Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by martyb on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:45PM   Printer-friendly

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?


Original Submission

Related Stories

Nuclear-Armed Nations Brought the North Korea Crisis on Themselves 46 comments

North Korea's defiant pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities, dramatised by last weekend's powerful underground test and a recent long-range ballistic missile launch over Japan, has been almost universally condemned as posing a grave, unilateral threat to international peace and security.

The growing North Korean menace also reflects the chronic failure of multilateral counter-proliferation efforts and, in particular, the long standing refusal of acknowledged nuclear-armed states such as the US and Britain to honour a legal commitment to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals.

In other words, the past and present leaders of the US, Russia, China, France and the UK, whose governments signed but have not fulfilled the terms of the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), have to some degree brought the North Korea crisis on themselves. Kim Jong-un's recklessness and bad faith is a product of their own.

The NPT, signed by 191 countries, is probably the most successful arms control treaty ever. When conceived in 1968, at the height of the cold war, the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons was considered a real possibility. Since its inception and prior to North Korea, only India, Pakistan and Israel are known to have joined the nuclear "club" in almost half a century.

To work fully, the NPT relies on keeping a crucial bargain: non-nuclear-armed states agree never to acquire the weapons, while nuclear-armed states agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and pursue nuclear disarmament with the ultimate aim of eliminating them. This, in effect, was the guarantee offered to vulnerable, insecure outlier states such as North Korea. The guarantee was a dud, however, and the bargain has never been truly honoured.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/05/nuclear-armed-nations-brought-the-north-korea-crisis-on-themselves


[Ed Note: Since this story was submitted there has been at least one additional ballistic missile test by North Korea.]

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:58PM (17 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:58PM (#568146) Journal

    War is the next step. Kim Jong-un has pushed his luck too far, and keeps on pushing.

    It sucks for South Korea. It sucks for Japan. It sucks for China. But North Korea under Kim Jong-un is not an outfit that is headed toward nuclear disarmament.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:02AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:02AM (#568152)

      And what evidence do you have to support these claims?

      After decades of nothing happening, it's far more likely that nothing will continue to happen.

      • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday September 15 2017, @12:49AM (6 children)

        by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @12:49AM (#568186)

        "After decades of nothing happening"

        Wow, we've got a poster who didn't even read TF*H*.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:00AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:00AM (#568217)

          It was merely a missile. They shot off one, what, a couple of weeks ago? And they've done it periodically numerous times for years before then. There are some angry words back and forth, and nothing really ever comes of it. The last time there was anything really happening in this conflict was 1953. So, yes, it's quite right to say that nothing has happened for decades.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @02:16AM (3 children)

            by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:16AM (#568226)

            Bullshit. In the past couple of decades NK did not have a possible hydrogen bomb an order of magnitude greater than the ones dropped on Japan. Pretty sure Japan has not forgotten, and NK will hit them with MORE power.

            Now they keep going on about missile tests and how they can place the nuclear weapons on them. Things are different when there is an actual chance of them possessing the weapons *and* *decades* of making threats.

            Are they probably still posturing and engaging in Juche Theater? Maybe. But let's not pretend these events are normal. The past few decades was just foreplay while NK amassed weapons and constantly evolved their weapon tech despite pretty much constant sanctions, etc.

            At some point we're going to suspect they are real, and when that day happens, war.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:46AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:46AM (#568242)

              Can we try to aim for some minimal accuracy? Japan was attacked with two atomic bombs. Kim claims to have hydrogen bombs. The difference between the two is probably similar to the difference between a standard firecracker, and a stick of dynamite.

              Yes, I realize that I'm not being especially accurate here, but the point is, Japan wasn't attacked with a modern nuclear device. As devastating as an atomic bomb is, it's still pretty primitive.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @06:38AM

                by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @06:38AM (#568327)

                Can we try to aim for some minimal accuracy?

