and as most everyone knows, this is the last resort of a loser

rahter than debate me on the issue, you attack me. because you are bankrupt on the issue

so how's it feel to lose an online argument to a ranting maniac?

;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

"Logical coherent argument"? (3.00 / 4) (#43)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:58:20 AM EST

Is that some sort of asshat code for "unsupported claims"?
Because it's painfully obvious you know fuck all about the DPRK's diplomatic manouverings over the last few years.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
right, that brings us back to square one (1.50 / 4) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:08:26 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/10/8/23367/7587/13#13

then i challenged you to support that claim

you did

then i pointed out a flawed assumption on your part

then you restated your initial rationale

so i restated the flaw in your assumption again

then you degenerated into name calling rather than arguing the issue, because you couldn't bring yourself to admit your flaw

...and now we're back at square one

one would hope that at some point you admit your flawed assumption, but i don't see a jackass like you doing that anytime soon

you're really a big man

just a bunch of more personal attacks is all that is coming from you

zzz...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No... (2.85 / 7) (#57)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:22:06 AM EST

...you stated that Kim Jong Il is not rational.
You've met him? Spoken with him? Sucked his dick, maybe?

If not, then you have no objective criteria to base your judgement on other than the actions of his government, which means you're in exactly the same situation as me.

And seen from where I am, he's not only managed to keep the Japanese government bamboozled regarding the innumerable kidnappings he's conducted along Japan's coasts for years, he's also got the South Korean government telling Japan that they shouldn't be getting so worked up about a few little ballistic missile tests, China running interference for him in the UN, and the US doing its very best to ignore everything he does.

If that's not called diplomatic savvy, I don't know what is.

But I guess that sort of thing didn't make the papers much where you are, even though you somehow feel confident enough in your expert knowledge of the political realities of the East Asian region to write a story about it.

Well done, sir! I salute your indomitable ignorance and rocklike stupidity!

(snicker)
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

(slaps forehead) (1.60 / 5) (#63)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:46:20 AM EST

so uh... about those kidnappings and ballistic missile tests:

is that "diplomatically savvy"?

see, i'm a silly wacky kind of guy. my whole concept of diplomacy is to have good relations with your neighbors. excuse me if i'm kinda loopy that way. i know, it's a really wacky far out concept on my part. bear with me for a moment

but by your logic, the dprk is diplomatically savvy because although did something INCREDIBLY DIPLOMATICALLY STUPID (the missiles and kidnappings you talk about), they are "savvy" because their neighbors don't do anything about it

is that your idea of being diplomatically savvy?

are you for fucking real?

by your OWN LOGIC, china and japan would be "diplomatically savvy" if they threatened each other with nuclear war all the time, every day

really oh great genius?????????????????????

savvy means understanding

diplomacy means managing your relations

so gee, i dunno oh great einstein: one would htink that if someone were SAVVY about their diplomacy they would have BETTER relations if they DIDN'T THREATEN EVERYONE ALL OF THE TIME

i know, i'm really wacky that way

but what do i know? i'm just armchair analyst, right?

unlike you, the exalted genius on all things east asian right?

so yeah, ps: you can criticize my ability to comment on north korea as being inferior, just as soon as you show some fucking credentials to comment yourself, oh great genius

"you don't have the right to comment on north korea"

"why?"

"because i said so"

"who are you"

"some random asshole on the internet"

"oh ok, sorry about that"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Says some random asshole on the Internet. (2.75 / 4) (#74)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:20:54 AM EST

Well done.

Obviously the DPRK isn't looking to get buddy-buddy with any of its neighbours because that would almost certainly result in its dissolution as an independent state.

Or are you so stupid as to think the people of the DPRK have much say in its diplomatic policies? Maybe you are.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

yes, i am a random asshole on the internet (1.40 / 5) (#75)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:25:11 AM EST

and this is the way it works:

you: "this is what i believe"
me: "you are wrong for the following reasons"

versus your way

me: "this is what i believe"
you: "shut up, you have no right to talk"

understand fuckwit?

meanwhile:

"Obviously the DPRK isn't looking to get buddy-buddy with any of its neighbours because that would almost certainly result in its dissolution as an independent state."

uh... what?

the stupidity gets mindnumbing

what the fuck is that supposed to mean, oh great genius


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So you're now into the... (2.66 / 3) (#78)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:45:54 AM EST

..."ignore what I said and just keep repeating the same bullshit over and over again" phase of your rant, are you?

READ WHAT I SAID

DON'T POST KNEEJERK RANTS ABOUT WHATEVER YOUR FUCKED-UP BRAIN THINKS I SAID

Go back and read it. I'll wait.

Oh no, I forgot, you're completely incapable of admitting you don't have the faintest fucking idea of what you're talking about.

And while you're at it, try thinking a bit, will you? It gets tiring having to argue with a three-year-old.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

rephrase (1.20 / 5) (#80)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:57:09 AM EST

"Obviously the DPRK isn't looking to get buddy-buddy with any of its neighbours because that would almost certainly result in its dissolution as an independent state."

is fucking stupid, absurd, wrong, idiotic, illogical, illucid, incoherent

am i making myself clear enough to you now halfwit?

but i didn't say that at first

at first i asked you to explain why you think this, partly out of a desire to find something laugh at


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So now who's name calling? (2.60 / 5) (#86)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:11:08 AM EST

If you think it's so absurd, then please post your analysis of what would happen to the DPRK in the following scenarios:

  1. It asks the PRC to intervene and get it out of this mess.
  2. It goes on bended knee to South Korea and asks to be reintegrated.

In case 1, the PRC rips the heart out of KJI's government and replaces it with a puppet.
In case 2, the DPRK is overwhelmed by the massive economic disparity between the two countries.

Get it now? The DPRK is a BLACKMAILER, out for a quick buck to prop up the regime.
Now let's hear your no doubt laughable ideas, dipshit.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

i am: you're a moron (1.28 / 7) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:13:27 AM EST

this isn't a flailing about latching onto random negative terms. you are stupid, you a moron, based upon a clear-headed analysis of the drunken words you've written here

it's not name calling. it's cogent anaylsis: you are stupid. low iq. a cretin. ignorant

that's not name calling. BJH: you are stupid. and calling you stupid is not a random insult. calling you stupid is a valid characterization of your words, calling you stupid is based on the quality of thought you have displayed in these threads

now: the dprk can choose to exist peacefully with its neighbors. it doesn't HAVE to act belligerent. and it will then continue to exist

do you understand this vast shocking possibility dear halfwit?

i know its hard for you to consider this stupefying concept of a country not choosing to threaten and cajole its neighbors constantly

additionally, it must be equally impossible for you to consider the possibility that constant blackmailing might bring it closer to dissolution

here, your words again dear cretin:

"Obviously the DPRK isn't looking to get buddy-buddy with any of its neighbours because that would almost certainly result in its dissolution as an independent state."

tell me where i am wrong turdbrain: you are telling us in your words above that north korea living in peace with its neighbors means it will dissolve. and now on your following post above you further elucidate, through the vast powers of your intellect, that constant blackmailing ensures its longevity

ah i see! silly canada, look at it dissolve into nothing! it's been peaceful with the usa for decades, but that's obviously the path ot dissolution for canada, right? i mean if canada wants ot continue to exist, it must threaten to nuke the usa every day in flowery poetic terms, right?

am i understanding you wrong oh great exalted genius?

you're telling us that a country constantly threatening its neighbors means it survives, but trying to live quietly in peace with its neighbors means it dissolves

is this your godlike nugget of supreme wisdom you have for us here oh great genius?

;-P

keep it up moron, you're very entertaining ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ah, I see. (2.71 / 7) (#110)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:56:41 AM EST

"YOU call me names; I give you cogent analysis of your stupidity."

Usual cts bullshit, one rule for you, one for everybody else.

If you're saying the DPRK and Canada are the same, then perhaps you shouldn't slag me off for comparing the DPRK and Cuba. Oh, that's right, I didn't do that, but you slagged me off for it anyway. I'll say one thing for you, you don't let reality get in the way of your stupidity.

Look, it's very easy to understand; the DPRK does not want war. It has dug itself into a hole; it has no friends, it has no money, but it does have a lot of weapons. It wants money in return for giving up (or pretending to give up) its weapons. A nuclear test is a very good way to get the surrounding countries nervous, and thus more willing to make concessions in the next round of talks (sort of like the time the US was willing to give it nuclear reactors in return for giving up on a weapons program - remember that, genius?).

If, by some infinitesimal chance, a rational thought happens to cross what you call your mind, you might realise that PANIC IS EXACTLY WHAT KJI WANTS. The more people yell and scream about what the DPRK might do with its weapons, the bigger the stick it has to bash the other participants in the six-countries talks.

Well done, you've played right into his hands with your half-assed alarmist bullshit story. Now go crawl back into your hole while the adults talk, OK?
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Umm...they only had one (2.00 / 3) (#124)
by l1ttledrummerb0y2 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:09:07 AM EST

So I know I really shouldn't get involved between you two lovebirds, but if this were the best course of action for NK then what are they going to use to defend themselves if Japan, SK, and USA take this seriously and actually decide to invade. That whole axis of evil thingy? We all took it like a joke but I think teh US gvt is pretty serious about it and we most definitely have combat scenarios for a rogue nation with nuclear capability...the long and short of it is that now that they don't have a bomb to threaten us with for a little bit, it would be a wonderful time to preemptively bend them over.

[ Parent ]
hmm perhaps... (2.75 / 4) (#134)
by kromagg on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:35:52 PM EST

The US is currently involved in an international war on 2 fronts and getting ready to add a third (Iran);  the last thing they need is a war in east asia. So while the possibility is certainly there for an invasion, the US might be more willing to reach some sort of economic settlement to avoid getting bogged down in North Korea. I don't think the US really has the money to start yet another war, and certainly not in yet another area of the world. The local powers might think otherwise but they all seem a bit too fragmented on the issue.

[ Parent ]
japan (2.50 / 2) (#149)
by l1ttledrummerb0y2 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:29:42 PM EST

but it doesn't even have to be the US...if we were to threaten china with economic sanctions, would they be all that supportive of NK? with china out of the way, sk and japan would make short work of nk

[ Parent ]
first (3.00 / 4) (#153)
by tetsuwan on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:17:52 PM EST

South Korea and Japan will not fight on the same side against North Korea unless NK attacks them both at the same time.

Second, as been stated ten times in this story and thousands of times elsewhere, NK could more or less wipe out South Korea's biggest city Seoul in 24 hours with conventional artillery. South Korea is becoming an affluent industrial country, while North Korea still is more or less a bunker. SK has a lot more to lose in a conflict.

Thus NK can continue to blackmail SK and Japan for no strings monetary (and humanitarian) aid. All this helps KJI to stay in power and in full control of all the resources NK has.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Japan can't attack. (2.33 / 3) (#171)
by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:33:35 PM EST

Go read its constitution; it's legally impossible for them to attack another country in anything other than self-defence.

There's currently a domestic debate in Japan regarding the legality of pre-emptive strikes, but there's considerable local resistance to that and it would still require an amendment of the constitution.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

lol not anymore (3.00 / 2) (#186)
by fenix down on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:27:44 AM EST

The new Prime Minister's campaign promise was to ammend the consitution by 2011 to make it legal for him to start invading people again.

It's all part of his brilliant plan to make all those places they invaded last time "trust and love" Japan.  Other ways he plans to get everybody to trust and love him include:

  • Crusading to make Japan's schoolchildren less individualistic by making them pledge allegiance to Japan every morning and sending them to manditory national pride classes
  • Rebuilding closer ties between Shinto and the government
  • Arguing that it was wrong of the US to execute the guy that led the Rape of Nanking
  • Occasionally implying that he believes the Emperor is part God.

