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 Kills Phone Line, 1953 Armistice; Kim Jong Un's Funds Found In China

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the international-tantrum dept.

China 330

eldavojohn writes "Last week, North Korea promised a "preemptive nuclear strike" prior to a UN vote on new sanctions. Despite the threat, the sanctions were unanimously approved. North Korea has responded by killing a Red Cross hotline with Seoul and claims that it has canceled the 1953 Armistice although the UN notes this cannot be done unilaterally (North Korea attempted the same thing in 2003 and 2009). While everyone thought that Kim Jong Un would ride out the sanctions on slush funds, the United States claims to have found his funds in Shanghai and other parts of China totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Beijing has reportedly refused to confiscate these funds despite voting for the very UN resolutions sanctioning North Korea that read: 'More specifically, States are directed to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer of any financial or other assets or resources, including 'bulk cash,' which might be used to evade the sanctions.'"

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

Oh? (4, Funny)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142803)

North Korea again? I've seen this movie before. It sucked the first time.

Re:Oh? (4, Funny)

AkaTopher (2863017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142903)

But...but North Korea is best Korea!

Re:Oh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143195)

i'm glad you got voted down you piece of shit

Re:Oh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143365)

You must be new here.

Re:Oh? (2, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142921)

The sequel is even worse.

Re:Oh? (5, Funny)

es330td (964170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143535)

This kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton's character in "Multiplicity" wherein he says "You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as... well... the original." Each iteration of the "<insert adjective> Leader" gets a little less stable than its predecessor. Given this one's extreme youth and actions thus far, I wonder if we will ever see round 4 of this franchise.

Re:Oh? (5, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143767)

This kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton's character in "Multiplicity" wherein he says "You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as... well... the original." Each iteration of the "<insert adjective> Leader" gets a little less stable than its predecessor. Given this one's extreme youth and actions thus far, I wonder if we will ever see round 4 of this franchise.

I somehow doubt that someone of his age and inexperience is really in charge. I suspect Kim Jong Un is really a figurehead while North Korea is being run by the top brass of their army.

Re:Oh? (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143053)

The movie faithfully reproduced the machine guns glowing red cuttng down legions of Chinese troops.

Re:Oh? (3, Insightful)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143105)

This just makes me want to watch "Team America" again. Not the best movie in the world but those guys sure know how to get the job done when it comes to N Korea ;)

Re:Oh? (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143751)

North Korea again? I've seen this movie before. It sucked the first time.

Movie and TV series, remember MASH was about the Korean war. Knowing their love of remakes Hollywood is probably already developing MASH 2013.

Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43142839)

That way they can point to a country and say to its people: "See, you CAN do worse. Now get back to work."

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142959)

Also because the regime would probably decide to go out in a blaze of glory (or rather bombs and chemical weapons.) Even if they didn't cause major damage in their death throes, North Korea collapsing would mean a flood of North Korean refugees coming into the country, even closer to starving than they are now and not really useful for anything other than worshiping their leader. And NK is a bargaining chip for China anyway.

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143225)

The regime is composed of military and party aristocrats who only care about money and power. If the end was nigh in all likelihood they'd use the _threat_ of a "blaze of glory" to secure themselves a nice retirement in China.

The real issue is that if the government were to collapse there'd be nobody at the border to stop the flood of refugees. China would be stuck having to mow people down at the border rather than the NK military. And China would also lose face as the South Koreans and Americans moved in to restore order.

I don't understand why we don't offer China a simple bargain--withdraw support from the regime and assist in a transition, and we'll promise to leave the peninsula forever. On balance I think it would be be a good trade. It'd piss off the S. Koreans, Japanese, and make us look like wimps to ASEAN countries, but at least we'd get that thorn out of our side, and then dealing with Iran or Pakistan would instantly become much easier because they'd look a whole lot worse w/ the worst guy on the block gone.

And they know we can keep our promises. We've abstained from direct intervention in Cuba for over half a century on the word of a long dead president.

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143231)

Yeah, it goes a little more like " So, your fat rolley butt is threatening us with a pre-emptive nuke? You want to be , just another part of China? Better settle down and take what you're given and like it , porky."