                Well, seismic data has them placing the recent nuke at 120 ktons, and Fat Man was 20 ktons. An order of magnitude of difference. That was from another article and I basically paraphrased it.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by driverless on Friday September 15 2017, @06:13PM

              by driverless (4770) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:13PM (#568593)

              In the past couple of decades NK did not have a possible hydrogen bomb

              They still don't have a hydrogen bomb, at best a boosted fission bomb, if that. Heck, Ivy King was half a megaton and that was pure fission, you don't need anything exotic to get to 120kt.

              they can place the nuclear weapons on them

              Which they are nowhere near doing. There's a difference between firing an empty nose cone a few thousand km and miniaturising a warhead, placing it in a missile, and firing it a few thousand km. NK is decades away from the latter. They just don't have the resources or technology to do it.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday September 15 2017, @02:18AM

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday September 15 2017, @02:18AM (#568228)

            Indeed. Worrisome for Japan certainly, but let's be honest, NK doesn't need much more than a good strong catapult to hit Japan - these tests are to inform China, Russia, US, etc. that it's increasingly able to hit reach valuable targets.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 15 2017, @04:55AM (2 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Friday September 15 2017, @04:55AM (#568287) Journal

        You know that crazy guy who lives next door? It seems last week, he somehow got his hands on a bunch of military hardware and now he's throwing practice grenades at your house. Do you assume it's all fine and tell the kids not to worry or do you call the cops?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:30AM (#568304)

          What if he's holding another neighbor hostage?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @11:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @11:24AM (#568378)

          How crazy is he really? What happened is he noticed Mr World Cop going around shooting dead various people (based on lies or trumped up reasons) e.g Saddam, Gaddafi, etc and trying to kill others like Assad.

          And Mr World Cop has declared him a target. So he gets himself a nuclear suicide vest and now has Japan and Korea in his reach.

          Seems unlikely that he'll use his suicide vest as long nobody else does anything crazy like Mr World Cop trying to take him out... Why should he? Do you think he believes his own country's bullshit that he's a God? Especially when his dad died? He's well aware that China won't back him up if he _starts_ stuff: http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/china-and-north-korea-have-a-mutual-defense-treaty-but-when-would-it-apply/ [thediplomat.com]

          What he's doing is proving his suicide vest is not a dud.

          The danger time is probably if he falls terminally ill or similar and has nobody left alive that he cares about... He might decide to watch some fireworks before dying...

          But Trump could be considered even more dangerous especially since the US nuclear arsenal is vastly greater by magnitudes. The probability might be lower but the impact to the world is greater.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Friday September 15 2017, @01:35AM (5 children)

      by Sulla (5173) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:35AM (#568206) Journal

      Why would kim comply when all compliance will get him is a quicker death? He learned the lessons taught to Gadaffi and Sadam.

      --
      "I'd rather take a political risk for peace rather than risk peace in pursuit of politics" - President Donald J. Trump
      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @02:20AM (4 children)

        by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:20AM (#568230)

        It was not compliance that took Gadaffi out, but his penchant for stuffing broken off broomsticks up people's asses killing them. Sadam was caught and prosecuted by the law. Gadaffi was caught by his people, and no amount of compliance/non-compliance was stopping that broomstick from being shoved up his butthole, and then being shot and torn apart by the crowds.

        In fact, I would venture that *early* compliance might have saved Gadaffi. At least there could've been a chance that civilized law would've treated him better.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:12AM (#568250)

          No, USA has no allies, only interests (well, any country, but USA is the big gorilla of our times). And compliance means dropping any resistance, being at the mercy of whoever call the shots.

          So, for example, you decide to handle petrol by other means than dollars, like Sadam and Gadaffi dared to suggest... you better have something nasty to cover your ass. Russia and China can get away with deals among them, because hell would open otherwise. Small countries without nuclear weapons? Not so much. You are the path for a new pipe, like Syria... you let the pipe pass or something nasty happens to you.

          General Sundarji wasn't stupid.
          https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6049569/would-it-be-so-bad-if-iran-gets-the-bomb [vox.com]

          The issue is other countries don't constally show off their nuclear for the news, just make sure other governments know.
          https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/03/29/on-the-nuclear-edge [newyorker.com]

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:34AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:34AM (#568306)

          Here [youtube.com] is what happened to Gaddafi in Clinton's words.

          What you're saying is not really well supported. The historical record in Libya is not ambiguous. This [wikipedia.org] provides a reasonable synopsis while leaving out much of the detail. The people that killed Gaddafi were being armed, trained, and assisted by foreign nations. And in a couple of decades when it's declassified you can rest assured were also directly providing and instigating said people via the CIA. The whole thing would be like if e.g. China decided to start arming, training, and supporting either the alt-left or alt-right in the United States today - and then claiming their resultant destruction was an act "of the people." Hardly.

