SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Marvin-the-Martian-had-no-comment dept.
We had three Soylentils submit stories about North Korea's claims it had detonated a hydrogen bomb and reports of seismic activity.
North Korea has Conducted a Major Nuclear Test.
North Korea said on Sunday it detonated a hydrogen bomb, possibly triggering an artificial earthquake and prompting immediate condemnation from its neighbors -- despite the rogue regime calling the test a "perfect success." http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/03/quake-in-north-korea-may-have-been-nuclear-test.html
North Korea Claims Successful Hydrogen Bomb Test
North Korea claims to have successfully developed and tested a hydrogen bomb. Observers have detected tremors associated with a blast several times larger than previous underground nuclear bomb tests. North Korea also claimed to have developed a hydrogen bomb capable of being fitted on a missile:
North Korea carried out its most powerful nuclear test to date on Sunday, claiming to have developed an advanced hydrogen bomb that could sit atop an intercontinental ballistic missile.
The bomb used in the country's sixth-ever nuclear test sent tremors across the region that were 10 times more powerful than Pyongyang's previous test a year ago, Japanese officials said. While the type of bomb used and its size have not been independently verified, if true, the pariah state is a significant step closer to being able to fire a nuclear warhead to the US mainland, as it has repeatedly threatened it could if provoked.
[...] The device was more than eight times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, according to NORSAR, a Norway-based group that monitors nuclear tests. Based on the tremors that followed the test, NORSAR estimated it had an explosive yield of 120 kilotons. Hiroshima's had 15 kilotons. But South Korean officials gave a more modest estimation, saying that Sunday's bomb had a yield of 50 kilotons.
がんばれ! 你能行的!! 화이팅!!!
Also at BBC, Reuters, and NYT.
4.1 Magnitude Seismic Event in North Korea at a Low Depth
Earthquake News Today initially reported that a 5.1 magnitude event designated 2000aert had occurred near Sungjibaegam, North Korea at a depth of less than 1km at 03:30 UTC September 3.
Their updated report 2.5 hours later gave a magnitude of 4.1.
All reporting stations were in the USA.
NPR, formerly Nation Public Radio, subsequently reports
North Korea has claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb
The blast was picked up by seismic stations all over the world, and it was big.
[...]North Korea's previous nuclear tests have been in the tens of kilotons range. That corresponds roughly to a weapon the size of the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. It's believed that the North's earlier tests were of nuclear weapons that use uranium or plutonium (or both) for their explosive yield.
This time, the North claims to have mastered a far more powerful hydrogen weapon. Some early estimates are putting this test in the hundreds of kiloton range.
[...]Modern nuclear weapons of the sort possessed by the U.S. and Russia are almost all thermonuclear in nature. It allows the weapons to pack a huge punch while fitting in a warhead small enough to be delivered by a missile.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 04 2017, @05:53AM (42 children)
that idiot boy to insult China in some manner that China finds impossible to ignore. Maybe he'll demand that senior members of The Party worship him, since he's a demigod, and deserving of worship. Maybe he'll find some other way to piss on Chinese heritage and tradition. Maybe he'll fire a missile into China, because "They aren't taking me seriously!"
On the other hand, I often think that we should just nuke the capital when we know he's in town.
(Score: 5, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday September 04 2017, @06:08AM (2 children)
"It's illegal to threaten the President, even if you're joking." -- Clint Eastwood, "Line Of Fire"
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by lx on Monday September 04 2017, @07:46AM (1 child)
To be fair, he could be referring to the other idiot boy with a bad haircut who controls nuclear missiles.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 05 2017, @03:06AM
I know there are two noisy ones in the press at the moment, but if you look back over the last 60 years or so at all the idiot boys who have had control of nuclear weapons, I find it very reassuring that none have actually done anything colossally stupid with one, yet.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @07:54AM (2 children)
er, NK is sponsored by China. They will never bite the hand that feeds them (food and technology).... you think the Norks developed an H-bomb on their lonely ownsome? No, developed by you buying sh!t at Walfart and crap from the Dollar Stores.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:48AM
> you think the Norks developed an H-bomb on their lonely ownsome?
