Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

North Korea Says War With South Would Go Nuclear

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the cruisin'-for-a-bruisin' dept.

The Military 608

cozzbp writes "According to reports from the Uriminzokkiri, the official website of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a war with South Korea would involve nuclear weapons, and '[will] not be limited to the Korean peninsula.' The article goes on, 'The Korean peninsula remains a region fraught with the greatest danger of war in the world. This is entirely attributable to the US pursuance of the policy of aggression against the DPRK (North Korea).'"

cancel ×

608 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is tech news? (-1, Troll)

bem (1977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593942)

Oh, yes, nukes have tech in them. Let's just post the whole Reuters newswire because that is delivered with technology!

Re:This is tech news? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593960)

lots of tech in that region.

lots of PS3s, iPods and other toys that would not stand up well to nuclear war.

Re:This is tech news? (5, Informative)

geegel (1587009) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593990)

I think you forgot the "stuff that matters" part. I don't know about you, but a story about a real case scenario involving nuclear warfare seems pretty worthy of attention.

Re:This is tech news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594168)

I think you forgot the "stuff that matters" part. I don't know about you, but a story about a real case scenario involving nuclear warfare seems pretty worthy of attention.

Yeah, I've been waiting for the expansion pack to this [introversion.co.uk] for years :)

Re:This is tech news? (1)

RollingThunder (88952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594370)

I believe he's referring to the topic tags, under the story.

Right now they state: military politics wmd technology defense story

Re:This is tech news? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594114)

You not interested in anything other than tech? MOron.

I'm sure they're (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593950)

literally insane.

Last I checked, the US could make all of the North's soil uninhabitable with just a handful of bombs.

Re:I'm sure they're (2, Insightful)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594018)

Who do you think have more to lose if nukes start going around? I'm quite certain it's not North Korea.

Re:I'm sure they're (2)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594024)

They don't mean any of this seriously.

They are just posturing so that the new leader can retain support of the old guard as power changes hands, and angling for more international aid money, food, etc. (so they can continue spending on edifices of adjective-Leader and rattletrap military "tech")

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594180)

Good point. I don't think a lot of people realize that Kim Jong-il is in the process of handing off power to his son, Kim Jong-un.

Re:I'm sure they're (3, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594234)

I think a lot of people realize it, and realize the fact that it still doesn't entirely explain the fact that the DPRK appears to be heading on a course more warlike than they've been on in a long time.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594238)

Only because his older brother got caught trying to get into Disneyland Japan.

What a pathetic group of tinpot dictators.

Mod Up Please (2, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594336)

When George Bush declared North Korea to be part of the "Axis of Evil", it was doing Kim Jong-Il a favor, making both Kim and Dubya sound like bad-asses that their populations should respect. Kim may be following in his family traditions of bat-shit insanity and sociopathic disrespect for the people he's ruler of, but he's still playing mostly for a local audience, and secondarily for other world leaders playing for their own local audiences.

Re:Mod Up Please (4, Interesting)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594546)

I agree. a lot of this has to do with the power handover. From what you hear, Kim Jong Un is relatively incompetent (though not like we'd be able to get first hand sources from anyone) This sabre rattling (the boat attack, the shelling) has a lot to do with that.

As far as the nuclear parking lot consequences, he's already let millions of his countrymen die over decades because of bad policy and outright killings. if you remove empathy for countrymen and you substitute needing to retain power, it makes NK's talk a lot less crazy. It's a calculated risk that he can bring the US to the table to extort more food and that they won't initiate a nuclear campaign (again).

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594072)

I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.

Re:I'm sure they're (2)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594094)

But the actual uninhabitable part doesn't happen for a couple of hours after those very, very important 8 seconds.

And that is assuming that (a) everything is launched that is supposed to, (b) it goes where it is supposed to, and (c) it goes BOOM when it is supposed to.

Re:I'm sure they're (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594274)

Except it'd take a helluva lot longer than a few hours to make everything uninhabitable. Do you REALLY think they'd have wasted a nuke going after say... Nairu, or settlements in the far, far North, or the research station on Antarctica? No, there'd be life for a helluva long time after that, unless they went and systematically destroyed even the smallest of islands in the middle of nowhere that contained life. It'd take quite a while for the fallout to go tens of thousands of kilometers over the ocean and dust an island enough to kill everything.

