SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
North Korea may have just conducted a fifth nuclear test:
A seismic event in North Korea on Friday morning measured by the U.S. Geological Survey with a magnitude of 5.3 appeared to be a nuclear test, South Korea's meteorological agency said. The seismic event was detected near North Korea's known nuclear test site, where it detonated its fourth nuclear device in January.
USGS: M5.3 Explosion - 15km ENE of Sungjibaegam, North Korea
Bloomberg also has coverage Shallow Earthquake Detected Near North Korea Nuclear Site which goes into some analysis on the political impact of the test.
Separately, Vanity Fair notes None of your snark, please:
The Independent reports that North Korean party officials held several mass meetings across the country in an attempt to warn citizens that criticizing the state via indirect, ironic statements such as "This is all America's fault" would be illegal and "unacceptable." And the consequences for disobeying are particularly unfunny: according to the nonprofit group Liberty in North Korea, any criticism of the government—including, apparently, the North Korean version of "Thanks, Obama"—"is enough to make you and your family 'disappear' from society and end up in a political prison camp."
Even common idioms are not safe from the sarcasm crackdown: Radio Free Asia reported that, during one of the meetings, the party banned the common expression "a fool who cannot see the outside world," which the regime believes constitutes criticism of Kim's refusal to attend international celebrations marking the end of World War II. (Even party officials within the hyper-authoritarian state were reportedly "shocked" by Kim's decision.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 09 2016, @02:04AM
Yeah, the world's leaders got together and decided that no one should kill world leaders. But, it's alright to start wars in which tens or hundreds of thousands of men are killed as legitimate targets, and tens or hundreds of thousands of women, children, and elderly are killed as "collateral damage". Not to mention, destroying the infrastructure necessary for modern life.
A single strike is "wrong", but thousands of tons of bombs scattered out around a city is "moral".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @02:11AM
This is all America's fault for inventing nuclear weapons and making the rest of the world's leaders green with envy.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Dunbal on Friday September 09 2016, @12:36PM
You seem to think that if someone doesn't invent something, another person won't. Why do you think patents exist? Creativity and invention are not unique, they are a quite common human trait. There are countless historical examples of all sorts of things being invented roughly at the same time in different parts of the world. Of course those who receive patent protection would have you believe that invention is something extremely rare and difficult. No. It's as easy as going to Wal Mart, buying a clock, taking it apart and putting it in a briefcase.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday September 09 2016, @05:35PM
Ostensibly, Patents exist to encourage the disclosure of inventions. The idea is that not all inventions are inevitable or easy to reproduce.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:06AM
A journalist worked out the Teller-Ulam design from publicly available documents, for a story in a magazine.
"The notion that X-rays could move solid objects with the force of thousands of tons of dynamite," noted [the journalist] Morland, "was beyond the grasp of the science fiction writers of the time."
Day [editor of The Progressive] sent draft copies of Morland's article out to reviewers in late 1978 and early 1979, including Ron Siegel, a graduate student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Siegel gave his draft copy to George Rathjens, a professor of political science there in February 1979. For many years, Rathjens had issued a challenge to his graduate students to produce a workable design for a hydrogen bomb, but no one had ever succeeded. Rathjens phoned The Progressive and urged that the article not be published. When the editors dismissed his suggestion, he sent the draft to the DOE.
[...]
The DOE filed a motion to suppress the article with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Madison on March 8, 1979.
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressive [wikipedia.org]
It wasn't the first time the U.S. government had tried to suppress information about its designs for bombs:
In 1950, the Atomic Energy Commission asked Scientific American not to publish an article by Hans Bethe that it claimed revealed classified information about the hydrogen bomb. Scientific American reluctantly agreed to stop the presses and make changes in the article, and to recall and burn the 3,000 copies that had already been printed. The 1951 arrest of Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Morton Sobell and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who, according to Hoover, "stole the basic secrets of nuclear fission", caused great concern. President Dwight D. Eisenhower denied the Rosenbergs clemency on the grounds that their actions "could well result in the deaths of many, many thousands of innocent citizens", and they were executed.