    [ Parent ]
  • Campaign promise? (3.00 / 2) (#190)
    by BJH on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:58:36 AM EST

    What campaign? There's no general election to select the PM, he's chosen within the ruling party.
    If you're talking about his initial address to Parliament, what he actually said was this:

    日米同盟がより効果的 に機能し、平和が維持 されるようにするため 、いかなる場合が憲法 で禁止されている集団 的自衛権の行使に該当 するのか、個別具体的 な例に即し、よく研究 してまいります。

    which translates to something like:

    "In order to allow the Japan-America alliance to function more effectively and to support peace, I will closely study what cases could be categorised as the enaction of group self-defence as forbidden by the constitution, based on individual and concrete examples."

    Doesn't sound much like what you said. I certainly don't support a right-wing drift in Japanese politics, but I also don't jump up and down about something that isn't likely to happen without a catastrophic military attack on Japan.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    Impossible for the US to invade. (none / 1) (#262)
    by Russell Dovey on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 10:16:59 PM EST

    The government of the US doesn't have the manpower, nor the political capital, or the diplomatic capital  to start a war when they know that the first act of retaliation by NK MUST BE the destruction of Seoul, and the deaths of at least a hundred thousand of its citizens.

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
    [ Parent ]

    this thread made me hard. (1.75 / 8) (#87)
    by Unski on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:11:38 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Kim Jong Il is not rational (2.00 / 5) (#72)
    by United Fools on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:36:09 AM EST

    We have the proof. Look what he did in the 007 movie!

    We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
    [ Parent ]
    Except that (1.50 / 2) (#68)
    by tetsuwan on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:14:52 AM EST

    NK has nothing the west (or China) wants. All it has is a lot of weapons. They want to get paid for not using them. I've talked to many (loyal, nationalist) Chinese, and they don't think that an individual human life is worth anything. Thus, Kim might be rational, he just doesn't care about the welfare of his people. Just the welfare of him and his powerbase.

    Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
    [ Parent ]

    i stopped reading here (1.66 / 3) (#76)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:27:25 AM EST

    "I've talked to many (loyal, nationalist) Chinese, and they don't think that an individual human life is worth anything."

    the chinese don't value life

    you heard it here first on teh intarwebs

    i didn't read any further out of fear of exposure to anything possibly more stupid

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (2.88 / 9) (#121)
    by tetsuwan on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:57:39 AM EST

    That's how they explain away the millions that Mao sent to death. They reason that "since that was the least bad for China at the time, it is excusable." To a large extent, the affluent people in China view the common people as a continuous body of people with no individual rights. They feel strongly for this abstract body that is the ultimate strength of China, but the body is not dependent on individual parts.

    This idea was dominant in Japan too, but somehow it changed after the war. I've tried to dig into this matter, but I've not found any clear cut answer.

    You, cts, are a dangerous proponent for universalism, because you do not understand the heritage of your own values. You think you are promoting internationalism, but you are promoting a very American internationalism. You deny this by throwing out a volley of accusations and universalist one liners you haven't thought deeply about. Your denials don't make your supposedly culture-independent universalism any less American.

    Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
    [ Parent ]

    not specifically American (none / 1) (#133)
    by Delirium on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:32:36 PM EST

    American internationalism has a pretty direct lineage from Enlightenment European internationalism.

    I don't find it that odd, though. Not everyone believes in a sort of moral relativism where all values are equally good and we should let everyone hold whatever values they wish.

    [ Parent ]

    Precisely. [nt] (none / 0) (#85)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:03:56 AM EST


    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    Role of government... (2.80 / 5) (#115)
    by thejeff on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:10:53 AM EST

    The role of government should be the welfare of its people. The goal of a dictator is to hold onto power. Repressing your people and keeping them terrified of you is actually a pretty good way of doing that. (Let them get well-fed, happy and prosperous and the next thing you know they start demanding rights.)

    Kim Jong Il is a dictator and certainly not a benevolent one. That doesn't mean he's batshit insane. He's not going to start a war, or randomly nuke cities, because he knows North Korea will become a crater minutes later. Unless he thinks he's going to lose power anyway, in which case all bets are off.

    Your suggestions are all about what's best for NK.
    But are they best for Kim Jong Il?
     

    [ Parent ]

    uh... yeah (none / 1) (#197)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:54:54 AM EST

    and your point is?

    why would i disagree with that or why does what you said disagree with anything i said?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Because... (3.00 / 5) (#201)
    by thejeff on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 05:50:27 AM EST

    All your talk about how KJI isn't diplomatically savvy is about how NK would benefit if he reversed tactics.

    Since that's not his goal, he may be quite rational. Thus he's not likely to commit suicide by nuking Tokyo.

    [ Parent ]

    quite rational? (1.00 / 4) (#217)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:21:59 PM EST

    sorry, in my book quite rational would be concerning himself with the well-being of his people

    i mean, you can say a guy who goes into a high school and takes 20 kids hostage acts coldy, calculatingly, with great foresight and with great planning... that all of his dealings with the police are "quite rational", allowing how to hold out against the police for days

    except for that whole taking hostages in a high school part, know what i mean?

    so that hostage taker really isn't "quite rational" after all, get it?

    same with kin il jong: why not just let china and japan invest in north korea?

    gee, i dunno, maybe that's what EVERY OTHER LEADER IN THE WORLD would do

    but what do i know? kim il jong is "quite rational"

    pffffffffffft


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok (3.00 / 3) (#219)
    by thejeff on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:34:29 PM EST

    You're using a weird definition of rational, then. You seem to include something like "nice" or "responsible" or "benevolent". I'm thinking more of logical, not a raving lunatic, etc

    And then implying that since he's "not rational", he's likely to commit suicide by attacking other countries with nukes.

    So I'll leave "rational" out of it. He's evil, self-centered, brutal, etc. But I don't think any of his diplomatic actions suggest he's suicidal or so out of touch with reality that he can't be deterred.

    North Korea could have destroyed Seoul at any point in decades, but would have been wiped off the face of the map in return. What's really changed now?


    [ Parent ]

    if you buy my high school hostage taker allegory (1.25 / 4) (#221)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:48:14 PM EST

    maybe it will bring you pause about how many of them in recent news stories kill themselves after taking out a bunch of innocents

    see the problem yet with kim il jong?

    you honestly trust that guy to not do something unstable?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    analogy (2.66 / 3) (#233)
    by thejeff on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:51:01 PM EST

    I don't buy your high school hostage taker analogy.

    I haven't seen a motivation for any of those stories that isn't just nuts.

    Why do you think Kim Jong Il is crazy? What evidence, other than they are both capable of calculation and planning, leads to the analogy?

    Maybe a criminal type, but more like a ganglord or Mafia don than a crazed murderer.

    This guy's been in charge for more than a decade. He's in a position of luxury and power, even if it's ruling a small nasty pond. All his manuevering and diplomacy has been to keep himself there. Why do you think he's going to throw it away on a useless suicidal gesture?

    [ Parent ]

    ok WAIT (1.00 / 2) (#235)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:55:09 PM EST

    you don't buy my hostage taker analogy, but you want to say this guy is like the MAFIA

    actually i agree with you the mafia analogy

    ...and they are STABLE and SANE?!

    wtf?

    if we go with your analogy, you've supported my point! we should worry about the guys stability just as much!

    how do mafioso usually wind up?!

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Some of them end up dying peacful deaths (none / 1) (#253)
    by fn0rd on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:28:43 AM EST

    in bed in their luxurious mansions. Some of them end up shot on the street. Some of them end up in prison, where they lead fairly decent lives for an inmate compared to most. Very rarely do they commit suicide. Not everyone who evaluates the risk/reward calculus available to them differently than cts is insane. To judge whether KJI is nuts or not, you have to place yourself in his shoes. Consider how he was raised, groomed, and how his worldview has been shaped from the beginning if his life. The fact is that he's operating from a set of axioms so fundamentally different from those that the average westerner (or the average human being anywhere, for that matter) can identify with that, yes, to us he seems batshit insane. Within his value set he may be a perfectly sane, calculating, and intelligent actor, however. There's nothing in that background that I know about (I admit my knowledge is fairly sketchy here) that seems to lean towards suicide as a viable option. What does seem to be his main concern is maintaining his status as a demigod in his nation. To that end, he seems to be playing a rather masterful game of brinksmanship with very little in the way of resources, either natural or in the form of the goodwill of other nations, available to him. In the final analysis, whether or not he is insane doesn't even matter. What matters is whether his behavoir can be predicted (even insane people don't act at random, it just seems that way), manipulated, and contained. If it is possible to rid the world of him without risking a massacre in East Asia that's obviously the way to go, but in such a closed society it's very difficult to get close to him. The best we may be able to hope for is a military coup, but who's to say the new leader would be any better than the old? At least he couldn't be much worse.

    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    [ Parent ]

    liberal fantasyland (1.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Hung Three on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:19:52 PM EST

    America and Israel evuuuuul neocolonialist neocapitalist powers led by mindless religious fanatics.

    anyone who opposes them is a perfect rational agent acting for the benefit of humanity, indeed, THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.

    anyone who doesn't think so is clearly a brainless redneck racist capitalist lackey.

    --
    Behead those who insult Marx.
    [ Parent ]

    Nah... (none / 1) (#146)
    by thejeff on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:11:54 PM EST

    Not a "perfect rational agent acting for the benefit of humanity"

    But as rational as most and acting for his own benefit, yeah.

    Evil dictator, yes.
    Batshit raving lunatic, no.

    Thus capable of being deterred.

    It's not even MAD. It's relatively minor damage vs total annihilation.

    (By relatively minor, I mean a city or two. (Assuming they can get a launch mechanism worked out for their couple of little nukes.) Minor compared to what the USSR could have done.)


    [ Parent ]

    Please not to be putting words in my mouth. (none / 0) (#194)
    by BJH on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:26:51 AM EST


    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    BTW... (none / 0) (#28)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:18:48 AM EST

    ...please not to be totally contradicting yourself, OK? He's saying much the same thing as I am (even going so far to say the DPRK may turn into another Cuba), and you're sucking his dick.

    I know being consistent must be a strain for you, but try not to fail it too badly, eh?
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    where did i contradict myself? (none / 0) (#30)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:28:45 AM EST

    there's no contradictions there

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I know... (none / 0) (#35)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:46:36 AM EST

    ...that logic backed up by evidence hardly ever works with you, as you just switch to ALL CAPS RANT mode, but shall we start with this statement by you:

    "are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that north korea is some sort of cuba?"

    Compare and contrast with this comment from rlazur:

    "...it may just be that North Korea turns into what Cuba has been except with more aid and food flowing."

    I am unable to post a snippet of my comment discussing Cuba, since I didn't even mention it, but despite that fact, you jump all over me raving that the DPRK and Cuba are not in any way similar, but somehow manage to completely ignore the above comment when making your reply to rlazur.

    That is the contradiction I was talking about.

    Now FOAD.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    tired coherence lately? (none / 0) (#38)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:51:16 AM EST

    that's what someone else said, not me

    start again halfwit, this time try to focus on WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE

    good luck junior, i got faith in you! (snicker)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    An exercise in futility. (none / 1) (#40)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:55:18 AM EST

    I'm sorry to see you lack the short-term memory to recall that you got down on your knees and sucked rlazur's cock like candy in your reply to the post of his that I quoted, but somehow, I'm sure you will be able to overcome your handicap and post yet more shallow and pointless rants on k5 to feed your hunger for attention.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    oh yeah, i sucked that guys cock, right (1.50 / 2) (#42)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:57:06 AM EST

    i see now

    thanks for clearing that up for me

    (snicker)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Well done! (none / 1) (#46)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:00:00 AM EST

    You're doing very well for someone with your disabilities!
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    thanks, some advice: (1.50 / 2) (#47)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:02:23 AM EST

    you talk a lot about sucking cock and masochism. perhaps this site isn't your cup of tea. try some online dating sites, then come back to us when you're not so... frustrated

    good luck!