Re:I'm sure they're (4, Informative)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594232)

I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.

With what? Doctor Who technology? It takes tens of minutes just for ICBM-launched warheads to reach target. Bombers take hours. That's longer than eight seconds right there.

And we know how powerful nuclear bombs are. Even the 40,000 or so warheads at the height of the Cold War aren't that effective. I suppose we could seed all those bombs with cobalt and fire them off with intent to kill as many people as possible. That might drive to extinction any unshielded lifeforms above a few kilograms or with a longish lifespan. But anyone who is deep underwater or hangs out in a moderately deep underground cave for a few years, is probably going to survive.

Re:I'm sure they're (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594318)

There is the legend of the C-Bomb. It's one of those stories of dubious veracity, but it is said that towards the end of it's span the USSR constructed a superweapon. Basically a cluster of hydrogen bombs around a cobolt packing, which would render the surface of the earth uninhabitable if detonated. The ultimate deterrent. As the country collapsed from within, the war never came, and the bomb still sits in a disused base somewhere... as none of those involved in it's construction ever wanted to reveal their part.

The movie Dr Strangelove was directly inspired by this story.

Re:I'm sure they're (4, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594416)

That isn't a legend, it's an idea that was seriously proposed. And no, nobody ever built it. To begin with, by the middle of the cold war it wasn't necessary.

"Second strike" capability, that is the ability to launch a devastating counter attack when all of your airfields and missile silos are replaced with glowing craters, made destruction mutually assured, and therefor made the war unwinnable. A single SSBN with a payload of twenty MIRVed missiles has enough firepower to level several opposing cities, more than enough to be a deterrent, and the oceans offer a huge range of hiding places. You don't need a doomsday device to ensure an enemy will not be able to win with a preemptive strike when you have boomers.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594338)

Even the 40,000 or so warheads at the height of the Cold War aren't that effective. I suppose we could seed all those bombs with cobalt and fire them off with intent to kill as many people as possible. That might drive to extinction any unshielded lifeforms above a few kilograms or with a longish lifespan. But anyone who is deep underwater or hangs out in a moderately deep underground cave for a few years, is probably going to survive.

In other words, the only survivors will be Aquaman and Batman.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594278)

No - we were never anywhere close to that. "Uninhabitable" is a bit of a reach. Killing enough humans that we were back to the stone age, and might or might not survive as a species? Sure, if all those nukes devoted to destroying other nukes were all used to hit population centers. But that's very human-centric. A full scale nuclear exchange at the height of the cold war would still have barely affected sea life, and the effects of nuclear winter were overstated at the time.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594282)

And now for reality : http://i.current.com/images/asset/904/964/04/44ceT2.jpg [current.com] . Nukes can't destroy the world. All the nukes in the world can destroy ONE city, one small metropolis (say 1/4th of New York). That's it.

And even then not everyone in that area will be dead, and a few thousand will escape with both their lives and without any radiation exposure.

Sure, nukes are no joke, but they're nowhere near as dangerous as they're reputed to be.

Re:I'm sure they're (5, Informative)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594316)

Not really.

8 seconds is too short a time frame. The delivery systems for nuclear weapons take longer than that to reach their targets. An ICBM launch from the continental US to what used to be the USSR or vice versa takes at least twenty to thirty minutes of flight time (though a launch from bases in Europe or a ballistic missile sub near the coast would obviously be faster than that). This doesn't factor in the time it takes to authorize a launch.

And making the entire world uninhabitable is pushing it. During the cold war, most of the targets for those missiles would have been in the northern hemisphere (North America and Eurasia); there would be survivors elsewhere in the world. This doesn't even get into the fact that fallout is not universally lethal, meaning that just because a given region has been contaminated it does not automatically follow that everyone there is doomed.

In a worst case scenario a full scale nuclear war could mean total human genocide, thought most of the deaths would occur weeks or months after the bombs fell due to radiation poisoning and starvation. A more likely scenario is a massive die-off and the complete collapse of civilization on a global level, as well as regional human extinction in the participating countries.