          The worst part is that Gaddafi's biggest crime had nothing to do with human rights violations. Consider the fact that one of our biggest allies is Saudi Arabia, who is now almost as a tongue in cheek joke also heading the UN Human Rights Council. All while they execute [wikipedia.org] people for things ranging from socery, to political protest, to adultery. Oh and the methods are great too. Beheading, stoning, they're even bringing back crucifixion! They like to party like its 99BCE. I imagine they all raise a glass (of grape juice... of course) to human rights following a nice crucifixion. The United States (and most other nations) could not care less about international human rights violations whatsoever except as a convenient cassus belli. Gaddafi's grievous crime was aiming to sell his country's oil in a currency other than the USD, and planning to create a gold backed currency. The petro dollar is what stabilizes the US economy. Other countries that have also stated intentions to move off the petro dollar include Iraq, Syria, and Iran. And no - it was in retribution, it was before they became targets #1 for "regime change." Saudi Arabia though, they love that petro dollar. Go figure.

          For some predictive power, Venezuela also just formally announced they also plan to move off the petro dollar. Expect to see the "rebels" in that nation suddenly seem vastly more well trained, supported, armed, and organized. I wish I could live for a thousand years just to see how history will record our little empire's actions. We aren't necessarily the "bad guys", but we're certainly not the "good guys" we feign to be. Well maybe one won't have to live to a thousand to see the end of this story.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @07:33PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @07:33PM (#568651)

            We aren't necessarily the "bad guys", but we're certainly not the "good guys" we feign to be.

            Actually the USA are the bad guys. The Russians are bad but they aren't even as bad as the USA since they aren't huge hypocrites and they don't do as much regime changing as the USA does.

            And when they do it actually makes a lot more sense from their point of view. Like Ukraine - it's a buffer for them: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/ [theatlantic.com]

            Whereas the USA has often made the world a worse place even for themselves with their meddling.

            On a related note, I personally find it hard to list down the good things the CIA have done for the USA much less the world.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @10:44PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @10:44PM (#568728)

              In my laptop, I used to use one of their WiFi cards.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:59PM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday September 14 2017, @11:59PM (#568147)

    Good question. I'm more worried about Trump than Kim.
    Normally, when the tiny dog barks at the giant dog, the giant dog doesn't bother to bite.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @01:56AM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @01:56AM (#568212) Journal

      Well, there is the fact to consider, that tiny dogs don't carry around nuclear weapons to threaten the big dog.

      --
      #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
      • (Score: 4, Touché) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @04:12PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @04:12PM (#568512)

        The little dog can always get the first bite in and draw blood. Then it gets torn into pieces.
        Both dogs know that, and none moves.
        I trust this little dog to keep it at barking more than I trust the big dog, who is actively training fleas to try to irritate the small dog until someone gets bit.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @07:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @07:35PM (#568653)
          And the big dog has a long track record of going around tearing little dogs to pieces...
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday September 15 2017, @12:05AM (40 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday September 15 2017, @12:05AM (#568156)

    Seems Kim is worried Trump is actually willing to do something and wants to go down in history as the asshat that destroyed Seoul. 30 years of diplomacy hasn't worked, putting pressure on China hasn't worked, hate to say it's looking like we're gonna have to sacrifice Seoul to save Kim's random target.

    Sucks, but I've been saying for 20-30 years the Norks don't respond to diplomacy.

    My hope? We have somebody on the ground that can shoot the fucker next time he appears in public. Let the chips fall where they may, I'm betting that's out best option at this point.

    --
    If you're talking about me behind my back, remember you're in a great position to kiss my ass.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Friday September 15 2017, @12:22AM (16 children)

      by NewNic (6420) on Friday September 15 2017, @12:22AM (#568169) Journal

      Sucks, but I've been saying for 20-30 years the Norks don't respond to diplomacy.

      Perhaps the West hasn't been very good at diplomacy with NK for 30 years? Probably something to with entering into a war, that is still technically still on (but never really authorized by Congress).

