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: 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.