This is still terrifying obviously, but it's nowhere near the fictional Armageddon that many people associate with the words "nuclear war".

8 minutes not seconds (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594538)

I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.

It was probably 8 minutes and based upon Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM). ICBMs going over the north pole would take 20-30 minutes but SLBMs off the coast could hit their targets in as little as 3 minutes.

Genocide? Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594078)

I don't like how the concept of total annihilation of a country is so easily bandied about. Not just this post, but all over the place. There are 24,051,218 people in North Korea (says Wikipedia), and only a large handful of them are actually causing this problem. How is it even conceivable to murder 24 million innocents (brainwashed, maybe; evil, no) because we don't like the guys in charge. Maybe the North Koreans can talk like that because the people talking are totally insane, but anyone else in the world shouldn't even have this cross their minds. Godwin called, he'd like to remind you that 24 million is four holocausts.

Re:Genocide? Really? (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594196)

Nobody's talking about nuking North Korea pre-emptively because "we don't like the guys in charge" (nobody sane, anyway) but if it comes down to the situation where they fire a nuclear weapon at Seoul, or Tokyo, or wherever (thereby killing millions) then there are many who would state that retaliation in kind is the safest option.

Re:Genocide? Really? (4, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594510)

You don't do nuclear retaliation out of revenge or spite.

What you do instead is make it clear that, if fired upon with nuclear weapons, you will retaliate in kind. And in order for this to be an effective deterrent, the opposing force has to actually care about their own civilians. I'm not at all sure that ol' Kimmy is at all motivated by the welfare of his subjects.

What would be far more effective is letting North Korea know that if they nuke Seoul or Tokyo, we will nuke every bunker their leadership might hide in. Maybe release satellite photos of said bunkers showing that we know where they'll be hiding if the bombs start flying, and intimating that those safe havens will not be safe for very long in a nuclear war. Make it a personal threat instead, such that self-preservation becomes a major factor.

Re:Genocide? Really? (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594366)

Hence the "insane" mention by gcn, being the "mad" in mutually assured destruction.

Stating we have more than enough capacity isn't a threat, suggestion or wish. It's simply fact.

Nobody said anything about genocide until you came in. That you mention Godwin while being exactly the stereotypical idiot he criticized is just what's really sad in this discussion.

Re:I'm sure they're (2)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594118)

Yes, but if Kim Jong Il is hidden away in a deep bunker then the only important person in North Korea survives. I'll bet outside of a few high ranking friends who would also be in said bunker it really doesn't matter to Mr. Kim who else might or might not survive.

That is way MAD doesn't work with North Korea. Or Iran. It just doesn't matter if the civilian population survives or not. It's war, you see and there will be casualties.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594306)

Survives to what end, though? To spend 'x' months in a dank bunker with no country left to come out to once the radiation's cleared a bit (not to mention an awful lot of pissed off, probably armed, survivors on both sides of the border)?

Even assuming a psychopathic disregard for the lives and well being of others, that doesn't sound like a sensible choice.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594432)

Survives to what end, though? To spend 'x' months in a dank bunker with no country left to come out to once the radiation's cleared a bit (not to mention an awful lot of pissed off, probably armed, survivors on both sides of the border)?

Even assuming a psychopathic disregard for the lives and well being of others, that doesn't sound like a sensible choice.

Surviving is one of the most important steps. If you don't, well, the rest of it doesn't really seem to matter as much.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594356)

Well, he briefly engaged in nuclear brinksmanship with the US (stating he had a nuke and a missile that could reach us). As I recall, we shifted a few B2s closer to Korea, and sent Colin Powel (as SecState) to have a chat with Kim. He immediately shut up, and this is the first nuclear threat we've heard since (and it's not really directed at us). I presume we showed him photos of all his favorite bunkers, because as you say he wouldn't exactly care if everyone else died. That was more a case of "unilaterally assured distruction", though.

Re:I'm sure they're (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594426)

Not at all.
They are completely sane, and completely ruthless, and they don't think like you do so NEVER take North Korean propaganda at face value.