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143693)

Sort of, minus the bay of pigs. But mostly yeah.

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143677)

Yeah but the survivors' children would live vastly better lives and be free.

It's like taking a bandage off.

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143759)

Given the racism that is rampant within china (eg: country folk are basically not allowed to go to university, or move to the city...), its doubtful that the survivor's children would live better. Maybe their great grand-children... Maybe.

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143089)

The long and the short of it is that China wants a buffer. That's it. They're willing to put up with the nuisance of North Korea (who are plenty annoying to them, also) to keep US troops away from their border.

Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143267)

The long and the short of it is that China wants a buffer. That's it. They're willing to put up with the nuisance of North Korea (who are plenty annoying to them, also) to keep US troops away from their border.

They haven't been worried about US troops for decades, only a few senile Party officials still concern themselves with the US in terms of the military. What china wants is to annex the North, but they know the South and most of the rest of the Globe won't put up with that, so they're content in propping up a crappy little regime until the political climate favors such an expansion.

for the seventh time since 1993 (5, Insightful)

Charlu (2024560) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142843)

Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142887)

lol that one comment is enough to put everything in perspective. N Korea's upset, and that's it.

Story's closed, no more comments needed.

Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143169)

North Korea is like a Facebook drama queen that has to post every other day about how some nonspecific HORRIBLE new thing just happened to them, please post on their walls to validate their existence. On Facebook the only way to deal with them is to ignore them (or unfriend) until they get the point, but I'm not sure how well this will work with an entire country. One thing is certain though, feeding the troll only makes it worse.

Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143309)

The problem is - governments outside of North Korea feel it would be a bad move to cut them totally off and let their population starve to death. So they keep going back to the bargaining table, basically offering to trade food for nukes. We give them the food, then NK realizes that their nuclear program is their *only* bargaining chip... so they find something trivial to get mad about regarding the food shipments and pull out of the agreement (after a fair amount of the food has been delivered, of course).

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (-1, Troll)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143655)

And that's the awful thing.

Many, many people have, and will die because the food supplies have and will dwindle, and all because the money invariably floats to the top, where it's misspent fighting a war of generations ago.

Oh, wait, that sounds like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new HSBC (1)

John3 (85454) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142845)

Macau's Banco Delta Asia, the new HSBC for hiding your money.

Re:The new HSBC (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143031)

Damn, it feels good to be a banksta.

No comment (1)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142863)

I don't really think there is much more to discuss about North Korea anymore. There should be a pager that monitors North Korean activity and buzzes anytime they do a thing.

Knowning is enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43142869)

The simple fact that China has signed the agreement and Mr. Un knows his funds are in jeopardy is pressure enough. China is in a place now that if he requests a large withdrawal in gold bars, it is legitimate for China to ask "Why?"

I think NK has ratcheted up the fear factor as far as they dare, and will now enjoy 5 years of appeasement oriented bargaining status. Mission accomplished.

The Swiss Solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143715)

I think instead they would reply "What gold?"

Stop it (1, Redundant)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142873)

Can you please stop the bullshit torrent? They DO NOT have nuclear capabilities. Unless they manually bring the nuke on the battlefield. And i'm betting my house on a fizzle as best case scenario (for them). Also i don't think the NK generals want the status quo to change. It's just some beefed up sabre-rattling.

Re:Stop it (5, Funny)

Crypto Cavedweller (2611959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142977)

One is reminded of the classic Dilbert with Dogbert selling a suitcase nuke to the North Elbonians: "Our slingshot can fling this a hundred yards, is that enough?" *wag* "That's plenty."

Re:Stop it (5, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142987)

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange has revealed that John McAfee has smuggled 5,000,000 ::Cue::Cats to the DPRK. A young boy by the name of Sinuj has dug out his C64 from where it was hidden under a chickencoop and is liveblogging the amazing changes to his country as the regime collapses. Apple is going to be the first to break the sanctions by opening a Apple store in Pyongyang and a 20,000,000 sqft factory in the suburbs. SCO is suing Kim Jong Un over the blatant infringement of their copyrights in his "Klinux" operating system.