1) Yes. It's not hard in theory, the basics are online, all you need is to throw lot's of basic materials, time and money at it.
2) Why would China help them get an H bomb?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @03:12PM
Isn't it usually the US's buddy Pakistan that helps people develop nukes? Or was it their friends India, or best buddies Israel?
In any case, if China was helping them, they would have had one years ago. And it would have been much bigger than what we are seeing now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Monday September 04 2017, @09:39AM (30 children)
And after that - just how are going to explain to south korea that they just lost a couple of hundred thousand in Seoul?
If West attacks then the northern cities in S.Korea (incl. the capital [Seoul]) will be shelled (and maybe followed up with an invasion), if N.Korea attacks West then it will be airraided, shelled _and_ occupied. If N.Korea attacks Russia or China its status will be changed to Oblast or Shen fen (unless they luck out and we'll end up with Sheng fen Korea, Oblast Korea, Middle Korea _and_ NorthEastern Korea (á la post WWII germany)).
First side to use a nuke will lose support of the other parties (and will be left open to be nuked in any following wars it engages in for the next half century). However, the first retaliatory nuke will strike either Pyongyang, Yongbyon, Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo* or Vladivostok.
* = Think about it, this is a logical target if USA nukes N.Korea (with the exception of Washington and New York it is probably the best choice for following PR).
And we shouldn't also forget that if Kim dies the most likely successor would be someone less favourable to the west (and if Kim is assinated/nuked the next guy's first point on the agenda is revenge [or be replaced with some with this as its first point[). Heck, the best thing we can do is to keep Kim in good health, open up for trade, lessen export restrictions (what are they going to do? get nukes on ICBMs, oh wait), and wait for enough exposure to the outside world to erode the leadership's control (unless he eats himself to death or are assassinated it should be doable in Kim's lifetime)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @10:12AM (10 children)
> And after that - just how are going to explain to south korea that they just lost a couple of hundred thousand in Seoul?
A while ago, in another NK-related story, some of our resident sociopaths have expressed their sincere belief that losing a few million South Koreans is perfectly acceptable to get rid of the North. American exceptionalism, fuck all foreigners, stuff like that.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @05:10PM (9 children)
losing a few million South Koreans is perfectly acceptable to get rid of the North
Yes, it is... Ain't war hell? HAHAHAHA!
Drop the bomb. Exterminate them all.
You public relation sissies need to get out of the way. We must fight to win for a change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @08:20PM (7 children)
I'd love to see someone say "fight to win for a change" in front of a vet / active military.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @08:46PM (2 children)
I have, and most of them agree with me. They understand how their efforts are sabotaged by the officers and politicians. Hell, even WW2 dragged on for so long due to official incompetence and corruption. So, you can kindly fuck off, you idiot!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @09:23AM (1 child)
Ah! Idiot Vets! Yes, there are quite a few of them in America. Not so much in other nations, for some reason. But, yeah, for vets too stupid to realize that they were used in the interests of corporations and politicians, and that they had no business being in the conflicts they were in, the whole Dolchstoßlegende theory, to use the original Nazi term, makes sense. Yeah, American GIs could have won in Korea, won in Vietnam, won in ElSalvador, won in Nicaragua, won in Grenada, won against Maggie Thatcher, won in Libya (the first time), won in Angola, won in Rwanda, won in Somalia, won in (just how long is this list, any way?) Afghanistan, if only they had been allowed to kill women and children, bomb civilians, fuck goats and other livestock, like they really wanted to do. But all these "politically correct" politicians said they had to obey "international law", which only made our brave violent perverts lose to the violent pervs on the other side, which gives them a really bid sad.