      Kim -xx-yy (whichever generation) wants one thing: to remain as leader of NK. The USA has advocated for regime change in NK. The USA has shown that by working with the USA, all a country gets is shafted (Iraq).

      The various Kims are quite rational. Perhaps more so than Donald. We just don't approach them in any manner conducive to productive dialogue.

      Then, there is China. China wants a buffer between itself and a USA-facing country. That buffer is NK.

      Really, if we had just let NK get along (ignoring the human rights issues), the West would probably be better positioned with respect to NK now.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Friday September 15 2017, @01:07AM (15 children)

        by Snotnose (1623) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:07AM (#568194)

        The various Kims are quite rational.

        How exactly is that? They know we don't want to invade them. They know that we know they can destroy Seoul before we can take them out. They know we don't want that. They keep provoking us to invade them. Now they have nukes, and missiles that can, at the very least, hit Japan.

        'splain to me how 30 years of diplomacy has done us a bit of good.

        --
        If you're talking about me behind my back, remember you're in a great position to kiss my ass.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Friday September 15 2017, @01:59AM (7 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:59AM (#568216) Journal

          Would we invade now that they have nukes? It's much less likely. Win for NK.

          Do they really know that we don't want to invade them? Is the war over? Does the US run military exercises near to them? Perhaps the USA has sent mixed messages for 30 years.

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 15 2017, @05:04AM (5 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Friday September 15 2017, @05:04AM (#568292) Journal

            Invasion hasn't been on the table for a long time. When they kept to themselves, they weren't really even on the radar. The one and only reason anyone is talking about them or gives a rats ass about them now is the saber rattling.

            Invasion still isn't the preferred option. A single bullet coming out of nowhere looks pretty good though. A lot of countries that might have officially deplored such an action last year now realize they are in range for a nuke...

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @09:31AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @09:31AM (#568351)

              Invasion hasn't been on the table for a long time.

              It wasn't for Iraq either. Until we got a chimpanzee in charge with a grudge. I don't think we can trust the current orangutan anymore than the chimp.

              And now I'm going to get in trouble with animal rights groups for that comparison.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 15 2017, @01:59PM (3 children)

                by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @01:59PM (#568430) Journal

                Saddam wasn't firing ICBMs over our allies. He wasn't testing nuclear weapons. He was a monster, but he wasn't actually threatening anyone, especially after we kicked his ass out of Kuwait in the 90's.

                Kim is firing ICBMs over our allies and testing nuclear weapons. He has made specific threats against our allies and us. It has been verified he has the capability to follow through. Do we wait until he goes on a bender and in a fit of pique launches an ICBM armed with a hydrogen bomb at Tokyo? At Seoul? At Guam?

                I still say it's on the Chinese to put down the rabid dog on their doorstep. They can install a different China-friendly puppet who doesn't want to have nuclear weapons or threatens to drag China into a devastating war with all of China's best customers. I don't think anybody but Kim Jong-un would have a problem with that scenario. It would probably wind up winning China a lot of points on the international stage. We all might feel sad about the plight of the North Korean people in passing, but if they like living in an open-air prison that's their right.

                But I say the clock has run out for China to do what they ought to do. If they won't do the right thing for them and for everybody, then the rest of us must.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @08:09PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @08:09PM (#568670)

                  Saddam wasn't firing ICBMs over our allies. He wasn't testing nuclear weapons. He was a monster, but he wasn't actually threatening anyone,

                  AND look what the USA did to him. The USA lied about WMD and killed him. Similar for Gaddafi in Libya. And take a good look at those countries now, are their people better off? I could list more countries like Iran and Afghanistan.

                  The USA was and is trying to do similar stuff to Assad in Syria. And for what? I can see the gains for Israel but for the USA?

                  If they won't do the right thing for them and for everybody, then the rest of us must.

                  The right thing for everyone is for the USA is to just fucking back off and stop pointing a gun at Kim's head. Then he'll be less likely to use his nukes. He AND at least some of his top brass know if NK uses nukes offensively they are screwed. Kim isn't fat because he's been living a Spartan lifestyle. Do you think he really wants to end the good times for himself?

                  Look at it from his point of view. The only reason why Kim is trying to get a nukes AND prove he can use them is because Kim desperately needs some insurance against the provably Evil and Deadly US Regime.