Re:Stop it (1)

phungus (23049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143067)

Wow, people still remember the Cue:Cat. :-)

I was the 1st employee at DigitalConvergence and saw the development of that product from the absolute beginning. :-)

I still have one in a box somewhere.

I mostly worked on the back-end code, I wasn't the one who came up with all the privacy-invading uses. I tried very hard to convince TPTB that it was a bad idea and Slashdot proved me right. :-)

-p

Re:Stop it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143107)

You really missed the boat. If only you'd made it social, think of the billions you would've made as people willingly gave up their privacy.

Re:Stop it (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143147)

Wow, people still remember the Cue:Cat. :-)

I have two, and I used one a month ago. Not on a C64, on a real computer.

I wasn't the one who came up with all the privacy-invading uses.

Ummm, it read bar codes. Wasn't that it? And you actually had to rub the cat over the object being read. Now I have an app on my phone that does much more. Is it a privacy invading app, too? I can see what book you're holding, why is it a problem if I can also scan the ISBN?

What privacy invading issues might you be referring to?

Re:Stop it (4, Funny)

Y-Crate (540566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143201)

I have two, and I used one a month ago. Not on a C64, on a real computer.

Atari user detected.

Ah, the vaunted CueCat (4, Informative)

stoploss (2842505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143387)

What privacy invading issues might you be referring to?

Each CueCat has a unique identifier that is appended to the scanned encrypted data. The original software was designed to track you based on everything you scanned.

Unfortunately for Digital Innovations, their ub3r 1337 h4x0r engineers decided that "base64 encoding + constant XOR == encryption". Fail. [oilcan.org] So, alternate software was quickly created to decode CueCat output, and the CueCats were thus rendered simple, free barcode scanners.

In retrospect, this whole debacle may have been the first lolcat. Heh.

Re:Ah, the vaunted CueCat (1)

phungus (23049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143603)

It was definitely one big old mess...

Sucky for me, I had tons of stock that ended up worthless. :-)

-p

Re:Ah, the vaunted CueCat (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143683)

Each CueCat has a unique identifier that is appended to the scanned encrypted data. The original software was designed to track you based on everything you scanned.

Oh, yeah. I remember now. I never used that software, I used the perl script.

Re:Stop it (1)

phungus (23049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143559)

DigitalConvergence wanted to track everything that was scanned to use it for marketing purposes.

The counterpart to the barcode scanner technology was audio-cue technology that was embedded in video. You connected an audio cable to your TV and there would be this little sound that would be put in by the producers. A piece of software called Concerto read this sound and converted it into a URL. They wanted to replace Nielson.

It had such potentially cool uses. The company raised like 250million dollars and essentially blew through it all and ended up going bankrupt. They had major media outlets like Belo printing their special barcodes (Cue Codes or whatever) and also had TV shows embedding the audio cues.

Slashdot got all uppity about it because there was a unique id imprinted in every Cue:Cat and copy of Concerto. It allowed DigitalConvergence access to lots of behavioral data.

Scary from one perspective and a gold mine from another. This was all before Facebook or anything Social.

Re:Stop it (1)

phungus (23049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143591)

Actually, the REAL reason the tech crowd was furious was because DigitalConvergence starting sending Cease and Desist letters to hardware hackers who were reverse engineering the Cue:Cat to make it do other, useful things. They didn't understand the Open Technology paradigm like a lot of efforts do today and essentially tried to lawyer their way up to the top.

These were some really bad moves on DigitalConvergence's part and part of the reason I left the firm when it was still 20 or so employees.

-p

Re:Stop it (4, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143131)

They could put it in a sealed cargo container and ship and detonate by gps when it gets close enough to it's destination. Lots of ways they could.

Re:Stop it (1, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143223)

Atomic weapons glow enough to be seen from space.

Re:Stop it (4, Funny)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143769)

If NK actually did this, it too would glow enough to be seen from space.

Re:Stop it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143377)

We can hope. It would be a terrible mistake to underestimate and laugh at these circumstances. A street fighter type would mop the floor with someone who plays by boxing rules and has a smug attitude.