So next time you meat one of these sociopath veterens, you probably should punch them in the face. They are not patriots, they are traitors, and you can tell them by the fact that they are more than likely carrying insignia of the enemies of America, like swastikas and Confederate battle flags and shit. Punch them in the face, as a thank you to their betrayal of their service.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @03:14PM
Ah! Idiot Vets!
No, idiot ACs like you, you whiny little bitch! Our country wouldn't last five minutes if people like you ran it. You obviously know NOTHING about war, and what it takes to WIN one! You people are the Neville Chamberlains of our day that advocate nothing but appeasement. Your kind makes me sick! I would happily put you under our bombs also. Please, save us the trouble and kill yourself, and your little SJW friends also.
Damn you! You're just making it easier for the Russian and Chinese tyrants to rule the world!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Monday September 04 2017, @09:44PM (3 children)
Most vets understand the difference between fighting to get a mission done, which is what they do, and the issue of what the mission is for, which is what politicians arrange and drive downhill through the ranks of the military.
From another perspective, the military fights to complete the missions it is assigned; the politicians fight to feed the military industrial complex, which is invested in keeping conflict going, not in getting it over and done.
Why do you think we've been in Afghanistan so long? It sure isn't because our military couldn't put the opposition down. It's because the military isn't allowed to put the opposition down. That would kill the golden goose for far too many military contractors. They will (and they have) stretch this out as long as possible.
And of course, there's the issue that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan at all.
But you know, we have always been at war with Eastasia.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @12:28AM (1 child)
because ["victory"] would kill the golden goose for far too many military contractors
That covers Ike's farewell address in 1961 ("the military-industrial complex").
For some reason, he omitted -congressional from that statement.
...then there's Major General Smedley Butler (USMC Ret.).
of course, there's the issue that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan at all
In 1935, General Butler gave a speech which was subsequently published to fill a great demand.
- War is a Racket -
8:55 streaming video [youtube.com]
Full text (multiple pages) [ratical.org]
[1] Standard Oil is currently known as ExxonMobil.
...and Trump has recently been unabashedly talking about plundering the rare earth mineral wealth in a country that USA has invaded and occupied.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:56AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @09:23AM
Same for the ISIS. Google for contain ISIS. Unlike the Russian Gov and the Syrian Gov, the US Gov doesn't want to eliminate the ISIS. The US Gov wants groups like the ISIS there so that they can continue to fight and overthrow/weaken the Syrian Gov.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:53AM
> We must fight to win for a change.
Or maybe just not fight?
Not our problem. Kim won't move because he likes to keep been alive. Keep the nukes inside Korea, that's about all we care about.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 04 2017, @11:08AM (7 children)
What's to explain, exactly? The S. Koreans aren't stupid. They will know quite well that we acted to eliminate a threat. Any "explanation" would be like, "Damn, sorry guys, sux to be u! Here's a few billion to rebuild with!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Monday September 04 2017, @01:19PM (4 children)
Because starting a war, causing collateral damage to innocent parties, taking over their country, and trying to bribe your way back into their hearts with just enough money to pay for military equipment is a sure-fire way to instill peace and democracy in the region.
Like just about EVERY Middle Eastern conflict for the last few generations. That doesn't create terrorist factions at all, now, does it?
If anything, they'll take that money, build a bomb and send it back to you in a few decades as a reminder of what you did.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @05:25PM (3 children)
Oh please! Stop with the melodramatics! Fighting to win is how we defeated the Krauts and the Japs. And they have over 70 years of peace, absolutely unprecedented, a new record every day. If we did the same with the ruskies and chinks, we wouldn't be in this mess. Apply the same rules to the middle east and all their problems would be solved also. If they experience some real fire and fury, they will STFU. But, we discovered how war is such good business on its own, its ancillary industries are thriving. So we are where we are.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @08:31PM
I've noticed a trend, people who use racist language are often the ones pushing for mass death. "Kill em all, glass it over, acceptable losses" etc.
Racism is a dehumanizing of one group, I guess it makes sense that it would pair up with violence.
