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!

United States Begins Flying Stealth Bombers Over South Korea

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the nice-day-for-a-flight dept.

The Military 567

skade88 writes "The New York Times is reporting that the United States has started flying B-2 stealth bomber runs over South Korea as a show of force to North Korea. The bombers flew 6,500 miles to bomb a South Korean island with mock explosives. Earlier this month the U.S. Military ran mock B-52 bombing runs over the same South Korean island. The U.S. military says it shows that it can execute precision bombing runs at will with little notice needed. The U.S. also reaffirmed their commitment to protecting its allies in the region. The North Koreans have been making threats to turn South Korea into a sea of fire. North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' mainland."

cancel ×

567 comments

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

The winner? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308317)

Can't we just measure Kim Jong-un and Obama's penises and get this whole thing over with already?

Re:The winner? (5, Insightful)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308329)

We are responding properly. NK barely has nukes and they are starting the brinksmanship game already. Not responding to that would be a mistake.

Re:The winner? (-1, Flamebait)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308337)

Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

Pretend they don't even exist.

Re:The winner? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308361)

Worked for Europe in 1938!

Re:The winner? (5, Insightful)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308417)

OT but I think WW2 is better served as an example of how well appeasement works.

Re:The winner? (0, Troll)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308463)

You're going to have to explain that one to us.

Re:The winner? (5, Informative)

bragr (1612015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308573)

France and England gave Germany a lot of slack in the lead up to WW2. Europe suffered so many casualties in WWI that it decimated a generation and made most countries in Europe very war shy. Consequently, when Germany began openly flaunting the restrictions that had been place on it after WWI in the Treaty of Versailles, making demands, and annexing other countries, France and England compromised, made concessions, and offered little real resistance besides formal protest. They hoped by appeasing Hitler, they could diffuse the situation and avoid another full scale war, which worked well obviously because only 60 or 70 million people died during WW2.

Re:The winner? (-1, Troll)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308615)

I haven't had my coffee yet today, so I'm going to assume you're being ironic since the other possibility is too insane for this time of day (it's only noon in my timezone).

Re:The winner? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308651)

They hoped by appeasing Hitler, they could diffuse the situation and avoid another full scale war, which worked well obviously because only 60 or 70 million people died during WW2.

You're an idiot. The difference in the casualties was in battle tactics. During WWI, they still viewed the bayonet charge as a primary battle tactic. Only the weapons had become more advanced. During WWII, the squad tactics had evolved from lessons learned in WWI to match the weapons advancements.

Re:The winner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308837)

What the fuck are you talking about?

You're the idiot. Your pop culture history is completely uninformed. The problem in WW1 was that defensive technology and doctrines had so far outstripped offense that attacking was almost impossible. Nobody thought bayonet charges were a good idea. They thought artillery bombardments would do enough damage that infantry could break the lines afterwards. Didn't often work. Please don't call people idiots unless you a) fully understand what they're saying and b) have some idea what you're talking about.

WW2 (5, Interesting)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308711)

You also have to consider a big difference between WW1 and WW2: fear of communism. While almost everyone in France was in a patriotic frenzy before WW1, there were a lot of people that did not want to fight Germany for WW2 because fascism was seen as a good protection against communism.

Germany, Italy, Spain had fascists regimes. France spared a fascist coup in 1934 just because different fascists leaders could not agree with each others. Some where hoping that a war defeat would bring to France what a coup missed to achieve.

Re:The winner? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308625)

On the off chance you're not being sarcastic (in which case, well played!):
A parent comment suggested ignoring most NK bombast, which seems reasonable. A response compared this to how France and the UK dealt with late-30's Germany.

It is an invalid comparison. They didn't ignore Germany, but instead tried to engage them. First, Germany moaned about the allied occupation of the Saar, and the Allies let them manuever an election. They moaned about the French occupation of the Rhineland, then marched troops in. The French garrison watched them do it, and then withdrew. Germany moaned about the German minority in Czechslovakia, and the Allies twisted the Czechs' arms to hand the Sudetanland. Not engaging at all (while not lying down) might have been a better option.