This is perfectly standard NK gamesmanship repeated down the decades. They are rational, calculating, and smarter than naive Westerners. This game is very old news, as any Cold War vet can attest.

The Norks are magnificent at classic Cold War penis-waving, they are the finest of trolls, and they are NOT going to commit suicide. Unlike Jihadists, who are horny to die for Allah, Norks leadership are rational and want to stay rich and powerful. Know and understand the difference.

That is not to say the NK masses won't willingly die in droves if ordered, just like the last time, but that is what masses of simple people are for.
The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594478)

Last I checked, the US's interests in the region were pretty much entirely that they would use their weapons of mass destruction, so yes, threatening to use nukes if America meddles is pretty counterproductive and insane. We don't seem to be doing much with Burma. One of the main differences there is that Burma seems less likely to nuke someone.

Sure, that wasn't always the case, I don't trust US foreign interests either, and I live here, but screaming and waving a gun at a much better armed individual is in general not a good way to make sure you don't get shot.

Re:I'm sure they're (1)

clambake (37702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594498)

literally insane.

Last I checked, the US could make all of the North's soil uninhabitable with just a handful of bombs.

I think the North Koreans have already beat them to it.

Do not feed the trolls (2)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593964)

Is this really any different from the rhetoric they've been using for the past however-many years now?

I wouldn't be eager for the war to actually heat up these days, though. Hyundai's been making some pretty spiffy cars lately; be a shame to have their production interrupted.

Re:Do not feed the trolls (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594088)

that's the problem with DPRK, they are one giant troll and when they don't think they are getting enough attention they do something so bizarre you have to respond.

So the DPRK is a troll with guns, who will use them. When the old man dies they will probably sink a few ships and lob artillery shells for fun for a few days, and blame it all on the USA.

China is the only country they listen too, so China has always defended DPRK, But even China is getting tired of the circular recursion. Like Peace in the middle east, peace in Korea can never be achieved.

I didn't scout it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593968)

Did they proxy their ghost academy or am I just blind?

i know (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593974)

why dont we all DO NOTHING and have a war UGH

Re:i know (2)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594248)

What would you suggest we do? Preemptively attack? While China isn't exactly in love with North Korea, NK does serve as a valuable buffer zone for them and they aren't going to take any aggression from us in their backyard lightly. We must find a way to neutralize North Korea that China can get behind or we're in for World War III, or at the very least massive trade disruptions that would crater our economy, given how dependent we are on China.

Even regardless of the China factor, it's hard to come up with a way we could neutralize North Korea, even with the element of surprise, that wouldn't end up being devastating to South Korea. By most estimates, for example, NK could completely level Seoul in about 2 hours with their massive artillery force. It's hard to come up with a way to stop that without irradiating the entire peninsula, which obviously would be bad for SK as well.

Even assuming we could somehow find ways around those problems, you still have the North Korean people to deal with, who have been indoctrinated from birth to believe their Dear Leader is a god who is the only thing keeping them from being devoured by the rest of the world. These people, of all ages, have literally been training for a war with the US for almost 60 years. We wouldn't exactly be greeted as liberators by the vast majority of them.

If this was an easy problem to solve, it would have been solved by now.

Out with a bang (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593986)

I guess they know they can't win a full war so want to go out with a bang. Scary....nothing to lose but probably more than happy to leave an imprint on history.

Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love The (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594010)

Strangelove: "the whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost...if you keep it a secret. Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" Perhaps North Korea understands this evil calculus.

Re:Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love T (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594342)

The movie did explain that - the Doomsday Machine was to have been unveiled on the anniversary of some special state occasion, only a few days in the future. Not much help with the planes are already in the air.

Okie dokie then (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594014)

a war with South Korea would involve nuclear weapons, and '[will] not be limited to the Korean peninsula.'

So what they're saying is if tensions rise the only safe response is to proactively nuke North Korea until they glow.

Well alllll righty then. B-bye now!

Re:Okie dokie then (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594214)

North Korea is not that big a place. I am sure we could if we were willing to kill indiscriminately destroy their capability to use their nukes with conventional weapons fast enough. Each of those, daisy-cutters, I think they call them vaporize six football fields. The issue as always is we have lots of ability to rain down destruction on our enemies but are we willing to kill thousands of innocent people and families in the process.