News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43142915)

I realise this question often comes up, but I'm really struggling to find a reason why this story belongs on /., beyond the fact that nerds are also interested in some of the same stories as everyone else.

Without a tech slant, this just seems like shameless click bait.

China & South Korea Are Major Tech Manufacture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43142967)

I realise this question often comes up, but I'm really struggling to find a reason why this story belongs on /., beyond the fact that nerds are also interested in some of the same stories as everyone else.

Without a tech slant, this just seems like shameless click bait.

A lot of our consumer products and computing devices come from that region of the world? Maybe not the cutting edge stuff but they have the volume. Also, it's labeled Politics & War ... just block all politics.slashdot.org posts in your user preferences.

Re:China & South Korea Are Major Tech Manufact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143099)

Also, it's labeled Politics & War ... just block all politics.slashdot.org posts in your user preferences.

If I did that then I would miss out on those stories where politics and technology come together.

Re:China & South Korea Are Major Tech Manufact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143245)

Yes, but we don't care about that. We just want you to quit whining about the stories that are posted. It is your hangup with the content. Ignore it or go elsewhere please. The rest of the world should not have to change to appease your sensibilities. North Korea is "Stuff that matters" at least if you are an inhabitant of this world. No geek cred needed.

Re:News for Nerds? (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143241)

Nukes. And, sharks with lasers. And guns. And missiles (or the lack thereof). Global Thermonuclear Warfare.

Not to mention, we like discussing douches, whether they are from SCO, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, the US government, the UK government, or the North Korean government.

Re:News for Nerds? (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143257)

The answer is on the front page, just a couple stories down: Apple sues Samsung. Perhaps you're familiar with the quote "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" (Charles Erwin Wilson, though that's not actually what he said). That's even more true in South Korea which is, more or less, a subsidiary of the Samsung Group.

Steve Jobs promised thermonuclear war and if he can't get it in the courts, he'll get it on the battlefield.

Side node: by now it should be clear that Steve Jobs is not actually dead -- if he was, his embalmed body would be on display.

There was a mystery passenger on Eric Schmidt's visit to North Korea. Could it have been Steve Jobs, offering iPads in exchange for war on South Korea?

Much like animals sensing a storm and fleeing a storm before it arrives, Apple has been diversifying their supply lines so as not to use any parts from South Korea. Could they know something that we don't?

Jong-Un Kim (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43142923)

This is what happens when you raise young men with unrealistic expectations. It's like he thinks he's David, S. Korea is Goliath, and we all know what's in his sling... Can you imagine what would happen if he actually launched a nuclear missile at Seoul?

There would be a backlog on Galaxy phones that would take forever to fix!

I'm shocked, shocked ... (3, Insightful)

Crypto Cavedweller (2611959) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142949)

China's corrupt legal system doesn't enforce its OWN laws, somebody thought they'd enforce the UN's?

Re:I'm shocked, shocked ... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143021)

And another "For The People" dictator having a secret personal money fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars in another country? But he was for the people!

Say it ain't so!

Every Year (5, Insightful)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142957)

Was stationed in S. Korea many years ago. Every year, the U.S. has conducted a large-scale joint military maneuver with the ROK. Every year, N. Korea goes on a rant about the exercise. Usually their rant is just the usual propaganda about an impending invasion, and their great General Kim Il Sung foiled the Imperialists once again until next year. But now that they have a new Fuhrer, maybe he feels he needs to kick it up a notch to be noticed. N. Korea is a dangerous country, but 99% of their rhetoric is for internal propaganda purposes. Maybe the recent rebellions in the Middle East + new leader + China no longer being their unconditional ally are taking a psychological toll.

Re:Every Year (2)

akboss (823334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143305)

Been there, played that game in -40 weather. Walking the fence line trying to stay warm with a bottle of Soju. Why did he give up on the tunnels? They were a hit for the longest time. Find them, take pictures, blow them up.

Re:Every Year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143333)

But now that they have a new Fuhrer, maybe he feels he needs to kick it up a notch to be noticed.