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    A lot? (none / 1) (#51)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:06:24 AM EST

    Only in my replies to your posts, cts honey.

    I guess you just bring out the worst in me with your sub-moronic ranting and inability to present a coherent and logical opinion.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    i see your problem now (1.50 / 2) (#54)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:10:22 AM EST

    you think THIS is the online dating site

    (creeping away slowly with a smile... then running away)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    who benefits? (none / 1) (#61)
    by CAIMLAS on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:40:44 AM EST

    from my look at the scenario, it looks like China benefits the most out of NK gaining nukes, as China is the most expansionist in the region. "We'll leave you alone KJI if you let us give you nukes, which you are to threaten Japan and SK with."
    --

    Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
    [ Parent ]

    Yeah... (none / 1) (#84)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:02:35 AM EST

    ...that's how China viewed it until recently, but that scenario only works out if they show to the world that they've got the DPRK on a short leash.

    Since China's now taken the rather unusual step of issuing a joint statement with Japan, I'd say they're getting a bit nervous now. Nuclear weapons were apparently not included in their scenario for political domination.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    East Asian Stability (2.33 / 6) (#19)
    by rlazur on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:41:53 AM EST

    I think it was pretty obvious that China would prove to have a greater role dealing with North Korea since 2002.  I had guessed that China would want to risk decreased trade with the West just to support North Korea as an ally, and would bully its neighbor into cooperating.  This seemed to be the case, but there is only so much you can accomplish through diplomacy.

    What I am interested in is if China's role will increase from merely diplomacy to military presence.  If so then this would be the perfect time for the U.S. to watch tInstead they entered as part of the "6 nation talks", and have been concerned with North Korea.he Chinese military in action since the 1970s.  However if there is the same sort of "talks" and agreements that have been taking place for the past several years than we're probably going to be in the same situation a year or two from now with a different threat.

    Although I don't see North Korea using nuclear weapons.  They struggle to provide food for the majority (despite Kim Jong Il's gourmet tastes).  I would definetely like to see some sort of outside intervention, but it may just be that North Korea turns into what Cuba has been except with more aid and food flowing.

    I admit it would be slightly amusing to have a warhead launched, explode, while the U.S. has its pants around its ankles dealing with the Middle East "threat".

    Oh, uh, I did enjoy the article.  Sort of MLPish with Op-ed, well done.

    thanks man, and kudos on china (2.25 / 4) (#20)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:47:42 AM EST

    this would be a great opportunity for china to suddenly turn around on the opinion of its little psycho neighbor and become a "unifier" of the korean peninsula, doing for korea what the west did for germany, and thereby extending its influence as well.

    all it would have to do is topple pyongang, and tell south korea to get rid of the dmz and roll up its sleeves with china and help them unite korea. south korea would immediately abandon the west, since reunification is so important to it, and china would be left with a slightly larger much less psycho and much more friendly little neighbor

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I sure hope you're right. (2.25 / 4) (#49)
    by Entendre Entendre on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:04:23 AM EST

    That's the most optimistic prediction I have ever seen. I'm not saying it's not realistic, just that the alternatives are pretty depressing.

    --
    Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.
    [ Parent ]

    yeah: mushroom cloud over tokyo :-( nt (2.00 / 2) (#53)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:09:20 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    All it would have to do? (2.50 / 2) (#112)
    by thejeff on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:58:41 AM EST

    China just waves its hands and Pyongang falls over?

    Doesn't use it's nukes, doesn't annihilate Seoul with conventional weapons?

    Kim just surrenders and hands over everything to SK?

    How do you suggest China do this, without starting a bloodbath?

    [ Parent ]

    Assumption (none / 0) (#151)
    by rlazur on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:03:09 PM EST

    I don't think he ever made that assumption that China could take over Kim's North Korea without a military presence.  That's why he was all sad at the end of the Op-ed.  I think however that China will prevent any military escalation in East Asia simply by trying its best to act diplomatically.  This won't solve the problems North Korea and its people face, but will probably emulate a situation like what we have with Cuba.

    [ Parent ]
    Military presence? (none / 1) (#156)
    by thejeff on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:53:01 PM EST

    That's a euphemism for major land war, right?

    Sure China would win, but it wouldn't be a walk in the park. And I can't see any reason for NK not to use whatever nukes it has in that situation.
    South Korea want reunification, but not with a Chinese occupied North Korea.

    The post I replied to sounds much more like some kind of fairy tale diplomatic solution where China banishes the evil Kim and then North and South Korea are reunited and everyone lives happily ever after.

    [ Parent ]

    Give KJI immunity and a luxurious exile. (none / 0) (#263)
    by Russell Dovey on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 10:24:41 PM EST

    Make him the local governor of some shitty mountain district in the northwest of China.

    Make sure that he knows that the alternative is a full-on Chinese military invasion.

    He'll play ball.

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
    [ Parent ]

    So tell me... (3.00 / 3) (#23)
    by the77x42 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:00:10 AM EST

    Since when was North Korea a threat? Is it poised to invade anyone? Where is the justification for its nullification?


    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    why are you asking me? (1.50 / 2) (#25)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:06:17 AM EST

    why don't you just google for what the fucking government of north korea actually says?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting topic (1.85 / 7) (#33)
    by V on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:44:06 AM EST

    We should definitly discuss this news on K5. But please kept your paranoic and propagandized ramblings to yourself.

    A regretful -1 hoping for a better article in the future.

    V.
    ---
    What my fans are saying:
    "That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
    "well look up little troll" cts.
    "I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
    "goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

    vote on the topic, not the opinion (1.75 / 4) (#34)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:45:38 AM EST

    i vote +1 fp for stories whose ideology i hate all the time, because i like the topic

    you should too, k5 will be a better place for such a policy

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    you're dumb. shut up. $ (1.33 / 6) (#56)
    by loteck on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:16:22 AM EST


    --
    "You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
    "WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

    You're deaf. Listen to me! (1.83 / 6) (#93)
    by toulouse on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:32:18 AM EST

    You're blind. Bear witness!

    etc.


    --
    'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
    --


    [ Parent ]
    -1, baseless fearmongering (none / 1) (#58)
    by hesk on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:35:58 AM EST

    Its rockets could carry a number of nasty things to Tokyo very easily. And now nukes.

    Based on news sources, all they have are nuclear devices but not anything that they can put onto a missile and deliver reliably.

    --
    Sticking to the rules doesn't improve your safety, relying on the rules is

    Yeah (1.50 / 2) (#62)
    by thermopeculiar on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:41:35 AM EST

    I didn't think they had their miniaturization sufficiently down to an art yet to cram anything into their missiles let alone a nuclear warhead.

    Still, it is a worry. What can't be delivered by air can still be delivered by sea or air, if they're mad enough to do so.

    you know k5 is fucked when even the trolls start becoming disillusioned - thekubrix

    [ Parent ]

    you probably meant sea or land (none / 0) (#90)
    by hesk on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:20:33 AM EST

    And I agree, the test is worrying, as it is another nail in the coffin of non-proliferation.  It would be very said, if it were to spark another regional arms race.

    --
    Sticking to the rules doesn't improve your safety, relying on the rules is
    [
    Parent ]

    s/said/sad $ (none / 0) (#91)
    by hesk on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:21:16 AM EST


    --
    Sticking to the rules doesn't improve your safety, relying on the rules is
    [
    Parent ]

    Yah (none / 0) (#154)
    by thermopeculiar on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:28:01 PM EST

    I was having a blonde moment. I meant by sea or land.

    I really don't see how it can't spark an arms race in the area, even though all the East Asian countries this affects, are heavily militarised anyway. China: huge standing army. South Korea: huge standing army. Japan: proficient and highly technical defense force with the ability to militarize their civilian nuclear industry within months.

    A lot of Japanese will probably asking if the States can really protect them now that their loony toon neighbour has gone nuclear. I'm sure I wouldn't have a problem with a nuclear Japan but nuclear proliferation by ANY country is a bad thing.

    you know k5 is fucked when even the trolls start becoming disillusioned - thekubrix

    [ Parent ]

    An alternate question (none / 1) (#180)
    by godix on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:10:36 AM EST

    A lot of Japanese will probably asking if the States can really protect them now that their loony toon neighbour has gone nuclear.

    While I'm sure many are asking themselves that they will shortly be asking a follow up question of 'so would having our own nukes protect us anyway?' Because of the US Japan already has all the nuclear deterance it possibly needs without the drawback of owning nukes. Japan going nuclear wouldn't add any more deterance than is already there. We'll hear Japan discuss the possability (and it will most likely be an intentional misinformation campaign to show NK the downsides of it's militarization) but we aren't actually going to see them do it.


    - An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
    [ Parent ]
    maybe (2.50 / 2) (#198)
    by thermopeculiar on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 04:19:00 AM EST

    but the chances of a Japanese nuclear deterant coming about would surely increase if the ROK decided to match their northern neighbours and develop their own nukes.

    It would send a message to the world, albeit a not so subtle one, that the ROK doesn't believe that 30,000 American stationed troops on the peninsula are now enough of deterrant for a invasion now that their northern neighbour is packin' nuclear heat.

    As South Korea developed their own WMD, you'd quickly find nationalist sentiment in Japan stepping up and demading their own, no matter how fucken stupid that decision would be.  

    I can't tell you how fucken diplomatically bankrupt North Korea's decision was to develop nuclear weapons. It's just opened up a can of worms that I doubt the international community can handle without it showing other despotic regimes that if you want respect, concessions and aid, you need to develop the nuclear wrench to get them.

    you know k5 is fucked when even the trolls start becoming disillusioned - thekubrix

    [ Parent ]

    who's doing the fearmongering? me? (1.33 / 3) (#64)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:49:13 AM EST

    how about you listen to what the DPRK ACTUALLY SAYS ITSELF

    go ahead, google it

    i'm the one fearmongering?

    pfffffffffft


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    relaying fearmongering (2.75 / 4) (#129)
    by cDiss on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:52:10 AM EST

    is fearmongering

    moron

    [ Parent ]

    fucking great (1.50 / 2) (#59)
    by CAIMLAS on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:36:18 AM EST

    Fucking great. My brother flies to Shanghai on Wednesday to spend the next goddamn year there.

    I've been telling him it's a stupid fucking idea, but would he listen? noooo...
    --

    Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

    Ha (2.66 / 3) (#77)
    by Stjck on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:37:01 AM EST

    Nothing will come from this apart from North Korea getting a bit of pampering from everyone and your brother will have a great year while you're stuck back home living in fear of the world.

    [ Parent ]
    are you so sure of that? nt (none / 0) (#82)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:59:11 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    If he's in Shanghai... (3.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:21:37 AM EST

    ...then yes, moron.

    Take a look at a map and note where Shanghai is - the PRC.

    The day the DPRK tries to take on the PRC is the day that South Korea gets a northern sea coast.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    dude, you're drunk (2.00 / 2) (#97)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:53:33 AM EST

    you can't keep track of the subject. the subject is with things changing period, not things changing in shanghai

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    His brother is going to Shanghai. (3.00 / 2) (#105)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:40:13 AM EST

    If you're suggesting that people in the general East Asian area should panic randomly, then yes, he is in the East Asian area and thus should panic.

    However, if he were to make a rational assessment regarding the increase in risk caused by this event for people in the PRC, then he would realise that he doesn't have anything to worry about.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    was that coherent? (1.50 / 2) (#108)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:48:48 AM EST

    are you just randomly picking subject matter in your brain to respond to now?

    you seem to have difficulty following topics


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    What... (none / 0) (#114)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:02:22 AM EST

    ...run out of bullshit arguments and had to resort to yet more ad hominem attacks?