I suppose if the north was threatening to nuke the south or others in the region the answer might be a reluctant yes; but that would be the one day I would be glad Obama, rather than myself, is the President. Its not a call anyone would want to have to make.

I wounder if the cable leaks that should China is perhaps not as reliable a partner as the North thought is provoking them to even more extreme rhetoric and possible action. We can't afford in terms of blood or treasure to fight another ground war, and for social reasons doing that in Korea again is really untenable. I hope the north does not escalate things to the point of war, but if they do I guess I hope our President and Military leaders can in fact bite their lip and carpet bomb them into oblivion. What would be better still is if we could get the CIA in there while there is still time and put a bullet in the back of a few heads of state. I am sure the new powers there would be no better people but they might have the sense to not be self destructive.

Re:Okie dokie then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594384)

typical american... cause blowing a couple heads off won't escalate anything... now you know why your northern neighbours don't care so much for you

Re:Okie dokie then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594548)

the answer is act crazier than them

pull out all your troops and state that you are reducing your human exposure so you can engage in nuclear warfare

that would make everyone shit bricks

Re:Okie dokie then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594230)

a war with South Korea would involve nuclear weapons, and '[will] not be limited to the Korean peninsula.'

So what they're saying is if tensions rise the only safe response is to proactively nuke North Korea until they glow.

Well alllll righty then. B-bye now!

Mreh, bad idea. Pretty decent chance that, through sheer trolling willpower, Kim Jong Il would survive and become a superpowered nuclear mutant. He's a persistant little bugger.

But he is already a god.... (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594414)

I mean don't you read the news?

Re:Okie dokie then (4, Funny)

fabioalcor (1663783) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594428)

the only safe response is to proactively nuke North Korea until they glow.

No. I have learned from a movie that the only safe response is not to play.

Nukes and not contained to the immediate area? (1)

supertrinko (1396985) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594016)

That sounds like more of a threat.

NK releases a statement like this regulary (2)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594028)

NK has been issuing statements like this for years. I take a peek at their news site [kcna.co.jp] every so often and there's always something that reads like this.

Not sure why Yahoo! or AFP or anyone else would suddenly consider this news. But I can take a few guesses.

Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594250)

Interesting site, but I'm wondering if it's legit? Seems odd that they'd have a Japanese domain.

Re:NK releases a statement like this regulary (1)

ACS Solver (1068112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594592)

That site is definitely legit, and is one of the few ways to get a peek into what NK says. The "news" articles there a mixture of pathetic, funny and scary. AFAIK, their official sites are in other TLDs, like Japanese, Chinese and .net, but not .kp.

It would go nuclear (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594046)

About 30 minutes after the first artillery shells landed in Seoul, a nice mushroom cloud would appear over Pyongyang.

Re:It would go nuclear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594160)

Have you looked at Pyongyang on Google earth? Why would we waste a nuke on that dump? All it need's is a stiff breeze to blow through that joint...
Does anyone else find it creepy to see all those roads and no cars on them?

Re:It would go nuclear (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594182)

Hey, they are finally getting that hotel fixed up.

For years the tourist guides supposedly pretended it did not exist.

Re:It would go nuclear (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594188)

All it need's is a stiff breeze to blow through that joint...

Well, to be fair, most of the destructive power of a nuclear weapon is caused by a (very) stiff breeze.

Re:It would go nuclear (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594354)

United States - We were actually thinking of just taking you down within minutes using only conventional weapons, but if you insist... *pushes red button*

Of course it would involve nuclear weapons. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594050)

I think "Nuclear Launch Detected" is already a familiar phrase to South Koreans.

Wait a minute... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594068)

Didn't we (and by we I mean the US and the UK) just finish "liberating" 2 other countries on much flimsier pretexts than this. We've got a crackpot dictator AND genuine WMD's (although the phrase WMD seems to be getting applied to anything larger than small arms nowadays) surely in the spirit of not being hypocritical warmongering oil fetishists we must now "liberate" North Korea.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594144)

I say it's a good thing that we got the greater threat out of the way first. Those WMDs alone were enough reason, let alone Iraq's involvement in 9/11. America! Fuck Yeah! Oh wait...

