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

 
This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (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) 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.

          --
          Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by number11 on Friday September 15 2017, @02:19AM (5 children)

        by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge 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) Journal

          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.

          --
          If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
          • (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) Subscriber Badge 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) 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) 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.

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (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) 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?

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (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.

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

      by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge 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".

        • (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.

            • (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) Subscriber Badge 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) Subscriber Badge 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.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (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."

  • (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).