    Sorry for not buying into your moronic alarmism.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I am [nt] (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stjck on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:40:31 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    cool (2.00 / 2) (#98)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:59:07 AM EST

    i bet you were sure al qaeda wouldn't attack the usa on 9/10/01

    i bet you were sure iraq wouldn't have invaded kuwait in 1990

    and i'm certain you would have been sure hitler wouldn't have invaded poland back before wwii

    because, much like those fun guys osama, saddam, and adolph, we can certainly trust kim il jong not to do anything unreasonable, right?

    moron: there's false alarmism, and that's bad

    but then there's a false sense of security, which is just as bad

    take a wild guess which you suffer from


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    And I bet... (3.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Stjck on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:19:06 AM EST

    That you've never owned a pair of pants that you haven't pissed at some stage.

    I also bet that you were stocked up with supplies and living in a cave when the millenium bug was going to destroy civilization.

    I bet you had a bunker built under your house during the cold war.

    I bet you think that worrying over stuff like this that you can't do anything about actually accomplishes something.

    [ Parent ]

    like i said (2.00 / 2) (#104)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:23:02 AM EST

    there's false alarmism, which is wrong, and a false sense of security, which is just as wrong

    you accuse me of false alarmism. i accuse you of a false sense of security

    so let the chips fall where they may

    i think my alarm is quite valid. you think your comfort is quite valid

    we shall see soon enough, shant we?

    go ahead. sit back, relax. nothing wrong with the likes of kim il jong having nukes. no one in the neighborhood is going to be perturbed by that. nothing is going to happen. nothing has been ratcheted up significantly at all. nothing to worry about friend. nothing bad is going to happen. relax

    right?

    (snicker)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    if more liberals were like you... (none / 0) (#259)
    by CAIMLAS on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:58:24 PM EST

    If more liberals were like you, I would be too (a liberal, that is).
    --

    Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
    [ Parent ]

    lol, etc. (3.00 / 2) (#195)
    by fenix down on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:32:07 AM EST

    i bet you were sure al qaeda wouldn't attack the usa on 9/10/01

    Pretty much, guess I was right too, pretty average Monday.

    i bet you were sure iraq wouldn't have invaded kuwait in 1990

    Not really, but only because I didn't care enough to form an opinion.  Kuwait is a shithole, Las Vegas with a UN representative.  It's an entire country populated by nothing but hookers, Arab fratboys and homeless people.  I probably would've let Saddam have it.  He was just going to scrap it for the raw materials anyway.

    and i'm certain you would have been sure hitler wouldn't have invaded poland back before wwii

    Now that one I would've seen, because it involved shipping fucking 80,000 tanks to the border.  Everybody saw that shit coming, including Poland.

    because, much like those fun guys osama, saddam, and adolph, we can certainly trust kim il jong not to do anything unreasonable, right?

    You trust that guy in the suit on the subway platform not to shove you in front of the train if you look down at your phone for a second?  I don't, I stay close enough to the columns to grab one if that human resources-looking asshole tries anything.  I also try to avoid exposing my carotid artery to anybody holding a ballpoint pen.  But at least I accomplish something, nobody's pushing me in front of no fucking train, because I have a urea-encrusted, steel-reinforced concrete pillar looking out for me.  You don't have a pillar, you just have George Bush, what are you supposed to do with that?

    [ Parent ]

    Shanghai's miles away from anywhere... (none / 1) (#83)
    by BJH on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:59:35 AM EST

    ...that might be in danger. Don't sweat it.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    No one is going to do anything (2.66 / 9) (#60)
    by Hung Two on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:39:32 AM EST

    That's the thing about nuclear blackmail, the stakes are so high that no one is going to touch North Korea. They can't without consigning millions of people to instant death. You might not see North Korea's neighbours tolerating "this scenario" (what scenario? We've known NK has nukes for years) but what else can they do?

    The best that NK's enemies can do is wait for Dear Leader to peg off, supply aid to the North Korean people and try to culturally subvert the regime (e.g. radio free europe). There simply is no ethical alternative. Cheerleading military "solutions" in this situation is heinously irresponsible.

    __
    God Help Us....Muslims in Congress.

    who's cheerleading? i'm scared nt (none / 0) (#65)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:49:35 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (3.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Hung Two on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:28:25 AM EST

    you seem to be suggesting that NK's neighbours will have to do something after this test, which they most certainly don't.

    On the subject, I've noticed many Americans seem to perceive everything in simplistic military terms, as though other solutions are too boring to be worth talking about. I guess to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    __
    God Help Us....Muslims in Congress.
    [ Parent ]

    you've just blown my mind (none / 1) (#73)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:20:31 AM EST

    #1: i'm not american. i'm a human being. please address my words and ideas as they are and stop prejudicing me along antiquated tribal thinking. thank you

    #2: you're criticizing "americans" for thinking of everything in military terms... and saying i am suggesting that nk's neighbors have to get militaristic

    ...concerning an issue of nk thinking about everything in military terms, when everyone is bending over backwords to make things nonmilitary

    ?!

    how the fuck does that work?

    by your own rationale, you should be absolutely livd at nk, and be praising the americans and everyone else for their temperance on the issue

    is simplistic miltary terms wrong? yes or no

    on that basis, please criticze the nuttiest militaristic regime here

    who do you think that is?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    WOW (none / 0) (#109)
    by tetsuwan on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:49:51 AM EST

    Cluelessness displayed on so many levels.

    FWIW, I voted your story up. It should be discussed, and it should be discussed by people with more insight than you. Fortunately, there are still plenty of them on K5.

    Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
    [ Parent ]

    There are options (none / 1) (#130)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:03:51 PM EST

    I highly doubt the North has over the horizon radar. They won't see incoming ICBMs until it's too late to respond.

    Of course, there are other reprecussions from such an option, but at least they won't be able to retaliate with nukes.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]

    North Korea's a terrible target (none / 1) (#137)
    by wiredog on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:34:22 PM EST

    All those mountains and hard rock. Too difficult to know you've eliminated their retaliatory capability.

    Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
    Phil the Canuck

    [ Parent ]
    That's why G-d created overkill capacity $ (3.00 / 2) (#138)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:41:17 PM EST



    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    Uh-oh, Gaaaawd didn't do this. (none / 0) (#167)
    by wobblywizard on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:42:41 PM EST

    We did, fucking mormon!

    --
    You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
    [ Parent ]

    G-d created all things (2.33 / 3) (#173)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:59:53 PM EST

    Nuclear fission was nothing new when we happened upon it. Nor was excessive force.

    Try some humility sometime. It's surprisingly refreshing.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]

    I have no idea who this Gd guy is (none / 0) (#265)
    by wobblywizard on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 06:22:51 PM EST

    nor what humility is supposed to mean. Seems to me they're equally inexistant.

    --
    You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
    [ Parent ]

    the Koreas are already shooting at each other (none / 0) (#106)
    by wiredog on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:43:27 AM EST

    Already? They've been shooting at each other for a long time. I was there in 85/86 with the US Army and we had the weekly firefight on the DMZ.

    Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
    Phil the Canuck

    I know (none / 0) (#118)
    by khallow on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:55:01 AM EST

    It's possible that things are getting worse there, but with a 50 year war zone, you have to expect stuff like this. What gets me is that there's some people talking about the next economic "Asian tiger" in the works. If North Korea is so messed up that it can't stop fighting a 50 year old war, then it's not going to be another economic miracle.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    This will be great if the N. Koreans turn evil. (none / 0) (#113)
    by OlympicSmoker on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:02:11 AM EST

    It will bring all the nations of the world together in a battle against one common enemy. How great is that to improve relations? And that common enemy only has the power to nuke two countries.

    Unfortuanately N. Korea is only aggressive because of the US war that created it and the US sanctions that have been starving it. So once again, no matter what the outcome, the US will always seem like the bad guy.

    US war that created it ? (none / 0) (#117)
    by minerboy on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:48:06 AM EST

    So much for history. I wouldn't be suprised if you are blaming the US for inventing the technology in the first place, US corporations for selling equipment to help produce it, US policy that opposed unification of North and south, US mishandling of the Pueblo incident, and incessant spying on the north, Team America, for teasing Kim Jung Il, Gary Numan, for his mean song about short people, and The way we cheated the Korean skaters during the winter olympics.



    [ Parent ]
    You then might like this link... (none / 1) (#122)
    by mirko on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:29:46 AM EST

    Rumsfeld sold North Korea 2 nuclear power plants
    --
    Finally I managed to make the decision that I would work on it. - MDC
    we had to huddle together - trane
    [ Parent ]
    ha ha, anything to deflect guilt from Clinton $ (none / 1) (#135)
    by minerboy on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:49:17 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    NUKULAR NUKULAR NUKULAR (3.00 / 5) (#116)
    by debacle on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:40:42 AM EST

    It's like all I hear.

    It tastes sweet.
    Magnitude (none / 1) (#120)
    by b1t r0t on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:34:40 AM EST

    I just got finished reading the /. thread for half an hour or so. From the mangnitude of the quake, it sure seemed like a dud, no more than 1-5kt.

    And I just heard on the radio a report that it may have been HALF a kiloton.

    Sounds like this might have been a dud, where the explosives blew, but no fission occurred. LOL DONG.

    I think KJI needs to stock up on some nukular Viagra. He can't get a missile up, and he can't get a nuke up either.

    -- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.

    Much ado about nothing. (2.88 / 9) (#123)
    by fyngyrz on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:32:03 AM EST

    The facts:

    1. NK claimed to be a nuclear power. There was no way for us to be sure. Now we are. This is good, in the sense that it is better than not knowing, especially with SK "held hostage" as it has been aptly put.

    2. The test was underground, in NK. No physical harm done.

    3. The NK has now (probably, unless this was a fake) used up one of its warheads that it would otherwise have in inventory. So now they have 1 less nuke. This is good.

    4. China is now embarrassed, and part of the problem here has always been that China supported NK pretty much unconditionally. This is either neutral, or good.

    5. The region is looking at NK now a little harder, rhetoric aside. As a *confirmed* nuclear power headed by tin-pot dictator, that's quite appropriate and only changes the part of the relationship that protects the other countries. This is good.

    6. There is little anyone can do about this, but if there was *anything*, ever, now the little idiot has walked right past the position that Saddam might have been in, worst case; there is no question he has nukes, he's gone and proved it. So if a negotiated settlement is achieved, he'll have to show us the facilities and we can see to it they are deactivated. He can't say "I was just bluffing." This is good.

    7. The test itself changes *nothing* in terms of making NK riskier (quite the opposite, in fact.) They were a nuclear power last week. Sunday they tested. They're still a nuclear power. This isn't good, but then again, it's no worse than it was. On the good side are all the above points. Personally, I think what the reaction to this story shows is the level of programmed hysteria the English-speaking world succumbs to when anyone utters the word "nuke." There are times when one might see fit to react, and be reasonable in the process. This isn't one of them.

    Blog, Photos.

    changes *nothing* in terms of making NK riskier (2.83 / 6) (#126)
    by wiredog on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:23:44 AM EST

    One problem is that, now, there is public proof that NK is ignoring all the agreements it made with the US, South Korea, and other countries. In return for not (publicly) going nuclear, the US and its allies would continue to ship food and other important items to North Korea. So those food shipments will probably stop. There may be UN sanctions of some sort. Or "unilateral" sanctions from the US and its allies. On the grounds that once one pays danegeld one never gets rid of the Dane.

    Another problem is that Japan now has a very good reason to build its own nuclear deterrent force. Which should take about a week. Maybe two.

    The Japanese are with very good reason) not popular in that region. Japan goes nuclear, China publicly goes ballistic, and then expands its forces. South Korea reacts to Japanese and Chinese nuclear forces by building its own deterrent force. Taiwan likewise.