You can play what-if all day and get nowhere, but I'd like to point out that you're advocating mass murder of innocent civilians when you say we should have nuked our way to power.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday September 06 2017, @09:51AM (1 child)
Do you then remember arming parts of the German and Japanese (seriously, what are you, in kindergarten or something? Grow up) armies to instil unrest so that you could install your own government?
That's not what happened. That was a WAR. One nation state declared war on another.
What I'm talking about is the stuff in the Middle East where non-descript factions are declared "war" on by nation states, arming their opposing factions, causing a ton of collateral damage to people not associated with either faction, then leaving and expecting the area to stabilise while you insert "democracy" into their process (i.e. do what the US says), and actually ending up on the receiving end of the innocent / opposing factions ARMED retaliation with the weapons you gave them to help "stabilise" their country.
Go look at any Middle East battle for the last century where exactly that happened, and even in things like Vietnam.
But, to be honest, given your racist and thoughtless rhetoric, chances are that you just don't understand why you have the terrorist factions fighting against you that you do.
Hint: When you blow up someone's country in the name of "democracy", they often come back next year as a group that gets itself a name blowing you up. Then you arm their opponents to kill them off, and still blow up those opponents too, and then next year..... Just about every group name you have heard, from Al Qaeda back to the 1960/70's, are people who got tired of the US bombing their country indiscriminately and trying to insert a US-approved government into it, rebelled and quite often were - at one point - on the side of, and armed by, the US / NATO / etc. forces.
But I don't expect someone who uses the terms you do to understand the first thing about foreign politics or what it means to actually go to war, rather than impose your own terrorism on a foreign state because "they're not us".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06 2017, @02:15PM
That's why we just have to nuke the entire region. If they don't lay down their weapons, they should be exterminated. Once they know we mean business, they will comply or die. Either one is good. The middle east is a PR war to make money, not a real one. So really, put a sock in it!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Monday September 04 2017, @01:45PM
A few billion? So, after they've rebuilt a few 100 buildings in Seuol, then what? It is all fine?
First up they'd be pissed you attacked without informing them (it's not like they don't have a preemptive strike plan ready, just coordinate), secondly they be _really_ pissed off at you for not sending pretty much everything as a defensive force ahead of time, and thirdly unless you leave N.Korea as a nuclear crater they'd pretty much toss out any and all agreements regarding nuclear they have with USA (kinda the only thing that keeps S.Korea from having nukes - they have all the knowhow and capacity for it, they just havn't bothered to start with it due to a US agreement that prevents them from reprocessing).
Oh yeah, and if you leave N.Korea a nuclear crater they'd be pissed at you for killing their relatives and will toss out any and all agreements with you.
So, after your nuking of Kim you'd just given China and Russia a good foothold for involving nukes in any conflicts and _really_ escalate their buildup, you'd just turned South Korea into hostile nuclear state, probably you'd lost the support of entire south east asia. You'd just destabilized the entire area around Russia and China (congrats, you now have to protect both western and eastern fronts) and thereby destabilised europe and south of asia. Congrats, you'd just set off Cold War II and probably been the starting point of WWIII.
A nuclear first strike in this region is a losing move for pretty much everyone (unless N.Korea strikes first, in which case it sucks for "only" the region and whatever target they chose)
Next time - just send in a sniper or use a thermobaric device or use kinetic bombardment (properly shaped DU-rod dropped from as high as you can carry it without entering space). The political fallout would be a lot nicer.
You'd still have to explain to S.Korea but you wouldn't have set the stage for WWIII.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @04:29PM
... oh, and those billions, you gotta spend them with companies on this list right here that is attached to the billions. Whadayamean, they're all american companies?
But subsidies are wrong, isn't that so?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @12:10PM (1 child)
A couple of hundred thousand in Seoul? Are you seriously so ingenuos?
It's waaaay worse.