                  The North Korean regime is far more evil than the USA but it's a lot weaker. If the USA wasn't so keen on regime change NK wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get nukes.

                  Go learn from history and stop believing your own country's propaganda. You are the bad guys. Not the worst but pretty bad. Go look at how many democracies the USA has overthrown and the motives.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @06:00PM (#569058)

                  evidently, the US had Kuwait horizontally drill into Iraq oil to trick/force Saddam to retaliate as a pretext to invade.

          • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:25AM

            by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:25AM (#568786)

            Give Seoul a 1 month evacuation order. Build tent cities 10 miles out of Seoul. Spread them out, way out. Make damn sure dinky penis Kim knows what is happening.

            When it's time for the shit to hit the fan close the roads into Seoul at 4 AM, nobody gets in. You didn't evacuate? Sux2bu.

            Now hit as many of their artillery positions as possible, make sure Pyongyang is devastated, make sure their science research sites are devastated, and make sure anything that looks hinky is devastated. I'm guessing we can nail 90% of their artillery positions, so we're good.

            --
            If you're talking about me behind my back, remember you're in a great position to kiss my ass.
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by number11 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:19AM (5 children)

          by number11 (1170) on Friday September 15 2017, @02:19AM (#568229)

          They know we don't want to invade them.

          I don't know that Carrottop doesn't want to invade them. So how would they know that? We never have signed a peace treaty with them, have we?

          'splain to me how 30 years of diplomacy has done us a bit of good.

          Well, we haven't had a shooting war with them in the last 30 years. That's a bit of good. You may not worry about people getting killed, but I do. After all, if their leadership is a legitimate target, ours is as well. As much as I like the idea of locking our respective heads of state in a room with Bowie knives, and not opening the door until neither comes out, that's not gonna work. Besides, why don't you tell us what nuclear power in the last 70 years has ever gotten rid of their capability. But nobody's used them, either.

          I don't know how much of their routine is actual paranoia (remember, even paranoids have real enemies), and how much of it is done to stay in power. Since time immemorial, regimes have stayed in power by claiming external threats. The running dog imperialists. Bolsheviks, Communists, illegal immigrants, Jews, Chinese, whatever. Anybody who is different will serve.

          Reply to This

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Friday September 15 2017, @03:04AM (2 children)

            by deimtee (3272) on Friday September 15 2017, @03:04AM (#568248)

            I think South Africa is the only one who had nukes and gave them up. There are a bunch of countries that have the technical expertise to design and build them but decided not to.
            Doesn't detract from the rest of your points.

            --
            Every call you get with blocked ID, answer it with "Hello Mrs Crawford".
            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:58AM (#568267)

              Ukraine too.

            • (Score: 2) by number11 on Friday September 15 2017, @06:17AM

              by number11 (1170) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:17AM (#568321)

              Good point, I forgot about SA.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:05PM (1 child)

            by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:05PM (#568437) Journal

            I don't know that Carrottop doesn't want to invade them. So how would they know that? We never have signed a peace treaty with them, have we?

            The only reason to invade them is because they have nuclear weapons and are threatening to use them on everybody. There is no other reason. South Korea is perfectly capable of supplying world demand for kimchi and K-Pop and Korean dramas. North Korea has nothing anybody wants.

            Ergo, if they gave up the nuclear weapons and threatening war on everybody, the rest of the world would be content to let them continue their little prison experiment.

            After all, if their leadership is a legitimate target, ours is as well.

            Great, because our leadership needs to get got, too.

            We ought to get really creative and parachute Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, and other crack members of the 1% into North Korea to help them "sort out their economy and identify key value drivers." We'll suture body cams to their chests so we can watch the footage as a reality TV series. Hilarity will ensue.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @06:01PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @06:01PM (#568587)

              Ergo, if they gave up the nuclear weapons and threatening war on everybody, the rest of the world would be content to let them continue their little prison experiment.

              Which would end pretty rapidly without the perceived threat of foreign meddling and imminent invasion. North Korean serfs need to remain mortally afraid of the outside world or they'd have little reason to look to the Kim family to save them. In general, you can convince a populous to make sacrifices for the war effort if they believe they are under existential threat. "If there is no existential threat, then why are we living in destitution?" It wouldn't be long before the North Korean people perceived Pyongyang as the source of their misery.

        • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday September 15 2017, @03:36PM

          by richtopia (3160) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @03:36PM (#568493) Homepage Journal

          The rational part is that the USA is not the only threat the Kim family is facing. It is actually a much smaller threat than the country collapsing into infighting. The evil USA mantra helps the Kim family control the populace and spend money on the army.

          I am unsure why we have so much testing of missiles currently. Perhaps Trump really is scaring the North Koreans, and they are trying to inflate their defensive capabilities. Or perhaps there is some internal strife that isn't visible to the international community, and the missile program is somehow assisting with keeping Kim Jong-un in power.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @12:29AM (7 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @12:29AM (#568173)

      > [Kim] wants to go down in history as the asshat that destroyed Seoul

      No. He wants to stay alive, which only happens if he keeps everyone else hesitating.

      > Let the chips fall where they may,

      I'm guessing the Pentagon is very very carefully counting how many communication systems and artillery positions they can take out at the exact time the stealth missiles hit the big guy's bedroom.

      Unless the number is "essentially all of them", nobody wants their name at the top of that action report. Seoul may grudgingly deal with a day of light shelling, and China will scream at a decapitation strike, but if over 5% of the Nork's arty starts firing, the result will be a political nightmare even Trump can't brush aside.

      • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday September 15 2017, @01:14AM (3 children)

        by Snotnose (1623) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:14AM (#568197)

        I'm guessing the Pentagon is very very carefully counting how many communication systems and artillery positions they can take out at the exact time the stealth missiles hit the big guy's bedroom.

        Wouldn't it be funny if the south told everyone in Seoul to evacuate, give them, I dunno, a month to git-r-done? The Norks will be shitting themselves, knowing a preemptive strike means they're all dead 15 minutes later. The Seoul residents would also shit themselves, but hopefully understand the reality of the situation and GTFO. Seems a month is enough time to evacuate Seoul, which takes away the Nork's main threat.

        No need to say that after that month the norks cease to exist. They can bomb an empty city to hell, but they're all dead and the "war" is over in under 24 hours.

        --
        If you're talking about me behind my back, remember you're in a great position to kiss my ass.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @01:19AM (2 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:19AM (#568201)

          The point of the missiles is that you can't get people out of reach. All of Korea can get hit by a lot of stuff is minutes, Japan would get a few too (hard to miss Tokyo).
          NK also has quite a few subs. They may be basic, but it's hard to sink them all before they realize what's going on.

          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 15 2017, @01:44AM (1 child)

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @01:44AM (#568210)

            Missiles can actually be intercepted. Artillery cannot.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @11:30AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @11:30AM (#568383)

              Missiles can actually be intercepted. Artillery cannot.

              There are claims that artillery can be taken out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @02:37AM (2 children)

        by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:37AM (#568239)

        I'm thinking we make a fleet of stealth bombers capable of carrying MOABS. Carefully coordinated, a couple thousand MOABS dropped across the entire DMZ, even more missiles, and then MOPs anywhere we think military infrastructure exists and their suspected missile sites. Needless to say, anywhere we think little Kimmy is.

        On top of that, we get nearly our entire fleet of bombers and anything capable of carrying traditional bombs ready for a simultaneous drop on all artillery installations threatening Seoul. We won't take out everything, but if we get it all done within a tight window (10 minutes), NK will be done. They have a few subs, but none capable of nuclear missile launches. So we would need to pretty sure we hit their missile sites.

        I really wonder if Seoul could pull of a stealth evacuation getting half of their citizens into bunkers or out of harms way before NK learns of it. What would their reaction be to the hostages leaving?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:51AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @05:51AM (#568315)

          I think people overestimate our strike capability and underestimate North Korea's abilities. North Korea learned from the Korean war which would have been a complete victory (on their part) if not for the fact that they were obliterated from the air. North Korea is about 47k square miles large. Installations, bunkers, and military installations are dotted through the entire nation. One can only imagine the countless anti-air installations they have. On top of this they now even have entire underground cities and military bases specifically as a contingency against military action.