    In 2 or 3 years you have a multi-way nuclear standoff between several countries who don't much like each other, have a long history of fighting each other, and are too close together for a mistaken launch warning to be corrected before the launch on warning doctrine results in the accidental counterstrike going out. Oops.

    That's the real worry.

    Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
    Phil the Canuck

    [ Parent ]

    I don't buy your argument. (3.00 / 3) (#128)
    by fyngyrz on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:46:08 AM EST

    One problem is that, now, there is public proof that NK is ignoring all the agreements it made with the US, South Korea, and other countries.

    NK has already said it was nuclear. They have clearly and publicly said so. Ergo, everyone already knew they were ignoring those agreements.

    The Japanese are with very good reason) not popular in that region. Japan goes nuclear, China publicly goes ballistic, and then expands its forces. South Korea reacts to Japanese and Chinese nuclear forces by building its own deterrent force. Taiwan likewise.

    Again, the reason already existed. The test is not a reason. The reason is NK being a nuclear power, which everyone already knew.

    In 2 or 3 years you have a multi-way nuclear standoff between several countries who don't much like each other, have a long history of fighting each other, and are too close together for a mistaken launch warning to be corrected before the launch on warning doctrine results in the accidental counterstrike going out.

    This may in fact be the case, however such a series of events is in no way predicated upon this test. It is predicated upon NK being a nuclear power, which everyone already knew because NK had said so.


    Blog, Photos.
    [ Parent ]

    my take, Japan is close to going nuclear (2.66 / 3) (#142)
    by khallow on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:28:16 PM EST

    NK has already said it was nuclear. They have clearly and publicly said so. Ergo, everyone already knew they were ignoring those agreements.

    Actually, there's little evidence that North Korea successfully tested a nuke. The blast was pretty weak (in the low kiloton range) and easily in range of convention methods.

    But if NK actually fields nukes that can reach Japan, then Japan will need to do something. Especially considering that the US is steadily declining over time.

    This may in fact be the case, however such a series of events is in no way predicated upon this test. It is predicated upon NK being a nuclear power, which everyone already knew because NK had said so.

    We still don't know whether NK is a nuclear power. Their say-so doesn't carry any weight. But if NK successfully and without doubt tests a significant yield nuke (say on the order of tens of kilotons). Then that will be an unmistakable signal that people in that region can't ignore.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    lol what (none / 1) (#152)
    by the spins on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:17:18 PM EST

    Especially considering that the US is steadily declining over time.

    Hi, name the country that has more nuclear strike capability than any other in the world. I'll give you a hint: it's not Russia.

     _
    ( )
     X
    / \ SUPPORT THE DEL GRIFFITH MODBOMBING CAMPAIGN

    [ Parent ]

    What's the difference between 100 and 10000... (2.33 / 3) (#205)
    by mirleid on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 07:59:02 AM EST

    ...where nukes are concerned?

    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    It's the US (none / 0) (#231)
    by khallow on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:14:11 PM EST

    Now, name the country in 50 years that's going to have the most nuclear strike capability (or equivalent in more advanced weapon forms)? It's probably going to be China. This is about what happens in the future, not what is happening today.

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    Please note... (none / 1) (#192)
    by BJH on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:20:29 AM EST

    ...that MAD buys Japan nothing except a bunch of new enemies.

    The Japanese government has known that the DPRK has or is developing missile delivery systems, and has been working with the US to provide protection from a limited missile strike (which is the only kind KJI could muster up).

    Japan with nuclear weapons makes zero sense; it pisses off a large portion of the local population (strangely enough, the Japanese do remember what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and most have no wish to do that to anyone else), it pisses off China and South Korea, and it doesn't help with the DPRK situation, as the weapons could - politically speaking - never be used for a first strike.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    never be used for a first strike. (none / 0) (#207)
    by wiredog on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:27:36 AM EST

    They make a handy deterrent. For now, anyway.

    But, as you point out, the Japanese and US are developing a missile defense system (as are the Israelis). Which only works for missiles. The DPRK has submarines and special ops troops, so the Japanese need more than missile defenses.

    Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
    Phil the Canuck

    [ Parent ]

    Which they have. (none / 0) (#211)
    by BJH on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:04:40 AM EST

    Japan spends a not inconsiderable amount of money on its Self-Defense Forces, which are more than capable of handling the DPRK's surface and undersea vessels.
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]
    FWIW (2.90 / 10) (#125)
    by Sgt York on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:20:37 AM EST

    In typcial southern fashion, let me start off with a story.

    Once upon a time, I and a few of my friends had occasion to talk to a Texas Ranger. One guy asked him, "Why do y'all still carry around pump-action 12ga shotguns? Why not the autoloader type? They can hold more shots and fire them faster." (It was less of a frightening question in context; the Ranger had just finished telling a story involving those particular guns on a firing range)

    The Ranger replied, "Because you never have to fire a pump action. If I walk into a rowdy bar fight carrying an automatic shotgun and fire a shot in the air, or worse, shoot a man, people will panic and someone else will pull a knife, or maybe even a gun. Someone will get seriously hurt, and not just banged up. But, if I walk into that same bar with a pump action shotgun, and pump it once, everybody gets reeeeeal still, reeeeeal fast."

    My take on this is a bit different. I think that NK made nuke(s) for the same reason the US and USSR made nukes back in the 50s-80s; that distinctive sound. Don't get me wrong; nukes are a very bad thing. They did a piss-poor job keeping the world safe and secure in the Cold War (anybody that was alive back then....how safe did you feel?), and they do an equally piss-poor job of it today. Anytime a new nuke enters the world, the world is a little worse off.

    But I don't think (crossing my fingers) that he'll use them aggresively. I think he just wants them as a security measure, a deterrent.

    My fear, however, is that now NK will just sit and fester and rot, because no one is going to go charging in there when Pyongyang can potentially toss a nuke at Seoul or Tokyo. It will continue its spiral into economic and humanitarian ruin and it will implode into chaos. And now, that chaos will include a nuke or two. Not to mention the means to produce more. Yea. I'm just worried about where those nukes will wind up; either used in the death throes of a prideful (and frankly insane) administration or simply lost....to wherever.

    Of course, that brings up another point. The NK government is quite arguably insane. So, their motives may not follow any kind of logic. Logic that would lead others to think "Hmmmmm.... If I use a nuke, I may get carpet bombed, or even nuked by a nation that doesn't even have to get out of bed to turn this whole place into a radioactive wasteland."

    So, if Kim Jong-Il's motives and rationale are those of an insane man, we should all take careful note of cts's ramblings.

    There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.

    power games (3.00 / 4) (#174)
    by krkrbt on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:10:35 PM EST

    (anybody that was alive back then....how safe did you feel?)

    The point was never to make 'teh masses' feel safe.  The cold war was mostly an agitprop campaign, expressly run to keep the populace on edge.  This allowed for a decades-long consolidation of power into the hands of a new ruling elite.  

    The NK government is quite arguably insane.

    Some also say that the U.S. Feral Government is in the hands of fascist madmen.  What has the re-election percentages for congressional seats been?  90%?  Our fascist overlords have buying a congressional seat down to a science.  

    [ Parent ]

    U.S. Feral Government. (none / 1) (#200)
    by thermopeculiar on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 04:47:07 AM EST

    Wild dogs running rabid in D.C. lol

    you know k5 is fucked when even the trolls start becoming disillusioned - thekubrix

    [ Parent ]
    anime? (3.00 / 4) (#127)
    by l1ttledrummerb0y2 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:42:15 AM EST

    as terrible as that would be, no more anime...

    O THE HUMANITY (none / 1) (#166)
    by partialpeople on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:56:16 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Correct me if I'm wrong... (3.00 / 3) (#131)
    by thefirelane on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:09:11 PM EST

    Its rockets could carry a number of nasty things to Tokyo very easily. And now nukes.

    I was under the impression that NK's nukes were too large to be transported by any of their current missiles. Am I wrong in that respect?

    Perhaps those are just two seperate sentances, but it does seem to imply NK could nuke Japan.

    -
    Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
    Nukes are here to stay... and grow (3.00 / 5) (#132)
    by svampa on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:13:10 PM EST

    We have to live with nukes, the technology to manufacture a nuke is not so difficult, not much more than a nuclear power plant. In the long term, it means that more countries will have nuclear weapons, paraticulary those who feel threatened by a much stronger country. Korea vs USA, Pakistan vs India, Israel vs Arab world, Iran vs USA/Israel.

    Little can be done to prevent the proliferation of nukes, not even China can stop its supossed close ally. The reply of North Korea is easy "You have nukes, me too". In a few months, asking North Korea to get rid of nuclear power will look as stupid and futile as asking so to Israel or India or France or China or Russia or USA.

    The fact of having a lot of nukes around is dangerous, nevertheless not as dangerous as it is claimed. We have been living with nukes 60 years, Pakistan and India have nukes, they hate one each other, and they are not going to use them.

    I think that it is unlikely that North Korea uses nukes, unless it is attacked. Psychopaths in the power are usually quite realistic, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to rule a country. Using nukes would be the end of his regime, and Kim Jong-il is quite happy ruling the country.

    If I had to bet for the first country to use Nukes I would bet for USA. USA is less afraid of an international retaliation, and has threatened several times with "tactical nukes". Rumsfield has said several times "We don't discard the use of tactical nuclear weapons against bunkers"

    Deterrence is not the best option but it has worked until now, still works, and I think it will work in the future.

    Perphaps I am too optimistic, but anyhow that is how thinks are. Even in the astonishing case of that USA, Russia, China agreed to get rid of WMD and set up controls to guarantee it, it would be very difficult to convince the other countries to do the same. Without such incredible treaty we must expect more nukes and live with them. No proliferation is just wishful thinking

    We'd better managed to make deterrence work , there is no alternative.



    I see no reason (1.66 / 3) (#136)
    by shm on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:51:53 PM EST

    why any country should not have nukes when
    (a) a neighbouring country has them and
    (b) when another neighbouring country harbours troops from a country which has a history of unjustified aggression against lesser armed nations.

    ok (none / 1) (#139)
    by khallow on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:18:12 PM EST

    So what about North Korea? Do you think they should have them?

    Stating the obvious since 1969.
    [ Parent ]

    Rather NK than any country in the Middle East. (none / 0) (#209)
    by shm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:57:47 AM EST

    NK may have a mad dictator in charge, the whole ME is a lunatic asylum, starting with Israel and continuing all the way to Pakistan.

    [ Parent ]
    Because, (none / 0) (#148)
    by SnowBlind on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:23:52 PM EST

    if China wanted North Korea a nuke won't stop them.

    There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
    [ Parent ]
    But (none / 0) (#155)
    by thejeff on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:42:01 PM EST

    It sure raises the price tag.

    [ Parent ]
    no country has the right to have nukes (1.66 / 3) (#164)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:15:04 PM EST

    so when someone doesn't support nk's right to have nukes, that doesn't mean they complicitly support the usa's or russia's right to have nukes

    this is what i say: no to nk's nukes, no to usa's nukes, no to russia's nukes, no to india's nukes, no to pakistan's nukes, etc.

    so when the nuclear club grows, it is a bad thing. not because one side deserves to have nukes and not the other, but because no side deserves to have nukes. it is moving backwards

    moving forwards is to have the usa, russia, etc dismantle their nuke programs. but that's less likely now that nk has nukes.

    therefore, nk having nukes is a bad thing for humanity. get it?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    While I agree with you in principle cts... (2.80 / 5) (#177)
    by localroger on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:45:47 PM EST

    ...you really can't stick the genie back in the bottle. It's really our fault for pursuing the Manhattan Project with such ridiculous funding; if we hadn't done that it wouldn't even be obvious today that nuclear weapons are possible, much less that you can make boosted ones the size of surfboards capable of sterilizing the earth for a three mile radius.