You're correct that it's aimed inwards. The New Kid is doing this to show the Old Geezers in the North that he has a Big Set of Balls.
If they were dumb enough to actually DO anything, China would be across the border with an Army faster than our cruise missiles could get there.
  You know, to help save South Korea, enforce World Order, help out the UN, and make sure the US and our Allies are safe. Not to annex the land as another Chinese subsidiary, nooooo never with that in mind. (note to those with limited social skills... there is some not-so-subtle sarcasm in this post)

China has wanted that land for a long time. They know they can't have it with the current political climate in the world, so they're happy to prop up a "placeholder" government and bide their time. As for finding his funds, I'm sure China is saying "thankyou very much for the additional leverage".

This cannot be done unilaterally? (5, Insightful)

Experiment 626 (698257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142963)

... although the UN notes this cannot be done unilaterally ...

I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43142995)

good observation.

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (5, Insightful)

Sowelu (713889) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143023)

Yes, that's breaking a cease-fire. What they were trying to do was cancel it in a more politically-friendly way. You've played Civilization, right?

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143215)

This is just the random condemnation bullshit the AI always does ... ugh inb4everyCivCondemns ...

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (1)

ArmchairGeneral (1244800) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143327)

It's so much easier to just invade, set up a few puppets and indoctrinate them later. I hear far less bitching that way.

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143055)

Otherwise they send you a strongly worded letter. Ask Mr Brix about that.

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (3, Funny)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143189)

I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.

Yep, ask anyone with a sibling or kids... "Mom, he's touching me again!!!" "Northie, I thought I told you..."

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143211)

Apparently poor reading comprehension is what passes for insightfulness these days.

You can unilaterally end a cease-fire by breaking the cease-fire. This generally has negative consequences like making it more difficult to enter into a cease-fire in the future.

You can multilaterally end a cease-fire by mutual agreement. This is the 'correct' way to do things. The consequences may also be negative (e.g. a resumption of fighting) but it is not as negative as acting unilaterally.

Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143443)

I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.

No one said otherwise. It's easy to contradict something that wasn't actually said. (And on Slashdot, apparently it's "insightful".)

What cannot be done unilaterally is cancelling the armistice agreement. North Korea is legally bound by it, no matter what they say, and subject to still more sanctions if they violate it.

Yes, they can break the cease-fire, as they have several times before; but that's violating their agreement, not cancelling it.

China supports them.... (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143015)

If they wont at least freeze the funds, then they are supporting North Korea and all they stand for. China would benefit from a war between Korea and the USA. they can sell to both sides.

If you dont agree, then what is your reason as to why they wont freeze the funds?

Re:China supports them.... (4, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143073)

I agree China is supporting NK. I disagree that a war between the US and NK would benefit China. I think China is betting war will never happen even though they support NK.

Re:China supports them.... (4, Interesting)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143109)

A Korean war would not serve China's political goals. It would put American troops on the Yalu river. China almost certainly has a contingency plan for a Korean War. China probably plans on occupying N. Korea in event of a war, then telling the Americans they can defend S. Korea, but they cannot cross the DMZ.

Re:China supports them.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143153)

You display a lack of understanding of the politics in Asia. The last thing China wants is the US to go to war with North Korea. That is China's sphere of influence. Also the only reason they are support NK is that it provides China a buffer from the USA, which has military bases in South Korea.

Re:China supports them.... (1)

networkBoy (774728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143219)

if you freeze the funds then the country tanks and you have a flood of very poor people into your country.
-nb

Re:China supports them.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143361)

If they wont at least freeze the funds, then they are supporting North Korea and all they stand for. China would benefit from a war between Korea and the USA. they can sell to both sides.

If you dont agree, then what is your reason as to why they wont freeze the funds?

Leverage over the North. If the North actually went into full-blown war, China would most likely move in to occupy them first. They want that land under their flag, but they're willing to settle for having a stranglehold over the current government. The whole excuse about a buffer against the US went out the window a long time ago... even though it's true that at first that was indeed why they supported the North.