          Perhaps most importantly, they also have the largest percent of their nation in the military - in the world. And by a landslide. More than 30% [wikipedia.org] of their country's population is part of the military. The terrain for Iraq is awful for insurgents. Long flat deserts where visibility can reach into the miles. North Korea by contrast is covered with dense forests and other terrain optimal for guerrilla warfare. And Russia/China (which border North Korea) would undoubtedly begin sending in forces to support the North Korean forces. Basically, even if we dismantled North Korea it would turn into a warzone that would make Iraq look like The Hamptons. And we haven't even gotten to the fact that they have genuine nuclear weapons. The quantity, locations, and capacity? Before you overestimate our so-called intelligence look to things ranging from 9/11 to any of our brilliant actions in the Mideast. We're not seers.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @06:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @06:05PM (#569060)

            i agree with everything until you act like 9/11 was some sort of intel screw up/deficiency. that's ridiculous.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @01:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @01:03AM (#568189)

      "wants to go down in history as the asshat that destroyed Seoul" --> Were you speaking of Kim or Trump?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @01:59AM (12 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @01:59AM (#568215) Journal

      ^ 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.

      --
      #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by number11 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:30AM (6 children)

        by number11 (1170) on Friday September 15 2017, @02:30AM (#568236)

        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?

        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)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:41AM (#568241) Journal

          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".

          --
          #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @06:13AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @06:13AM (#568320)

            Remind me how WW1 started.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:00PM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:00PM (#568431) Journal

              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.

              --
              #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
              • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @04:49PM

                by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @04:49PM (#568536)

                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)

            by number11 (1170) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:25AM (#568324)

            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: 2, Informative) by Skwearl on Friday September 15 2017, @02:56AM

        by Skwearl (4314) on Friday September 15 2017, @02:56AM (#568246)

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:59AM (#568269)

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @06:34AM (#568325)

        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)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:53PM (#568426)

        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.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:11PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:11PM (#568446) Journal

          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."

          --
          #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @09:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @09:33AM (#568353)

      Seems Kim is worried Trump is actually willing to do something and wants to go down in history as the asshat that destroyed Seoul.

      No, he wants to be treated like Pakistan (nukes) rather than Iraq (no nukes).

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday September 15 2017, @12:11AM (5 children)

    by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Friday September 15 2017, @12:11AM (#568163)

    Since the only way to tell whether a missile is a test or an attack is to wait for the Kaboom! at the end, especially if it a high altitude EMP attack, why aren't we shooting them down as soon as they exit Nork airspace?

    The U.N. can't object since they have forbidden what the Norks are doing and are imposing sanctions, China wouldn't dare say anything and apparently the Norks are hellbent to provoke a war anyway so why aren't we? Do we fear the reliability of our tech?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by BK on Friday September 15 2017, @12:17AM (2 children)

      by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @12:17AM (#568167) Journal

      Because, it turns out, intercepting a missile on the way up is really hard. Like rocket science hard, but harder because the target is accelerating under power.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Gault.Drakkor on Friday September 15 2017, @12:47AM (1 child)

        by Gault.Drakkor (1079) on Friday September 15 2017, @12:47AM (#568185)

        Where else can you intercept it?
        Hitting a missile on the way up may be hard, but that is when it is slowest, easiest time to knock it down.

        Once past apogee knocking it down is less productive. It will still be coming down mostly on target.

        • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:38AM

          by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:38AM (#568795) Journal

          If you hit it after apogee, you turn it into a kinetic weapon. Your best chance of intercept is to hit it on the way down with an interceptor on the way up.

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @01:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @01:06AM (#568193)
      Perhaps because the technology to actually blow a ballistic missile out of the sky with any reliability actually doesn't exist yet?
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @01:16AM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:16AM (#568199)

      > Do we fear the reliability of our tech?

      Two answers: Yes, and can we actually hit that trajectory given where the interceptor missiles are?

      If the US pushes the "intercept" button, it has to hit, or it becomes a much greater victory for Kim than yet another missile.
      Kim's got not much to lose. "experimental missile on test trajectory gets intercepted" is good for the US, but not a guarantee that a real attack would be. Shooting down every missile would make him look weak.