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]
    uh... (none / 0) (#181)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:49:39 AM EST

    the genie in the bottle that was set loose was the human mind

    you really think the nuclear bomb was going to be hidden from humanity because of a few dollars?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    No but (2.33 / 3) (#199)
    by thermopeculiar on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 04:38:29 AM EST

    those billions of dollars that were spent during the Manhatten Project incredibly accelerated what was simply theory into hideous reality.

    Whats done is done, I hate the fucken things but as localroger said, you ain't gonna stop nuclear weapons from existing cts. Someone, somewhere, will always have a stockpile of them.

    The root of the problem is not the weapons themselves, its the human mindset and its insatiable thirst for finding new ways of wiping out its fellow species bigger, better and faster. Which is where the urge to develop WMD came from in the first place.

    Someone should be selling in a palatable common path, a think big project to unite us all. I don't know wtf that is but at least it'd stop us killing each other for a while.

    you know k5 is fucked when even the trolls start becoming disillusioned - thekubrix

    [ Parent ]

    don't think that's true (none / 1) (#213)
    by Delirium on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:05:37 PM EST

    It was obvious to all sides in World War II that nuclear weapons were possible; the U.S. was just the first to develop them. Germany had two active nuclear-weapons project as well, one headed by Werner Heisenberg, but they were less well funded and some even claim that Heisenberg purposely sabotaged his.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (3.00 / 2) (#239)
    by localroger on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 04:59:45 PM EST

    We had a long, long kddo about this when I wrote the Trinity article but basically my position is that nobody was sure it would work; we sure weren't even well into the Manhattan Project itself. And absent that certainty (which only existed once we proved the bombs were possible by building and testing them) nobody in their right mind would have made the investment necessary on the off chance that they might be possible.

    A good example is the exchange Enrico Fermi had with Ed Teller when he finally came to America. Teller chided Fermi for a statement similar to my own position. "Well Enri," Teller said, "You said we'd have to turn the whole country into a factory to build a bomg..."

    "...and you have done exactly that," Fermi shot back. But turning your country into a factory for something that might not work is a pretty crazy thing to do. It's a whole different matter when you know the bomb is possible.

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]

    true, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't happen (none / 1) (#240)
    by Delirium on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 05:07:58 PM EST

    The Cold War had a lot of incentive to spend massive amounts of money on questionable military schemes. Many people were very sure that nuclear power was possible, even as early as the 1930s—it was only nuclear bombs that they were more skeptical of. So it's likely nuclear power would have begun being developed. But once that happens, then basically everything related to nuclear weapons starts becoming easier, since lots of the basic and intermediate technology becomes commonplace. Combine that with the huge cold-war military spending, and I'm pretty sure either the U.S. or U.S.S.R. or both would've developed a nuclear bomb by the 1960s at the latest, even without the Manhattan Project.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it would have happened a LOT slower (none / 1) (#241)
    by localroger on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 06:42:18 PM EST

    I can see enough certainty piling up by the 1960's or 1970's, and improvements in things like centrifuges for isotope separation so you wouldn't need the massive industrial works to try it out, to see Little Boy style bombs developed. You have to remember that much of the pace of the Cold War was driven by the nuclear threat on both sides, so I'm sure the postwar faceoff between a non-nuclear US and USSR would have gone differently. Without the tempting ability to "kill a nation" would we have even considered placing ourselves in a position to do it?

    And I really can't see hydrogen bombs being developed at all. The H-bomb was the last gasp of H.G. Wells' belief that a big enough bomb would end war. It was Teller's obsession with infinite yield that made the Teller-Ulam design happen, precisely because he kept pestering people who thought he was really wasting their time but he was an important person so they had to humor him. And then one day a light bulb went off over Ulam's head, and there it was.

    And as with the A-bomb itself had Sakharov not seen the test results on our side proving it was possible he probably wouldn't have pursued such a Rube Goldberg design. He had achieved 450 Kt with Joe 4 with a layered single-stage design and was convinced that that represented a fundamental limit.

    A-bombs do not instantly win your war against a foe like the USSR, and it is not immediately obvious just because A-bombs exist that the much more decisive H-bomb is possible. Again, I think if you went back in time and punched Teller with a ricin capsule in 1946 you might come back to find we have no bombs larger than 500 kt and those far too big to MIRV. It is really remarkable when you read the history of the atomic bomb you get the impression, very different from general science, that much depended on a few key players whose replacements are not obvious had they not been where they were.

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]

    Here's a hell of a what if (none / 0) (#244)
    by thermopeculiar on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 07:24:49 PM EST

    Imagine nukes hadn't ended the second world war beacuse they hadn't been invented.

    The Japanese mainland in all likelihood might have had to be invaded to cause a Japanese surrender. Think how many millions of lives killed on both sides that would have taken. Think how long it may have taken to end the Pacific War and how at the end of it, every single city in Japan carpet bombed to ruin.

    Perhaps with a country that destroyed, we wouldn't have seen the Japanese economic miracle and all those fandangle time saving devices we now take for granted may have had their invention pushed back decades. Fuel efficient cars, cheap electronics manufacture, miniaturization...Casio watches!

    Now think of a divided Europe, USSR and the Allies facing off against each other without the threat of MAD. Could the border have ever had troop reductions? Would the wall be still up now? Would the cold war have been more likely to go hot without nuclear weapons...I wonder if nuclear weapons made the world a safer place, if only temporarily...

    you know k5 is fucked when even the trolls start becoming disillusioned - thekubrix

    [ Parent ]

    Lotta stuff there... (3.00 / 2) (#248)
    by localroger on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:46:27 PM EST

    The Japanese mainland in all likelihood might have had to be invaded

    Richard Rhodes pretty well skewers that in The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Had Trinity failed the Potsdam Declaration would have been much more amenable to Japanese desires, because we knew they were willing to surrender and under what terms, and we were prepared to meet those terms and those were essentially the terms we magnamimously gave them after the whole atomic demonstration and bootlicking followup. There never was going to be an invasion.

    Would the wall be still up now?

    Would the wall have been put up in the first place? Remember that Joe knew we had the bomb even before we dropped it. Rhodes documents that they had reliable spies at Trinity. And it couldn't have escaped their notice how the war ended (especially since it cut the Russians out of a lot of potential spoils). Would they have cared enough to put it up if we hadn't had the bomb?

    Looking further forward, I'd add... the Cuban Missile Crisis, which came within a hour or so of ending civilization as we know it, never could have happened at all in such a world.

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]

    Well put (none / 0) (#250)
    by thermopeculiar on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 11:13:13 PM EST

    And if nukes never did come about and hence there was no Cuban Missile Crisis, a mad Nikita Khrushchev may have been around a lot longer in power. More shoe banging exercises anyone?

    I think this almost warrants a "what if there were no nukes" diary though.

    you know k5 is fucked when even the trolls start becoming disillusioned - thekubrix

    [ Parent ]

    Humanity is bad for humanity. (none / 1) (#208)
    by shm on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:54:15 AM EST

    NK has nothing new to add apart from yet another reason for the dimwits in charge to continue to maintain their existing arsenals.

    [ Parent ]
    Richter Scale 4.2 (2.25 / 4) (#141)
    by alby on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:25:08 PM EST

    For an underground nuclear test? Either the device (plutonium gun anyone?) misfired or North Korea stacked a whole shitload of conventional explosives underground, set that off and then ran around shouting "WE HAVE TEH BOMB!1!!UNO!" Either that or they've developed low-yield nuclear weapons, which I seriously doubt.

    <small>Or the energy from the bomb didn't couple to the surrounding earth</small>

    --
    Alby

    Please excuse my formatting mistakes [nt] (none / 0) (#143)
    by alby on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:28:47 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    This is actually pretty typical (2.75 / 4) (#168)
    by localroger on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:53:33 PM EST

    There is no way KJI & co. have boosted weapons, which are much harder to build; what they have is a Little Boy or Fat Man, capable of 10 to 20 kilotons yield and probably weighing several tons. They made the exact mistake the US didn't make at the end of WWII; they have a bomb or three and no means to quickly get any more, and they have shown their hand.

    They can now spend those bombs and royally piss off one of their many enemies but not really do enough damage to completely do any of them in, doing so will unite the world in a whatever-it-takes (including nuclear retaliation) campaign to squish them.

    Really, from the US perspective this is more of a popcorn munching exercise. It will end badly, for sure, and possibly for some of our allies. But KJI isn't even close to having a delivery system that can hit the USA, much less with Fat Man perched atop it. And I think if KJI goes nuclear even the Chinese will move to crush him. They are becoming too much a part of the world economy to tolerate such shenanegans.

    In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if China didn't respond to KJI nuking Japan with a nuke of its own. On its much better delivery system.

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]

    Not necessarily a mistake... (2.66 / 3) (#170)
    by thejeff on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:08:43 PM EST

    No matter how many nukes North Korea has, there is no way actually using them can end well for North Korea. Any offensive use would result in their destruction. They know that, we know that, everyone knows that. The best case for NK in that scenario is that they have enough nukes and delivery systems to destroy their target as well. Which they don't.

    What their claim to have nukes was for, and what this test is intended to demonstrate, is that if they are pushed too far not only will Seoul be destroyed by conventional artillery, but Tokyo will go with it.
    If that's the intent, proving you can do it makes sense. (Would have worked better if the missile test earlier hadn't failed.)

    If they were intending to attack with nuclear weapons, this would have been stupid, I guess. They would have done one nukes less damage before disappearing. Wouldn't really make any difference to them.

    [ Parent ]

    Well that would just be stupid (3.00 / 3) (#176)
    by localroger on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:31:43 PM EST

    A Fat Man style nuke can't destroy Tokyo. It isn't big enough. All it would do is create the Japanese version of 9/11. Yes, it would be worse than 9/11 but not by that much. Not compared to, say, our botched invasion of Iraq.

    I think this is just a bigger-dick exercise. Where it goes now depends on KJI's sanity. With any luck he will see, as the South Africans did, that being a nuclear power doesn't actually buy you much if you aren't a nuclear superpower and it will just turn out to be a waste of time. And if he is crazy enough to do something the damage will be limited, and the world will rise up and destroy him in retalitation.

    It's probably worth noting that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither of which were very big cities by modern standards, both rebuilt and are inhabited today. If Fat Man and Little Boy couldn't completely destroy those towns of less than 0.5 million people, what the hell is a similar bomb expected to do to a megalopolis like Tokyo?

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]

    You must remember... (3.00 / 4) (#191)
    by BJH on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:13:13 AM EST

    ...that Tokyo is the political and economic centre of Japan, and the population density in the central area is much higher than it was in wartime Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

    If a Little Boy-class atomic weapon were to be set off in Tokyo, I would fully expect casualties higher than in either of those two cities, depending on how accurate it was in hitting the busiest areas of the city.

    The economic damage would be unthinkable; expect the yen to go into free fall, insurance companies to go bankrupt left and right, and every major Japanese bank to require government intervention to stay afloat. Rather similar to what will happen when the Big Earthquake hits Tokyo, actually, but with more people dead.

    (This is not to say I think NK is currently technically capable of doing this; I don't. I'm just commenting on your assessment of the impact of a nuclear attack on Tokyo.)
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    Actually the Big Earthquake would be much worse (none / 1) (#242)
    by localroger on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 06:54:41 PM EST

    Primary blast damage from a Little Boy style bomb (that is, steel and concrete buildings knocked down) will be limited to a radius of less than half a mile from the hypocenter. While a lot of people live in that circle in Tokyo, a lot more of Tokyo isn't in that circle. By contrast the Big Earthquake will try to knock the entire city down, and since none of those buildings are proven will probably have more success than we'd like to see.