Re:Wait a minute... (5, Informative)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594332)

Because neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had China as their buddy. Check out why the previous war in Korea ended in a stalemate.

Re:Wait a minute... (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594582)

North Korea is beyond liberation. For change, the entire nation and it's culture must be obliterated. But that would be a genuine crime against humanity. So, we wait for South Korea to go up in smoke. That's when the endless talking with the Chinese and Russians start. Next, we decide on how best to rebuild that nation on the terms of the North Korean regime based on special provisions and treaties.

No, the Western World doesn't have the balls to face evil anymore. We are...pussies.

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594590)

Ya... but they actually have WMD. America won't attempt a war it actually thinks it can lose.

Civ 5 is wrong (5, Funny)

FlapHappy (937803) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594074)

Somehow N. Korea got nuclear weapons before they invented the Internet (let alone the wheel)...HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

Re:Civ 5 is wrong (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594322)

Hate to rain on your parade, but the US had nukes before internet too.

Re:Civ 5 is wrong (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594368)

Somehow N. Korea got nuclear weapons before they invented the Internet (let alone the wheel)...HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

It's called Priorities. Painfully misguided priorities, but priorities nonetheless.

Perhaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594080)

...sending a harshly worded letter would do it.

Dear Stuxnet (3, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594084)

Dear whoever made Stuxnet: I don't care who you are. I don't want to know. But please mess these guys up. Overspin some centerfuges. Junk up some technical schematics. Generally make them miserable and ineffective.

Re:Dear Stuxnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594256)

This might be more effective if NK had any computers anywhere important, let alone with a network that worked between them. Whatever nukes they haven't plain bought from someone, are probably hammered together with rocks and sticks from an unending army of prisoner slaves.

Heh, barbecue is the captcha.

Re:Dear Stuxnet (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594364)

Internet-based attacks only really work on countries that have some form of internet.

I'm so scared... (0)

turgid (580780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594090)

Their nuclear bomb fizzled and their ICBM fell in the sea well short of its target.

If they try anything at all, the Western powers will wipe Kim Jong-Il and his sons from the face of the earth with a couple of cruse missiles launched from off the cost. The starving population will rejoyce and Korea will be reunited.

This sounds like the deranged provocations of a suicidal maniac.

Re:I'm so scared... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594296)

If they try anything at all, the Western powers will wipe Kim Jong-Il and his sons from the face of the earth with a couple of cruse missiles launched from off the cost. The starving population will rejoyce and Korea will be reunited.

Well, the survivors will.

Well, the survivors NOT hideously burned or injured by the explosions will.

Well, the survivors NOT hideously burned or injured by the explosions AND who didn't have family in the area will.

Well, the survivors NOT hideously burned or injured by the explosions, who didn't have family in the area, AND who have the education required to fully understand the political ramifications of what just happened will.

Well, the... you know what? I don't think there'd be many people in North Korea directly celebrating that day.

Re:I'm so scared... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594560)

Ohh please.... Take your emotional rhetoric elsewhere.

Re:I'm so scared... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594302)

I doubt it would stop with one maniac. The second one maniac decides to make good on his threats and actually go out with a bang, the whole calculus of Mutually Assured Destruction changes. Cold War-style MAD has been ineffective for years now, but we still engage in the same types of diplomacy we used back then.

As soon as someone actually uses a nuclear weapon, you'll end up with a Flight 93 scenario. If North Korea were to actually set one off, the US/UN/World would immediately be forced to head off the possibility that other unstable regimes would use the same tactics. Disarmament by force of countries like Iran and Pakistan would go from vague threats to real possibilities.

Re:I'm so scared... (2)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594312)

It's easy to be nonchalant about it when you don't like in Seoul. If war breaks out, Seoul will get hit by North Korean artillery nonstop. The other major concern is that China would get involved, and nobody wants to see the US and China going at it, either directly or via proxy. If it weren't for those two reasons, Kim Jong-il and co. would have been wiped out a long time ago. The only thing that could make those risks bearable would be if the alternative is an aggressive, uncontrollable nuclear state, and that's exactly what North Korea is becoming.