      Like terrorism, you lose the game if you let one through, even if it doesn't actually hurt otherwise.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:15AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:15AM (#568165)

    I think the rules from the 50's are that territory stops/Space starts at 60,000 feet

    South Korea's defense ministry said the missile traveled about 3,700km and reached a maximum altitude of 770km - both higher and further than previous tests.
    770km == 252625 feet
    Perhaps it only passed through international space.
    Abet, at a trajectory with severe failure modes putting folks in Japan at unnecessary risk.

    What altitude did it pass over Japan's territorial areas?

    No doubt, the NK guy is a pain, but before getting all worked up, technically, exactly what international territorial rule did he violate?
    If there is one, hold him accountable.
    Given a clear violation, even China should have to stop enabling his adventures.
    As in, real sanctions or allowing inspection or return fire to the launch site.

    If there is no violation, then NK needs to explain why this trajectory, which put folks at risk, was necessary.
    Japan should officially ask in the UN.
    If they can't provide a plausible reason, it is at least a loss of face in the UN for NK.
    This might be useful for future action.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:31AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:31AM (#568174)

      Russia just needs to re-aim their death laser at Kim Little-Penis and the rest of the succeeding males in line to take his place.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:07AM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:07AM (#568221) Journal

        Just the males? Why, exactly? You do realize that many dynasties have been preserved by the females of the family? If you're going to take out a family, you have to take out ALL of the family. We all remember that females have DNA too, right?

        Hell, the communists knew that when they took out the Tsar and his family. There were zero survivors.

        I stuck around St. Petersburg
        When I saw it was a time for a change
        Killed the Tsar and his ministers
        Anastasia screamed in vain
            - from Sympathy for the Devil

        --
        #eatyourliver #WalkAway #CTRLLeft
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @09:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @09:00PM (#568700)

          I've been wondering if there isn't a radfem posting AC here. At first I thought it was satire, and now I'm not so sure. I'll never know one way or the other, so it's not like I give a damn which it is.

          All I know is that there seem to be a preponderance of people who assume, for reasons I cannot comprehend, that evil is a trait that solely exists on the Y chromosome.

          Kill all the male heirs, topple the patriarchy, and it'll be unicorns and rainbows from then on out, they think.

          This is why we need more women in positions of power. There's no better way to demonstrate that women are just as selfish, greedy, and evil as men than diversity.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @12:38AM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @12:38AM (#568179)

      The "Edge of space" is officially at 100km.
      At 770 km, the missile went almost twice as high as the ISS orbit. Hundreds of satellite orbits cross over Japan every day which are much lower.
      The Falcon 9 launches don't go a third of that height before coming back down. US Pacific-to/from-West-Coast test ICBM launches happen regularly. Warnings are given, but I don't think autorizations are requested.

      NK's problem is we don't like them, so they shouldn't be capable of doing scary stuff.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @10:41AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @10:41AM (#568365)

        NK's problem is we don't like them, so they shouldn't be capable of doing scary stuff.

        More specifically, the people in power don't want the next country targeted for invasion to be able to defend them selves. Iraq was enough trouble, and the UN weapons inspectors had spent the previous 10 years ensuring that they had no serious defenses.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:08PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15 2017, @02:08PM (#568444) Journal

          Iraq had oil. Oilmen took over the US government. The US invaded to get the oil.

          North Korea has nothing anybody wants that they don't already get from South Korea. Nobody wants to invade North Korea.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:22AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @12:22AM (#568168)

    Norks can hit Japan if it wanted to. This is a jesture against the new sanction.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Demena on Friday September 15 2017, @01:14AM

      by Demena (5637) on Friday September 15 2017, @01:14AM (#568196)

      Nothing funny about it.

  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday September 15 2017, @01:04AM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <jonathonwisnoskiNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday September 15 2017, @01:04AM (#568191)

    Japan vs Best Korea [ii.yuki.la] (adult language)

    --
    Respect my Authoritah!!!
  • (Score: 2) by chewbacon on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:27AM

    by chewbacon (1032) on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:27AM (#568788)

    We are capable of doing violent things to people that make the snowflakes flash boil. If he was a real threat, I'd think he'd be gone by now. Whether it be somewhat conventional (Bin Laden) or some new weapon we are unaware of that can hit him from many, many miles away (railgun/laser something cool).

(1)