    Secondary blast damage, such as blown out windows and such, will go out quite a bit further because so much less pressure is necessary.

    I figure it would be Japan's Hurricane Katrina, without the successful evacuation. Bearing in mind how well the USA managed to get by the nearly complete destruction of more than a hundred square miles of one of its major cities, it has not collapsed our economy or driven us to universal ruin, and I can't see it being that much worse even if all the residents had been killed too. Let's face it, the biggest challenge with the residents surviving has been getting them back into the economy.

    Of course the psychological ramifications would be huge, and you're right about the currency and stock markets going nuts. Japan would almost certainly insist on remilitarizing and it would be hard to deny them. But there would be plenty of Japan left to rebuild and sting back by whatever means they think most appropriate. Anybody contemplating such an attack who does not understand that is truly insane.

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]

    New Orleans... (none / 1) (#251)
    by BJH on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:21:53 AM EST

    ...is a pretty minor part of the US as a whole.

    Tokyo, specifically central Tokyo, contains all the national government offices, the head offices of just about every major Japanese company (including all the national banks and insurance companies), the Diet, and more than 15 million people during the day. This is all in an area less than 30km in diameter. Think about simultaneous nuclear bombings of New York and Washington and you'd have a fair idea of the scale of the disaster.

    Japanese government estimates of casualties for a magnitude 6+ earthquake in the Tokyo area are 5,000-10,000 people. A nuclear weapon would have to kill more people than that, considering Little Boy did in several times that number in the first couple of seconds after exploding in a city with a population of around 200,000.

    A casualty rate of 5% in a 5km radius from the blast centre would be conservative, and as I'm sure you're aware the casualty rate within a 1km radius would be as near to 100% as makes no difference.

    Within 1km of Ground Zero:
    3.142km2 * 25,000 = 78550 people dead

    Within 5km:
    15,000,000 / 600km2 = 25,000 people per square km
    5km ^ 2 * 3.142 ~= 79 square km
    (79 - 3) * 25,000 = 1,900,000 people within 5km of the blast centre
    1,900,000 * 0.05 = 95000 people dead
    --
    Roses are red, violets are blue.
    I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
    -- Oscar Levant

    [ Parent ]

    You miss my point. (none / 0) (#202)
    by thejeff on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 06:00:13 AM EST

    Fine, he can't destroy Tokyo. (And it would be much worse than 9/11. Just not worse than Hiroshima.)
    But, who's going to risk another Hiroshima?

    Of course it would be stupid for him to attack. That's what I was saying. That doesn't mean nukes don't buy him anything.

    Being a nuclear power does buy you a lot if you're a repressive dictator with the world against you. It buys you deterrence.

    No regime change for Kim Jong Il.


    [ Parent ]

    .55kT (none / 0) (#226)
    by alby on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:17:35 PM EST

    News says the bomb was just over half a kiloton. That does not sound like a nuke to me. I'm gonna wait for radiological information (not that that'd be a guarantee) but until then I'm thinking either a fizzle or a conventional fake.

    --
    Alby
    [ Parent ]

    Didn't catch that (none / 0) (#243)
    by localroger on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 07:00:43 PM EST

    If that's accurate it's a fizzle. That is actually a design term among nuclear engineers to indicate that the fission reaction did not run to completion. It is an atomic bomb, and it's big enough to ruin your whole day if you're too close to it when it goes off (500 tons is a LOT of TNT, and that's a BIG explosion to come out of something that only ways 5 tons) but it's not very useful in a military sense.

    I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (none / 0) (#255)
    by alby on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:01:14 PM EST

    I do know what a fizzle is, my degree is in physics, I should have linked it in the comment. The most likely causes of a fizzle in this case would probably be one of three things:
    1. In a plutonium "gun type" bomb (which I mentioned in my first comment) the critical masses are either not brought together quickly enough or the polonium/beryllium neutron source malfunctioned in some way.
    2. In a uranium "compression type" weapon the explosive lenses were either malformed or did not explode simultaneously.
    3. The casing of either bomb type was poorly manufactured, causing a loss of material before a complete chain reaction could occur.
    I think any of these could be the problem, though I'm still holding out for the "lots of TNT packed into a hole" theory.

    --
    Alby
    [ Parent ]

    kim jong il nuked my junk liberally (2.20 / 10) (#144)
    by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 02:37:31 PM EST



    Two men with matches in a room full of gasoline... (2.25 / 4) (#145)
    by bindlestiff on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:07:01 PM EST

    Many governments can be accused of illogical actions, allowing insane or fundamentalist or immoral individuals and administrations to gain and keep power, and of spending completely absurd amounts on war while denying basic needs to their citizens. As an American I'm looking straight in the mirror while I say every word of that, unfortunately.

    And some of those same governments have nukes. But every third world country on the planet has been put on notice that the 21st century is going to, at some possibly very near point, turn into an ugly scramble for resources, profit and hegemony. Insane or not, if I was at the head of a poor country and had the least ability to build or buy some nukes I'd break the bank to do it. It is the ultimate poison pill, the promise that you will be more trouble to invade than you are worth. The only thing that makes me wonder about this recent nuke test is why the north koreans thought they needed to so loudly announce they have something the worlds intelligence services had probably already confirmed they had. Even if they were genuinely concerned it might not work, this doesn't seem like a good time to be stirring the hornets nest of world opinion and fears.

    Any tin-pot dictator, socialist parliamentary system or even democratic representative government that can't figure out why they need to be prepared to defend themselves need only look at Iraq and Afghanistan to be reminded what happens when a mismanaged superpower feels there is no down side to waging empire. Or they could just crack any history book. And the nuclear cat has been out of the bag since the USSR imploded and no amount of resolutions and embargoes and bombing runs can ever make it go back in. The nuclear "club" is going to continue to grow.

    As for China and Japan becoming friends, I think you just fell off the dock there, and are kidding yourself. I hope.

    zerg (none / 0) (#150)
    by FattMattP on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:49:17 PM EST

    The only thing that makes me wonder about this recent nuke test is why the north koreans thought they needed to so loudly announce they have something the worlds intelligence services had probably already confirmed they had.
    Because of fear. Now everyone who keeps up with the news, and people like myself who do not, will have heard that North Korea has nukes. Many people will be afraid, for whatever reason.

    [ Parent ]
    I voted this down. (1.50 / 2) (#147)
    by Beatific Deathsquad on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 03:22:20 PM EST

    The topic may be important, but the article is terrible.  Hopefully someone with actual talent and insight will write something up on this subject.

    "I was...gay." -- rusty
    welcome to teh intarweb (2.00 / 2) (#161)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:10:51 PM EST

    "you don't have the authority to comment on north korea because you're some random asshole on the internet"

    "yes, i am a random asshole on the internet, but why can't i comment on north korea?"

    "because i said so"

    "who are you?"

    "i am also some random asshole on the internet, but i have the authority to dismiss you out of hand"

    "uh... oh ok (!?)"

    anyone can post anything, including yourself. this cuts two ways: people without credentials can post all sorts of crap (such as myself), but you yourself can now no longer dismiss something out of hand as having no credentials

    in other words: yes, i have no credentials. but what about you? where are your credentials to dismiss me out of hand? you have none. so i have no credentials to say what i say, and you have no credentials to dismiss me out hand like you do

    what madness is this? it's PROGRESS

    because now you have to specifically address what i say and specifically dismiss what i say as wrong through logic and reason. you can't appeal to authority, you have to appeal to logic and reason

    so your appeal to authority is invalid, your dismissal of what i say is invalid, because you have no authority to dismiss me out of hand. just like i have no authority to say what i say

    NO ONE has any authority. you simply stand or fall on the logic of your words, and on that basis alone. and since you haven't actually argued with the substance of what i said, what i have said remains completely unchallenged, and therefore correct... until you come around to actually finding something wrong with what i say, and putting that in words

    so roll up your sleaves, and find something specificallt wrong with what i say, and dispute it. until then, you stand as agreeing with me. because just saying "you have no authority to say what you do" has no effect because you yourself have no authority to dismiss my words. get it? it cuts both ways. so stop appealing to authority i don't have (and i admit to not having) and you don't have (but you think you do)

    inother words: debate me, with logic and reason, or shut the fuck up. get used to the internet kid: appeals to authority don't work anymore

    dear random asshole on the internet: i'm not going anywhere. i am not shutting up. so you have to find a better way to deal with my words than dismissing them out of hand based on some imagined authority that you think you have, that you don't, no more authority than you know i don't have, and i admit to not having

    time for you to admit you have no authority yourself, and debate me on substance. or, keep imagining yourself as somehow important, with the power to dismiss things out of hand, in an arena where no one is important, and no one has that power

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you mean to reply to someone else's comment? (2.50 / 2) (#175)
    by Beatific Deathsquad on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:11:16 PM EST

    I didn't say a goddamn thing about credentials.  I mentioned talent and insight, which are very different than credentials.

    Irrespective of your credentials, which may be sterling, the article you wrote is terrible.  The points you make are facile and your writing is poor.


    "I was...gay." -- rusty
    [ Parent ]

    you fail it, again (none / 1) (#182)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:07:56 AM EST

    either say specifically what is wrong with what i say, or say nothing

    because dismissing what words i write out of hand doesn't work, it's invalid criticism

    you have provided no rationale why your opinion is any better than mine

    therefore, you have said nothing of value, either positive or negative, about my writing. you've said nothing. support your opinion, or you have none

    specifics... or bullshit

    you lose


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I did say something specific. (2.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Beatific Deathsquad on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:26:19 AM EST

    I said your points are facile, and they are.  How specific do I need to be?

    Let's make a deal, OK?  If you put some effort into your article, I'll put some effort into my criticism.  Since you submitted a slapdash story, though, I frankly don't see that you're entitled to more than a quick dismissal.

    Here's how I see it.  Your article is crap, and you know your article is crap.  Rather than putting forth the effort to write a decent article, you'd rather try to bully people who point out that your article is crap.

    It's not going to work.  

    "I was...gay." -- rusty
    [ Parent ]

    zzz (none / 1) (#196)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:36:12 AM EST

    tell me the difference between these two sentences:

    "your article is crap"

    "your aticle is crap because (fill in the blank)"

    can you understand the difference between those two sentences?

    then can you understand then why everything you've said so far is invalid?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Invalid? (none / 1) (#206)
    by Beatific Deathsquad on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:09:29 AM EST

    You're suggesting that your article is magically not crap simply because I said it was crap but used the wrong words?

    Please.

    "I was...gay." -- rusty
    [ Parent ]

    man you're so fucking dense (none / 1) (#223)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:52:54 PM EST

    "this food sucks"

    "this food sucks because it has no salt"

    HELLO??????????????????????

    UNDERSTAND THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE MORON??????????????


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Either way, the food sucks. (none / 1) (#246)
    by Beatific Deathsquad on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 08:55:50 PM EST

    So -1.

    "I was...gay." -- rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Credentials are irrelevant. You will be dumped. (none / 0) (#215)
    by rpresser on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:11:17 PM EST

    It's not what you know; it's not who you know; it's who you can convince.  My vote for ignoring the issue is just as important (and as unimportant) as yours.  Yelling at us ostriches accomplishes nothing but giving you a sore throat.

    Bye now.
    ------------
    "In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Just in case that wasn't clear ... (none / 0) (#216)
    by rpresser on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:13:47 PM EST

    my point is not just that you can't succeed in convincing us this is important; it's that it really ISN'T important. There are enough humans on the planet that even if there is a Massive Nuclear War(tm), more of us ignorant idiots will survive ANYWAY than of you observant awakeniks. So being ignorant has now become a survival (s)tra(te)g(ed)y.  