Re:China supports them.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143725)

China would benefit from a war between Korea and the USA

No one would benefit from a war between North Korea and South Korea. No one. Not the Chinese. Not the Americans. Definitely not the South Koreans. Even North Koreans would be worse off for a few years and they can't really take too much worse than current shit they are in (think hunger, never mind bombs)

North Korea has hundreds of thousands of rockets and artillery batteries ready to take out Seoul. There are businesses and factories that supply the world in the modern "just in time" delivery system producing stuff in South Korea. Any war would kill this supply. Samsung, Apple, etc. etc. would have nothing to sell. China would have nothing to assemble. If Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011 was bad, this would make that tsunami look like minor rain shower.

No one benefits from war with North Korea

If you dont agree, then what is your reason as to why they wont freeze the funds?

Because maybe North Korea is using these funds to buy basic items from China? China does not want to completely destabilize North Korea. They still think that dialogue will work and they only voted for sanctions so NK stops ignoring them like NK seemed to be doing for the last little while.

If China wanted a war between South and North, they could probably instigate one. And they definitely do not want a war.

Poor Saddam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143051)

So Saddam Hussain didn't have any nukes, and didn't make any suck pre emptive threats to the US and look what happened to him... North Korea said flat out they would pre empt a nuke strike on the US (or allies) and they are still in power... I guess the UN has a soft spot for those silly crazy buggers.

Re:Poor Saddam (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143125)

So Saddam Hussain didn't have any nukes, and didn't make any suck pre emptive threats to the US and look what happened to him... North Korea said flat out they would pre empt a nuke strike on the US (or allies) and they are still in power... I guess the UN has a soft spot for those silly crazy buggers.

The big issue with NK isn't whether they have nukes or not; it's the giant army in China that has before and would again work as their backstop. Iraq had no real friends in the region; they pissed them all off with their wars in the past (and none of the kind-of friends were all that powerful anyway). NK still has China, which makes us handle them with care.

Cut off line == didn't answer (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143085)

"We called at 9 a.m. and there was no response," a government official from South Korea said. The line is tested each day."

Maybe they were all doing a duck-and-cover drill at the time and couldn't answer the phone?

Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (2)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143113)

North Korea is the ultimate expression of what "little dog syndrome" is all about. A tiny little spit of land with a tiny population, nothing to speak of to contribute to the rest of the world except some extraordinary xenophobia and isolationism. Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrr!!! That's North Korea. They either aren't cognizant that the U.S. or any number of other countries could smash them flat in no time at all, or they're so batshit insane and suicidal that they don't care. Meanwhile something like, what? 99.9% of their population lives in the worst poverty imaginable and is starving, while the tiny elite minority lives it up? I really don't know what to think; I have no words. We sure there isn't any way we can persuade China to just absorb North Korea, kill the 0.01% that's causing all the problems, and just be done with it? Why do we even need a North Korea, considering how much noise and trouble they keep causing?

Re:Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (4, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143237)

China likes to have a client state as a buffer between them and South Korea.

Culturally it would be a problem for NK to be adsorbed into China - Korea and China have been hostile towards each other for thousands of years. Their cultures are quite different.

I spent a little time in South Korea a few years ago; one thing that my hosts were adamant on was the eventual re-unification of North and South, much like Germany was re-unified.

The depravity of conditions in NK are a great shame. This picture is the best illustration of it I have seen:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2012/12/new-highly-detailed-image-north-koreas-lack-electrical-infrastructure/4201/ [theatlanticcities.com]

Unfortunately that little dog is developing a nuclear bite. Combine that with conditions in NK and you have potential for great disaster.

Re:Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (-1, Troll)

ballpoint (192660) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143421)

NK serves a very useful purpose as a place where rabid greenist, socialist and communist bureaucrats can be figuratively banned to, to go and live their adored ideology to the fullest. Zimbabwe is another.

Re:Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143675)

U.S. or any number of other countries could smash them flat in no time at all

That's just not true. They have a huge military and a fanatic populace. There would be no massive surrender of troops like in Iraq. Every exercise I've seen for NK involved magicking away several corps and divisions from naval gunfire or some crap to make the scenario plausible. (I am an intelligence analyst)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/kpa-orbat.htm

Ah diplomats (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143143)

claims that it has canceled the 1953 Armistice although the UN notes this cannot be done unilaterally

Only in the imagination of diplomats is unilateral cancellation of an armistice impossible. The rest of us know what the North Koreans know; that they can start shooting anytime they want.