Seoul is 35 miles away from the NK border, surrounded by montains and has a population of 25M just in the metro area, seconds away from 10-12K NK mobile artillery pieces and 2-3K rocket batteries ready to flatten all around even in case of a preentive strike.
And if the massive artillery firepower was not enough, NK has launchers and NUKES with ALL Japan in range where MORE people will die.
If anybody still can't grasp it, NK has the US grabbed by the balls.
But who cares a couple tens of millions killed in just Seoul, isn't always like that with the US?
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday September 04 2017, @01:20PM
When it comes to Seoul in itself I'd actually be surprised if more than a couple of hundred thousands would die, mainly since they have this newfangled thing called bombshelters (capacity about 10M it seems). But I expect about 100k to die in the first 15minutes of shelling.
Regarding the entire north of South Korea I'd expect a dozen or two million deaths.
The thing to remember is that after the first volley of artillery the effeciency of them drops _very_ rapidly (due to overlap, and that people start to move to shelter and less exposed areas and stronger infrastructure - kinda like how London operated during the blitz).
However, if NK would coordinate all of their artillery to go off in three volleys perfectly synchronized, planned and with pinpoint accuracy they'd probably be able to go above 30M dead in 15minutes.
Also, a nuke in Seoul would cause a lot less damage than people expect (yet quite a bit more than anything else would, and probably would be beyond what most people could grasp - but still nowhere near the what people seem to expect), there are two things that nukes kinda suck at - reinforced concrete buildings and earthquake-resistant buildings (both absorb shockwaves quite effeciently, and a few meter of concrete is good enough shielding against radiation).
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday September 04 2017, @09:12PM (2 children)
There's no need to drag any nukes into this if it comes down to military conflict. The US I'm sure is quite capable of levelling North Korea with conventional bombs (I'm sure we have some real beauties the military would just love to see in action), if done with enough precision they could likely negate North Korea's ability to launch any further sort of significant counter attack. Hopefully the Chinese will force North Korea to act rationally before any actual military action occurs.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday September 04 2017, @11:46PM (1 child)
What makes you think NK isn't already acting rationally?
I think it was their Glorious Leader himself who noted that the US has a tendency of ensuring that heads of unfriendly states end up dead. Saddam. Gaddafi. Any number of South American leaders.
If NK was not nuclear capable, Trump might very well decide to 'liberate' it. Bad outcome for Kim. It's reasonable for NK's leadership to think that the only thing keeping them alive at the moment is their nuclear threat.
You tell me - if you were in Kim Jong Un's shoes, would you disarm at this point? He probably has no intention whatsoever to attack, but he needs the west to think that he might just be crazy enough to do it, otherwise there's no threat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @09:37AM
Yep it's just like a guy wearing a suicide vest. Iraq, Libya etc[1] didn't have suicide vests. So the US Gov shot them in the head.
The real danger to the world is the USA not NK. NK is dangerous to SK, Japan and China. And that's about it really. It's not like they have thousands of nukes AND the required delivery platforms.
Heck China might even be secretly relieved the NK has nukes if it really makes the USA less likely to regime change NK. The USA hasn't had that many "success stories" that China would want in their backyard. As long as the NK regime is stable China only has one sociopath to manage.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#Cold_War_era [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 05 2017, @03:10AM (5 children)
Well, the DMZ is only 160 miles long, a rolling wave of nukes every 10 miles, 50 miles deep - that's only maybe 100 warheads, could launch that from a single submarine. Any positions bold enough to try to shell the south after that little demonstration could be "spot treated" with 16" guns on battleships just offshore. Just be sure to use "clean" H bombs.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Tuesday September 05 2017, @03:32AM (4 children)
You're absolutely full of bullshit.
1) No comment on your fantasy of "demonstrating" by expending a large proportion of the US strategic deterrence. There is no industrial base left to manufacture replacements afterward. Keep in mind that arms limitation agreements are in fact depleting the deterrence further all the time.