Re:I'm so scared... (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594524)

Well, 2 good things happen in the long run if China and the US goes at it.

1) The US nullifies all bonds held by China and refuses to pay, or pay anyone that purchases said bonds from China, so a BIG chunk of our dept just vanishes

2) China stops exports of all goods to US. Short term US consumers hurt, long term, all the manufacturing jobs re-appear again in the US.

After you have cried wolf so many times (5, Funny)

Leuf (918654) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594138)

After you have cried wolf so many times that people ignore you then you need to move on to wolves with fricken laser beams, and then eventually wolves with ICBMs. After that maybe it's time to try something different. Maybe something with sharks.

The only way to be sure.... (1, Funny)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594146)

Nuke 'em from orbit....It's the only way to be sure!

This is certainly tech news if there is war (1)

slugmass (1215630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594158)

Have you, or anyone you know, ever bought a device with components made by Samsung? I assume you will answer yes. there, you just answered the question of why it would be important if all of Samsung were to become radioactive slag.

Collateral damage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594574)

That is a price I am willing to pay. Just nuke those sorry fucks already, I grow tired of their rhetorics.

Cry wolf (3, Insightful)

Petbe (1790948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594174)

That is probably the best way I can view North Korea now, simply crying wolf. We all know of their lack of abilities when it comes to nuclear armament. We also know that they lack the ballistics to reach the US or anywhere of real interest. I think the ballistic they test fired (which had the potential to reach Japan) failed miserably. I they have the potential to make something go boom, but in the end, no real means on delivering on it. In regard to the whole war games we (US) participated in, and the threat that followed. I predicted (correctly) what would happen. And I wonder if it will happen again. It is quite simple, NK hates to tarnish its own name. So when it makes a threat and does not follow through, it must distract the people with some news so they forget about the threats. For example, they threatened to initiate war and kill all of us (as usual). Well, obviously they did not follow through with the plan (especially suicidal since we had the Washington carrier there) so they needed a distraction. So what did they do, they announce they had nuclear weapons. It is like trying to hold something shiny in front of NK's people to distract them. I really hate NK though... I hate them because I have mix feelings and the blame is on them. I hate the idea of war and thousands if not millions of people dying. But at the same time, I really wish garbage like them would be wiped from the planet. We have like what, 60,000 troops over there now. They live there, that is there home. Imagine if we did not have to have them over there. Imagine if some of the troops in the middle east no longer have to go for another tour because of us bringing the troops back from the DMZ. In the end, I think a nuclear war would be bad against NK. They will have all the important people hiding like rats underground while the poor and rest of the people would suffer above ground. Bunker busters are the way to go! P.S. I curse Starcraft because when I read this, the first thing that went through my mind was: "Nuclear Launch Detected".

Angry irrelevent midget... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594184)

says what now?

Does anybody pay attention to those dipshits anymore?

I mean, we get it - you want to rattle your little cage and scare up some free shit. It's just that nobody takes you seriously anymore, North Korea.

You're the little twirp who gets all up in some guys face and then tells your buddies "hold me back, hold me back" because you know he'll beat you to death if you actually attack him.

old guy just lining up new guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594222)

old guy is dying so he needs to get the population to accept his son as the new guy, making believe everyone outside wants to destroy the country is a
great strategy; you're with him or with them ...

MAD (0)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594242)

Isn't the US, and several other nations including Russia, under the MAD (mutually assured destruction) treaty, supposed to convert them to glass if they use nukes? And, would we actually do it under Obama's rule?

Re:MAD (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594496)

It's not a treaty, it's a doctrine. Politician for "idea". It's just nations telling each other "If you hit me, I'mma hit you so hard your grandma feels it!" When heavily armed nuclear powers to that, you get MAD. No winners, so playing the game at all becomes a bad idea. Hey, someone should make a movie about that...

No, I rather doubt we'd turn the country into a parking lot. After all, a lot of civilians live there. I rather doubt there'd be much left of their military, however. They'd be neutered. Would we do so lightly? Of course not. Now, if NK were to directly attack the US with nukes, I suspect they'd cease to be a world power before they landed here.