--ibid.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday September 09 2016, @02:07PM
At the time they started the Manhattan Project the U.S. actually wasn't sure if they could beat the Nazis [wikipedia.org] to The Bomb. In retrospect, Germany wasn't anywhere close, but somebody else would have built it sooner or later.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday September 09 2016, @02:16AM
A single strike is "wrong", but thousands of tons of bombs scattered out around a city is "moral".
No, it's business. You can't make a trillion dollars by sending a button man out to kill one guy. "Morality" is just a gimmick to sell the war to the public.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday September 09 2016, @02:42AM
Yeah, I started this going for a "funny". But the thing is you crystallized my thoughts exactly, so I modded you up.
I know slippery slope and all, but North Korea is so far out of kilter it seems we should lob a couple dozen cruise missiles at them, then send in some food so the peons get to eat a decent meal for the first time in the 21st century.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday September 09 2016, @03:14AM
Leaders get assassinated every day. Your oppressors simply call it gang \ drugs & terrorism \ tribal wars the further it is from your front door.
Well, sarcastically exaggerated. Sadly, not by a whole much nowadays.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @04:24AM
> A single strike is "wrong", but thousands of tons of bombs scattered out around a city is "moral".
If the only consequence of a "single strike" were the deaths of those in the immediate vicinity then your sarcasm would be warranted.
But what happens next? The target is replaced and there is a pretty good chance that his replacement will be even more extreme than the previous guy. As a matter of public relations he's now even more motivated to prove his strength and get revenge for the national humiliation of the attack on the former leader.
That's certainly been our experience with targeted assassinations conducted on terrorist organizations. And look at just how bonkers the US went in response to 9/11 which only hit the pentagon. Imagine if Bush had been taken out, we probably would have actually nuked Iraq and anyone else who looked at us funny just for good measure.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 09 2016, @01:43PM
Yes, I kinda agree with you. But, no, I gotta disagree too. Banana republics? We set up a puppet, and as long as he behaves as we want him to behave, he's good to go. The petty dictator steps out of line, and suddenly he's a certified Commie (or whatever) so we have to send in a couple thousand troops to overthrow him. Of course, it helps to keep a couple dozen petty tyrant wannabes in the wings, so that any Banana republic can be swapped out on short notice.
There was a case of that crap backfiring pretty badly, though. That Shah of Iran business? The Iranians were pretty pissed at us over Operation Ajax, but what REALLY pissed them off, was when we installed that asswipe as a new "leader". If we had chosen a better petty tyrant, Iran might almost respect us. Might. Or, they might not hate us so much.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09 2016, @05:52PM
If the only consequence of a "single strike" were the deaths of those in the immediate vicinity then your sarcasm would be warranted.
Those who forget history.... Remember a little dustup called WW1? "Single Strike" in action.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Friday September 09 2016, @04:29AM
Thats why I support limited conscription.
The only people who can be forcibly conscripted, are the children of politicians, and they must serve on the front lines.
The only people who can stand for election, are those with children old enough to serve.
Bet a lot of countries will be less willing to go to war, when it's the decision makers own kids who will be the first to be turned into strawberry jam.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @08:09AM
I would also add a martial law stating that earning one cent from war, directly or indirectly, should be jailed or executed. Country enters war state, all your assets get frozen. Assets needed to wage war get exchanged for a certificate. At the end of the war, compensation is done so the losses are equally distributed to all persons depending on the initial frozen situation (ditto for gains). Killing people that profit from war, internationally, should always be considered self defense, none of that terrorism crap. Then we would only have still ugly, but less unjust wars.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 09 2016, @02:09PM
I agree that it should be a non-profit "business" with transparent expenditures and payroll.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 09 2016, @02:08PM
I'd like to put a tweak on your idea.
There, now we're almost to Starship Troopers : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.