SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC is reporting that North Korea has fired another missile:
North Korea has fired a missile eastwards from its capital, Pyongyang, towards Japan, media reports say.
Japan said that the missile likely passed over its territory and has warned residents to take shelter, local media report.
South Korea and the US are analysing the details of the launch, the South's military said.
Al Jazeera reports:
The projectile was launched at 6:57am (21:57GMT Thursday) and flew over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido before falling into the Pacific Ocean - 2,000km east of Cape Erimo, said Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga.
"Japan protests the latest launch in the strongest terms and will take appropriate and timely action at the United Nations and elsewhere, staying in close contact with the United States and South Korea," Suga told reporters.
South Korea's defence ministry said the missile travelled about 3,700km and reached a maximum altitude of 770km - both higher and further than previous tests.
Just more saber rattling? Another step in escalation? What's next?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @01:59AM (12 children)
^ This.
I pisses me off, to no end, that we can't just assassinate a leader here and there. We, collectively, have been brainwashed to believe that a single assassination is somehow more wrong than sending tens or hundreds of thousands to their deaths in service to those leaders. We can fight wars involving millions of people, but we can't shoot one son of a bitch who lords it over the masses?
The idea fails to fit into any rational view of the world.
(Score: 5, Funny) by number11 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:30AM (6 children)
But making Pence president isn't much of an improvement. You gotta take out the entire leadership.
Oh wait, were you were talking about Kim?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:41AM (5 children)
Yes, now, and maybe I was just speaking in generalities.
I would much rather see ten presidents of the United States killed, than to see ten thousand American troops killed in battle. Ditto for Kim, and any other country we might wish to consider. From mankind's earliest history, worthless shits have sat on thrones, and ordered hundreds, thousands, and more to march off to face death.
This is one of the things that proves that mankind is NOT evolving, as some claim.
When the world's "leaders" convene to do battle with one another for their causes in a courtyard at the UN, THEN I may concede that mankind has "evolved".
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @06:13AM (2 children)
Remind me how WW1 started.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:00PM (1 child)
The world war was triggered by a mesh of conflicting and self contradictory treaties that all those worthless shits had woven together to "protect" themselves, and their countries. The assassination meant almost nothing, in and of itself. It was all the idiot politicos who started WW1.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @04:49PM
Pratchett/Gaiman, Good Omens: "You think wars get started because some old duke gets shot, or someone cuts off someone's ear, or someone's sited their missiles in the wrong place. It's not like that. That's just, well, just reasons, which haven't got anything to do with it. What really causes wars is two sides that can't stand the sight of one another and the pressure builds up and up and then anything will cause it. Anything at all."
(Score: 2) by number11 on Friday September 15 2017, @06:25AM (1 child)
The world lost something, when the leader was no longer expected to be riding his horse out in front of the troops when they charged.
Or maybe that was just in movies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @08:13PM
https://soylentnews.org/~TheLink/journal/1632 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Skwearl on Friday September 15 2017, @02:56AM
um, so this is the idea that started ww1...which led to ww2. You should read the history books.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:59AM
First, what's this "we" crap?
Next, it's been done by the CIA in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses.
...and insightful comedian Bill Hicks suggested that the first thing a new US president gets is a private viewing of a film of the assassination of JFK that was taken from an angle different from the Zapruder film.
Apparently, you don't think that the Norks have a Deep State as well, to whom the "leader" is obligated.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @06:34AM
Why exactly do you think we don't do this? What do you think drone strikes, or "targeted killings" are? This [wikispooks.com] is a nonexhaustive list of US assassinations, primarily by the CIA, just since 1945.
The reality is that in war you are not really fighting people - you are fighting ideologies. If Kim Jong Un was assassinated, it might create a succession crisis but the only question would be who would take over the role of 'Supreme Leader', not whether they should become a US friendly democracy. Iraq is perhaps a good example of this. We destroyed their government and installed a puppet government we felt loyal. Within a decade Iraq had already begun to return to sectarian violence between Kurds, Shia, and Sunni while their leaders are turning against the United States and towards China/Iran/Russia. Democracy in a country where you have 3 large groups that fundamentally want to kill each other, and are willing to do just that - it just doesn't work. Politicians there have already been engaging in sectarian favoritism and trying to write as much into law. It's only a matter of time before they return to an iron fisted dictatorship, and the country will likely be vastly more stable for it.
The point of war is to remove the ability of the opponent to resist your advances. But removing somebody's ability to resist your advances, doesn't make them agree with you. It basically kicks the can. This, fundamentally, is why the United States has shown no real success in formal warfare since WW2. Now a days we're the body that starts wars and it's really hard to win wars that you start, because a country being invaded galvanizes against the foreigners. At the same time this is also how we undeniably won the cold war. We didn't win with weapons, but by making our culture and style of life something the Soviets clamored for. Make them agree with you, and the rest happens naturally. The problem is the US is losing the ability to convince other nations of the superiority of our system. The American Dream and gold plated streets can be rapidly revealed as propaganda, by simply streaming a stroll down most of any urban areas in our nation.
Wow, that was a rant. The whole point is yeah, we do kill people - and it's ultimately just about as effective as killing millions of people in attempts to change things. Which is to say, it's not.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday September 15 2017, @01:53PM (1 child)
The problem with assassinations is that they rarely address the root cause. It may temporarily forestall some bad events, but whatever conditions gave rise to a leader worthy of assassination are going to continue to give rise to similar problems until they are addressed.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:11PM
Fair enough - I'll give you that. An assassination seldom if ever addresses the root cause of a problem. But, then again, when has any politician ever done so? Look at our American politics. Every issue trotted out by the two parties is a distraction from real problems.
"We don't want Americans to dwell on the fact that they are under 24/7 surveillance, so we'll tell them that the Russians hacked the election."