Re:MAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594504)

MAD isn't a treaty. It is a military doctrine.

NK needs to be stopped (1, Flamebait)

Korveck (1145695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594244)

...and as soon as possible. If force is needed, so be it.

For years the US let North Korea get whatever way they want. NK leaders learned from Mao that military might is what keeps people, both inside and outside the country, fear them. The military power is their only bargaining chips. The more nukes they have, the more likely they can get things their way. This is why talks will never work. The NK leaders know that giving up nukes will seriously undermine their negotiating power. Not even China can possibly convince them.

Right now they threaten to nuke if "provoked". In few years time, they will threaten to nuke if S.Korea refuse to ship them food.

Re:NK needs to be stopped (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594288)

You're pretty much spot on. Just remember that their military power isn't all that great. Sure they've got lots of soldiers(read cannon fodder), but they don't have the training to make up for it. A lot of countries are still on the whole 18th century method of soldiers. 3 weeks of training, hand them a gun and send them out. China does it, N.Korea does it, Russia does it. Manpower based armies are dead, especially when you can take out the commanding leadership with one missile, and leave all the gunts on the field brainless.

Dear Hans Brix: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594272)

A little to the left [youtube.com]

Sincerely,
Kim Jong iL

Queue all the Anti-US, pro NK rhetoric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594304)

In 5, 4, 3....

Nuclear fallout? (1)

ZipprHead (106133) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594314)

How can you launch a nuclear attack on your neighbour? What happens if the wind is blowing North that day?

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

Is there any truth to that bit? (2)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594412)

This is entirely attributable to the US pursuance of the policy of aggression against the DPRK (North Korea).

Is that even true? I'm not overly inclined to trust the US government, but shouldn't we have heard by now about a 'policy of aggression' if we were conducting one? From as unbiased a view as possible, is there any truth to this allegation whatsoever? Are we, or even - can we be construed to be pursuing a policy of aggression against North Korea?

I'm genuinely asking...

If I would be the Chinese government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34594420)

I'd feel threatened. Seriously, a maniac like that right in front of your doorstep is worse than the U.S. right in front of your doorstep. The American do some pretty nasty and idiotic stuff - but at least they are somewhat predictable and not totally erratic like that lunatic in North Korea.

The choice would be obvious: take down the leadership of North Korea and get some good deals with the U.S. as a reward. I'm pretty sure the Chinese have the means necessary to do the deed at hand.

Rudolf the dead-nuked reindeer (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594450)

Rudolf the dead-nuked reindeer (reindeer)

had a very shiny nose (shiny nose)

and if you ever saw it (saw it)

you might even say it glows (like a nuclear reactor)

--
I do hope Santa doesn't choose the wrong moment to deliver sacks of fuel, er, coal, to the North Korean government.

Small dog syndrome ... (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594456)

I am sure if Korea so much as sneezes in the direction Chine will blast them before anybody gets a chance.
Instability in the region will risk huge investments.

They are just making noise to get attention.

The world should simply follow a simple legal route, what is happening in N Korea will come to pass. Help them when they are reasonable.
Ignosre them when they winge, follow international and spirint when they comit illegalities.
It may take time, and people will suffer in that country,
but illegal acts to hasten it will simply backfire and feed it.

G

English Translation (1)

ntsucks (22132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594522)

"Please give us more money and aid!"

24 bunker busters (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34594528)

The whole thing with N. Korea is stupid beyond belief that all the other countries of the world AND the U.N. has let this continue (Zimbabwe, too).

Well, there is no cease fire from the early 50s, so lets go in and finish off all the big govt buildings in PY and demand surrender or else.

Nothing like stirring up war during Christmas in honor of the Crusades.

Lets see now. Who would come to the defense of North Korea...No one. Now isn't that dandy.

But Kim Jong Mentally Ill has been doing this for a long time, so we can wait until the time is good...or they just have a revolution. Either way it will be horrible, but KJM Ill has set it up this way and I don't see a way out without a lot of people dying of either starvation or war. That is his choice, because he won't abdicate & surrender.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>