Re:Ah diplomats (2)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143293)

Yes they can start shooting at any time. But they can't say they are canceling the armistice then continue to comply with the armistice. There is no question they could start shooting, but they have no intention of doing so. Claiming they are withdrawing from the treaty every year then continuing to abide by it proves they can't withdraw from it unilaterally then pretend they didn't a month later.

They aren't withdrawing, they are just saying they are. Anyone with common sense can see that is the case until they actually start shooting.

Re:Ah diplomats (1)

acoustix (123925) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143507)

But they can't say they are canceling the armistice then continue to comply with the armistice.

Why not? Just because they *appear* to be complying with a contract does not mean that they are following a contract. Maybe they aren't interested in physical combat and instead start attacking vital systems of South Korea, US, etc. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Re:Ah diplomats (3, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143355)

This also made me laugh. Any international agreement relies on all parties adhering to it to function. If one party in a two party agreement decides to ignore it entirely, then the legal fabrications of a powerless third party are kind of meaningless. As you say, North Korea can start shooting anytime they want, and waving around the armistice saying "You can't do this, this armistice is still in force!" is worse than useless.

Ultimately, any sanctions the UN might try to impose are limited to individual nations' willingness to adhere to them, and since China is the source of the majority of all North Korean imports, it largely comes down to if China is willing to adhere to them. If China cuts off North Korea, they'd collapse pretty quickly, but China doesn't want millions of refugees flooding their borders any more than anybody else would want that...

Re:Ah diplomats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143711)

And if China cuts off North Korea, its a pretty safe bet than North Korea would invade South Korea before they collapse.

South Korea would LOVE to see North Korea collapse at the expense of China being flooded with refugees. Why the fuck would they care about China's expense? As far as they're concerned, they're already 50-odd years in the hole economically, politically and socially from maintaining the 38th Parallel.

Re:Ah diplomats (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143391)

In the mean time, they have their fingers in their ears yelling "I CAN NOT HEAR YOU!" over and over. They are just throwing a fit because they don't like that the rest of the world (sans China in some ways) told them to stop being stupid by poking the bear, stop trying to build a nuclear weapon and long range rockets so we can let you play.

All we do now is sit back and ignore the provocation unless they actually do start shooting at which point we had better be ready. Any conflict needs to be two things: 1. Very quick, because if the Chinese get into this in a big way, it won't be good for either side. We also don't want the UN to start setting rules of engagement or something... 2. Lead to an unconditional surrender of North Korea so we don't have to wait another 50 years to do this all again.

Actually, all we need to do is ignore them... Unless, one really believes that it might be time to effect a bit of freedom in the northern part of Korea and deliver a whole population from starvation...

Backing assholes. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143187)

Why do people back assholes?

Kim Jong Un got into power because he talked losers into fighting and dieing for him.

Same for Castro. And all of you dorks wearing the Che Guevara T-Shirts are losers too. He was a coward and a liar. Castro killed him for good reason. He was worse than that asshole Castro.

Really? Are people that gullible?

I guess so.

A person is smart. People are stupid.

-K

Re:Backing assholes. (2)

sethmeisterg (603174) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143207)

When you rely on a corrupt government for the tiny amount of food that you get, you've believe just about anything they tell you to. And that's the point.

Re:Backing assholes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143489)

You might like to check your facts. Castro did not kill Che Guevara, and I'd hardly class him as a coward.

The phone line wasn't cut off (4, Funny)

MobyDisk (75490) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143199)

"We called at 9 a.m. and there was no response," a government official from South Korea said. The line is tested each day.

With their assets now frozen, they weren't able to pay the phone bill.