2) There are no battleships left in service or conceivably returnable to service. No 16 inch guns. BTW, we have no 12" guns either, and not even any 8" or 6" cruiser guns.
3) There are no "clean" H-bombs. What we do have is 2 and 3 stage boosted fission A-bombs. Some of them are just a little less "dirty" than plain A-bombs, and others are extremely dirty.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 05 2017, @01:22PM (3 children)
I'm less full of BS than our fearless orange haired septuagenarian leader: "They will be met with a fire and fury like the world has never seen"
I count roughly 18 Ohio class submarines in service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ohio-class_submarines [wikipedia.org] each carrying either 154 cruise missiles or 24 Trident (MIRV) SLBMs.
You caught me out on the battleships, I see the Iowa class are decommissioned now, though they did serve in GW1. The modern thinking is probably that any one of the 10 currently operating Nimitz class carrier groups can more than replace the functionality of the old battleship designs.
Still, we've never demonstrated the potential of MAD to the world, and I hope we never do - you're right that "clean" H bombs don't really exist, it's all a relative thing - though the detonation of 100 warheads north of the DMZ to effectively widen it to 50 miles would be a pretty straightforward, and constitute less than 50% of the atmospheric nuclear detonations conducted during the saber rattling phase of the cold war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing [wikipedia.org]
Maybe we could just politely ask that the noisy dictator widen the DMZ voluntarily, and send 100 conventional warheads as a demonstration?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:19PM (2 children)
Granted, but that is setting the bar awfully low.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:25PM (1 child)
This is a democracy, we collectively set that bar ourselves.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @08:34PM
ORLY? Must be nice where you are.
A Democracy is where the majority rules.
...not a majority of the money; a majority of THE PEOPLE.
Here in the USA, the majority of people want the rich to be taxed more, less war, well-regulated banking, a Medicare-for-All program, and fundamental reform of political campaigning.
...and in almost every one of those cases, that is a SUPERmajority. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [shadowproof.com]
Oh, wait. More recent numbers are in.
Yup. Now, in every case, it's a supermajority who wants that stuff. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org]
...yet The Majority is being ignored.
...while The Rich get what they want.
That's NOT a Democracy.
That's an Oligarchy.
.
...and a big THANK YOU to Lamestream Media for doing such a fine job of informing everyone about what's actually going on.
/sarc
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Whoever on Monday September 04 2017, @03:58PM (4 children)
Then you make the same mistake as many. You make the same mistake that is driving a wrong-headed US policy at the moment.
He isn't an idiot. He's not a fruitcake. He is quite rational and perhaps quite smart.
He is smart and focused on one goal alone: keeping himself (and, to a lesser degree, his family) in power. That's all. That's everything.
Now look at his actions through that lens and you will see that they are quite rational. Developing nuclear bombs? Sensible if you want to make sure the USA doesn't invade. Keep your population in poverty? He doesn't care about them as long as they don't revolt and he has taken many actions to suppress revolt.
The USA presents a threat because the USA has stated that they would like to see regime change in NK. That's the worst threat the USA could present to NK.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 04 2017, @06:25PM (3 children)
Anyone who ultimately draws his power from a population of serfs, laborers, techs, or whatever, and fails to provide for that population, has some damned irrational ideas. Even if you consider the serfs to be no more than cattle, any rancher knows that he must take care of his cattle.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Monday September 04 2017, @08:23PM
Not irrational, just completely unscrupulous. Completely without compassion. A narcissist psychopath.
He takes care of his cattle by keeping them ignorant and subjugated. Let's face it, slavery lasted in some societies for a long time.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday September 04 2017, @10:41PM
Also, Kim is adept at playing off China against the USA.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @01:21AM
USA: The only industrialized nation that doesn't provide universal healthcare for its population.
...and workplace safety is going down, down, and down.
...and layoffs are ever more prevalent (boom-and-bust Capitalism).
...and jobs continue to be exported.
Sounds like you're referring to your own country's Oligarchy.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]