    Celebrating my twenty-first in a brand new futility
    ------------
    "In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
    [ Parent ]

    ah (1.50 / 2) (#158)
    by l1ttledrummerb0y2 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:49:58 PM EST

    well i kind of understand, but am curious as to why japan and sk wouldn't fight? they might compete economically, but this is significantly more important than a little bit of capitalist sheath rattling...

    this looks like a reply to my comment (2.66 / 3) (#163)
    by tetsuwan on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:14:27 PM EST

    so:
    Considering that Japan occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945, many Koreans still dislike Japan. They are actually much more likely to cooperate economically than martially. Their common ground is that they are both allied to the US. So in theory, Korea and Japan could fight side by side under American command, but not Japanese under Korean command or the other way around. You might want to compare this to France and Germany, that share a superficially similar history. AFAIK, they cooperate well in NATO, the EU and UN. This is not happening for three reasons: Koreans still resent Japan for the occupation, Japan hasn't really officially asked forgiveness for its colonial past or war crimes, and Japanese superior complex towards Koreans.

    Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
    [ Parent ]

    Dislike? Resent? (none / 1) (#204)
    by wiredog on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 07:14:33 AM EST

    Mild words for how the Koreans feel about the Japanese. With good reason.

    Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
    Phil the Canuck

    [ Parent ]
    -1, slashdot (none / 1) (#159)
    by IncubatedVitamin on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:00:25 PM EST

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199795&cid=16360373

    i crossposted, so what? nt (none / 0) (#162)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:11:29 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think the north koreans are going away... (none / 1) (#172)
    by stupidpuppy on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:49:43 PM EST

    However ...

    the Koreas are already shooting at each other

    They've been at this for a while.

    No way in hell I'm reading all that (1.80 / 5) (#179)
    by HackerCracker on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:23:58 PM EST

    And I'm referring to the comments. Damn, I started to but the pointlessness and childishness of the dialog was making my eyes bleed. So -1, pointless CTS trolling.

    no, you have to (none / 0) (#185)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:13:06 AM EST

    it is requirement you read all of my comments

    (wtf?!)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    yhbt? (none / 0) (#187)
    by sllort on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:42:32 AM EST

    can it be?
    --
    Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
    [ Parent ]
    dude (3.00 / 2) (#189)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:52:14 AM EST

    i am trolled and troller, all in one


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just not that worried (2.66 / 3) (#203)
    by nebbish on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 06:31:22 AM EST

    I don't think N Korea will use them. They've always been very theatrical, I think this has got more to do with self image and internal propoganda than anything else.

    I hope I'm right.

    ---------
    Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

    -1, CTS (1.50 / 2) (#214)
    by rpresser on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 12:08:46 PM EST


    ------------
    "In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
    dear haters like loteck and rpresser and others (1.00 / 3) (#220)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 01:44:55 PM EST

    it's not the author that matters

    it's not the author's attitude that matters

    it's the topic that matters, and that is all

    i in fact have voted +1 fp on stories i loathe, by author with opinions i loathe. just look how i vote on hung fu's stories

    why?

    because the TOPIC is important to me. what kind of wacky behavior of that is mine?

    gee, i dunno dickheads, maybe it's the same atittude that made this story section, ya think?

    i'm an asshole of an author, i never shut up, i never stop posting, i latch onto people and never let go. and to dickheads like you, that's grounds to hate me

    what do i fucking care? seriously assholes: why the fuck do you think i care about you hating me?

    i'm loathed by a good contingent of halfwits like you on this site

    what do i fucking care? honestly: give me the slightest good reason why i should care if 100 of you assholes hate me. hate me! go for it!

    I DON'T CARE IF YOU HATE ME DOUCHE BAGS, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT

    HATING ME DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER TO ME

    what does matter to me?

    TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING DOES

    HONESTLY, THAT'S WHAT MOTIVATES ME you fucking halfwits

    in this life, there is love, hate, and not caring

    i don't care about people loving me here

    i don't care about people hating me here

    but i DO care if no one replies at all

    so do you want me to go away you fucking turds?

    i go away when i post a story and no one responds

    but i don't go away when i get a bite, a reaction. is it flowers? is it hate mail? who fucking cares? it's a reaction!

    do you get me yet you fucking douchebags? understand now you stupid fuckwits?

    guess what? nk is an important topic

    so it gets voted up

    WELCOME TO REALITY MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!

    so: to those who hate me as a troll: when you send me hate mail, all that means is YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FUCKING TROLLED LOSERS HERE

    when you IGNORE me, you win!

    understand? that's the fucking truth!

    so here's my dick, suck it losers

    to all you who hate me: you represent my biggest supporters!

    maybe someday you'll understand how human psychology works!:

    love is more important than hate is more important than not caring

    only the last item: not caring, kills human behavior you don't like

    so buh bye fuckwits, maybe i have taught some of you cretins a lesson in life

    learn it, you'll need it to get by in life, in a lot more serious endeavours in your life than fucking stupid useless bullshit like stories on k5

    and maybe some of you will remember what fucking troll taught you that lesson in life

    BYE MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THANKS FOR ALL THE SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!

    teehee


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    True/False (none / 1) (#225)
    by aphrael on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:15:34 PM EST

    it's not the author that matters

    it's not the author's attitude that matters

    True.

    it's the topic that matters, and that is all

    False. What matters is the quality of the writing and of the argument.

    Had I seen this story in the queue I would have voted against because it isn't very well written and doesn't present a coherent argument.

    I've voted for stories by you in the past; I will do so I am sure in the future.

    But this one wasn't very good, and I would have voted agianst.

    [ Parent ]

    this is the way i see it (none / 0) (#227)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:22:15 PM EST

    a story can be exceptionally well-written

    a story can be a horrible peice of trash

    doesn't matter

    and oyu are right: the story i wrote was brief and stunted, and i put very little effort into it

    but i was pretty sure it would section

    why?

    the TOPIC is important. people want to talk about north korea right now

    i honestly think that matters more than story quality

    here, on k5, and in a whole bunch of other avenues in life

    if people want to talk about something, the avenue that allows them to talk about that topic is all that matters

    sometimes i think k5 should stop with the stories and just be like fark.com:

    "north korea has nukes. discuss"

    "mark foley is a pedophile. discuss"

    that's all you really need for a "story"

    those "stories" would get voted +1 fp, and an incredibly well-written, well-researched stories on esoteric subjects would get voted down

    that's the way i see it


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    i would rather (none / 1) (#228)
    by aphrael on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:24:58 PM EST

    read the incredibly well written story on esoteric subjects.

    anyhow: your story shows you put very little effort into it. that disappoints me, and it's not what I thought k5 was supposed to be about.

    [ Parent ]

    you do have a point, i love bee dude (none / 0) (#229)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:31:25 PM EST

    maybe what i am saying only applies to extreme topical controversial issues

    in other words, everyone wants to talk about north korea, so my assertion that topic trumps story quality would apply to that limited subset of issues only

    and that for esoteric subjects, story quality rules

    how's that sound?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    contradictory. (none / 1) (#232)
    by Unski on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:29:23 PM EST

    I too love bee-dude. Annoyingly I find myself siding with aphreal on this one. And I despise him. Anyhow, IMO, story quality is important. I take your point that your topic is important, but what constitutes vote-worthiness is more complicated than 'vote for stories on important topics'. Story quality should be judged for each submission also, not just those which aren't about important-sounding topics.

    [ Parent ]
    what's wrong with aphrael? nt (none / 0) (#234)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:53:01 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    well (none / 0) (#236)
    by Unski on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 04:01:00 PM EST

    aloof, precious and sometimes wilfully ignorant (as distinct from illiterate or unreasonable) are the adjectives that spring to mind. Precious is the main one. I've said as much to him. Sure, he's intelligent and I often find his opinions to be palatable, but on the whole I still loath him. I'm sure you don't want a protracted debate about this, but I am around for a few more hours..

    [ Parent ]
    i think he admins the site, right? (none / 1) (#237)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 04:30:26 PM EST

    how much do you pay him to do that?

    how much does he get paid to do that?

    exactly my point: god bless him

    when you get a thankless job with a bunch of whiny k5 types, then you can complain about aphrael, until then, you can't say shit dude


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    it was unnecessary of me to say it (none / 1) (#238)
    by Unski on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 04:36:27 PM EST

    fair point. More self-censorship is in order. Don't feel particularly differently, but it was bad form to blurt it out. I could blame the wine, but it'd be a hollow excuse.

    [ Parent ]
    blame the wine (none / 1) (#245)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 07:49:59 PM EST

    mel gibson does ;-P

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    * slow prolonged cackle * (none / 1) (#252)
    by Unski on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:38:38 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    I thought he blamed the Jews -nt (none / 0) (#254)
    by fn0rd on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:38:22 AM EST


    This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
    [ Parent ]

    the wine blamed the jews (none / 0) (#258)
    by speek on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 04:43:13 PM EST


    --
    al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
    [ Parent ]

    Precious? (none / 0) (#256)
    by b1t r0t on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:26:32 PM EST

    aloof, precious and sometimes wilfully ignorant

    I don't theen that word means what you theen it means. Maybe you meant something else? Nope, that's not it either.

    -- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
    [ Parent ]

    precious (none / 0) (#257)
    by Unski on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:36:26 PM EST

    adjective
    1 (of an object, substance, or resource) of great value; not to be wasted or treated carelessly : precious works of art | my time is precious.
    • greatly loved or treasured by someone : look after my daughter--she's very precious to me.
    • [ attrib. ] informal used to express the speaker's contempt for someone or something greatly valued by another person : you and your precious schedule--you've got to lighten up!
    • [ attrib. ] informal used for emphasis, often in an ironic context : a precious lot you know about dogs!
    2 derogatory affectedly concerned with elegant or refined behavior, language, or manners : his exaggerated, precious manner.

    ..and the Thesaurus entry..

    [snip]

    3 his precious manners affected, overrefined, pretentious; informal la-di-da.

    [ Parent ]

    Korean war (3.00 / 4) (#230)
    by Znork on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:13:47 PM EST

    In an effort to actually understand the Korean situation, it helps to read up on the Korean war.

    Such fun tidbits ranging from 800 tons a day of bombs and napalm dropped on the north (comparable in intensity to the Dresden fire bombings), 850K gallons napalm dropped between June and October 1950, to MacArthur actually requesting authorization for deployment of several dozen nuclear bombs. Several times. And his successor repeated the request.

    "In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: "I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria". Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then "spread behind us - from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea - a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North." He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: "My plan was a cinch" (12)." - http://mondediplo.com/2004/12/08korea

    And it wasnt just MacArthur, the JCS at the time planned for nuclear deployment.

    Kim Ill may certainly be a lunatic, but it isnt that hard to see where he got it from...

    perspective, context, scale, intent (none / 0) (#247)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:07:25 PM EST

    do any of these concepts mean anything to your ability to form an opinion about the world you live in?

    "a wacky asshole general wanted to nuke north korea a lng time ago, therefore, north korea's behavior is understandable today"

    are you for real?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Why does the US still have nukes, then? (none / 1) (#260)
    by vivelame on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 02:49:04 AM EST

    If not for the EXACT same reason?
    Besides, a wacky prez'nut is far worse than a wacky general. Straw, meet log!

    --
    Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
    [ Parent ]
    one of those magic concepts you miss: scale (none / 0) (#261)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 04:04:26 AM EST

    kim il jong: a psychotic cult leader. wacky scale rating: 10,000

    president bush: a stupid frat boy. wacky scale rating: 1
     

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of scale: (none / 0) (#264)
    by vivelame on Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 10:55:34 AM EST

    kim il jong: MAYBE one small nuke.
    Bush: Several thousands of thermonuclear bombs, H Bombs, and "Doomsday Devices".
    WHICH is more dangerous, again?


    --
    Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
    [ Parent ]
    North Korea's Nukes and North Korea's Neighbors | 265 comments (222 topical, 43 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!