China, or Lewis Caroll? (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143205)

Oh, of course I will vote for the resolution denying Kim Jong Un access to his money, but that doesn't necessarily entail I will deny Kim Jong Un access to his money. Let's table that for now, while I vote in favor of a resolution to enact the resolution I voted for previously denying Kim Jong Un access to his money. Though, if that vote passes, and I hopte that it does, I will still refrain from denying Kim Jung Un access to his money; I remain agnostic about the entailment of that consequence by the resolution's resolution, as well as the subsequent resolution's resolution's resolution. Perhaps we should pass a resolution on the subject?

Doo doo dooooo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143251)

The Korea you are trying to call, North, is unavailble right now. Please try your call again later.

Comedy Theater trying to save face.... (4, Interesting)

rts008 (812749) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143275)

I see this type of stuff from NK as a face-saving measure, with more focus aimed at their own people.

The fact that the rest of the world pays attention is just icing on the cake.

Yawn... (0)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143385)

Hundreds of millions of dollars? Really? Wake me up when his funds reach the trillion mark. I thought we were discussing serious business here... And can someone please mention again why should we even care on how the North-Koreans are fairing? Oh, right they are communists... Yawn... Look, this is not the 60ies or the 70ies, the cold war is over, the Russians have gotten busy with capitalism, the Chinese wonder why *we* bother voting and the wackos north of the 38th parallel are pretty much irrelevant, WMDs or not. That, by the way, worked with Iraq, but just barely. You won't be fooling anyone now into settling such silly old business, what is done in the Korean war is done, man up and live with it. Unless, of course your space satellite, sniffing dogs or whatever showed there is oil over there, so they are pretty much fucked anyway, so just cut the crap and invade them already.

Youll all be surprised one day. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143429)

We do this all the time as a country. America laughs at the lower end countries that rattle their sabers at us or others. We all make jokes about them, laugh, make SNL skits about them and so on. Then one day they come out of nowhere with "SURPRISE MOTH%%%^#S!!!" and then we stand back.

Same thing happened with people in the middle east. For decades we made fun of them and then finally like the little fat kid at school that gets laughed at too much he snaps and proceeds to wail on the kids who have been making fun of him and hurts them badly. Then of course the kids who did the laughing for years somehow manage to blame the fat kid for fighting back. It happened with the middle east and if we keep making fun of korea they will do the same eventually.

Just pay them off (0)

PerMolestiasEruditio (1118269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143479)

The only reason that North Korea currently exists is to maintain a few 1000 top officials in relative wealth - but even that wealth is pretty poor compared to the West. If South Korea were to offer the top 10,000 officials in the north $1-100 million each (depending on position) + immunity from prosecution then they could probably reunify Korea within a year, and save themselves a lot of money in the long term.

The USA has gone to war for less.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43143577)

I mean, they initiated at least one not that long ago on the mere *allegation* that they had nuclear weapons.

A lesson for Iran? (4, Insightful)

g8oz (144003) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143621)

The lack of concrete action against NK might be a lesson for Iran.

If you don't want to be fucked with, actually having nukes is the best bet.

A slightly off-topic observation inspired by KJU (0)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a year and a half ago | (#43143729)

Some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door on Sunday morning to hand me a flyer inviting me to Easter services at their church. After they left I looked at the flyer. On it, Jesus was portrayed with short hair and a neatly trimmed beard. The one image of him on being crucified showed 6-pack abs.

I have never seen a picture of Jesus in which he didn't have long hair, and never noticed 6-pack abs before, and it got me thinking. Why, of all the Christian denominations, would the Jehovah's Witnesses try to make Jesus so physically appealing? Wouldn't such a deliberately sexualized depiction inspire lascivious thoughts among the believers? Wouldn't some believers focus on their romantic fantasies to the detriment of his message ?

And now I get to the reason this particular story makes me think of this- why have I never seen a depiction of Jesus that was unattractive, maybe like Kim Jong Un? Isn't Jesus' message supposed to transcend his physical appearance? Have we become so shallow that it's not enough that all our popular singers be pretty/handsome, but now even our religious figures have to be attractive?

No one knows what Jesus actually looked like (if you believe he ever actually lived), and in general, there are far more unattractive people in the world than attractive ones, so with nothing else to go on, it's probable that he was unattractive. Yet all the pictures of him make him look attractive. Just an observation...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?