So, as you say, the previous poster would need to explain exactly what s/he meant.

Re:The winner? (3, Informative)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308681)

Some pretty minimal googling [google.com] could have answered that for you.

The excerpt from the first link that google shows:

Discover how the policy of Appeasement, championed by Neville Chamberlain and the League of Nations inevitably led to WW2.

Re:The winner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308881)

He probably means '... example of how poorly appeasement works'.

His comment, for what it's worth, is an example of how poorly sarcasm works, at least when it comes to communicating clearly.

Re:The winner? (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308805)

NK is not Germany, though. And so far they're just shaking their fists in the air, not invading countries.

Re:The winner? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308399)

Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

Pretend they don't even exist.

That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.

Re:The winner? (4, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308783)

Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

Pretend they don't even exist.

That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.

Depends on the motive of the bully. If they are looking for a reaction (eg tears) and they don't get one they will either escalate or move on to an easier target. If they are performing a show of strength to demonstrate their superiority then ignoring them won't be as useful. In the playground, _your_ objective is to not get picked on, which normally means don't be the softest target. This doesn't apply here as the objective is that nobody gets picked on.

If this does escalate and they do turn SK into a "sea of fire" then wiping NK out right now will be the option with the best net result in terms of lower loss of life, based on that this is what will happen anyway if they do make good with their threats. History won't see a pre-emptive strike that way though...

agreed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308853)

People who dislike confrontation tend to prefer methods of confrontation-mitigation that are themselves non-confrontational. Sometimes, this works....for example if you never provoke a confrontational person they often don't notice you and hence an unpleasant situation is avoided.

Obviously, the strategy stops working the moment you are noticed anyway. But people who have a distaste for confrontation convince themselves that they can end the situation by continuing to refuse to participate. Of course, in the real-world, this does not work, never can work, and never will work. Once a predator (of any species) has its eyes on you no amount of ignoring it will ever get it off your case. After that moment, your only option is to fight back (or at least credibly demonstrate that you are ready, willing, and able to do so).

The need to kill other people is unpleasant, and we are right to try and avoid it. But the cold-hard fact is that sometimes, those other people make that violence unavoidable. You and the innocent you protect will be a lot better off if you nip the problem in the bud, and that requires direct confrontation.

Re:The winner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308961)

Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

Pretend they don't even exist.

That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.

It will work if YOU are the biggest bully in the playground.

Re:The winner? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308401)

Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

Pretend they don't even exist.

That's the same stupid advice mothers give to their children about bullies. When has a bully actually given up because you ignored them hard enough?

Re:The winner? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308623)

Every single time?
Maybe you were doing it wrong, but it always worked for me.

Re:The winner? (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308823)

Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

Pretend they don't even exist.

That's the same stupid advice mothers give to their children about bullies. When has a bully actually given up because you ignored them hard enough?

As I said elsewhere, ignoring a bully is a perfectly good starting point in a schoolyard, and depending on the motivation of the bully it will work[1] and you'll be left alone. The whole point is kind of dumb though because while you might call NK a bully, they aren't a schoolyard bully, this isn't a school yard, their motives are likely somewhat different, and the stakes are somewhat higher.

[1] "work" in terms of that you have won because the bully has moved on to some other poor kid. The schoolyard is not a better place for it though.

Re:The winner? (1)

kf6auf (719514) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308871)

The difference is, this time, you're an 800 pound gorilla and they are some annoying 8 year old "bully". Sure, it'll hurt if they actually hit you with their baseball bat, but things will not end well for them afterward.

Re:The winner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308937)

You mean like Vietnam, Irak or Afghanistan?

Re:The winner? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308491)

Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.

Pretend they don't even exist.

You might think that would work, but you'd be wrong. North Korea has a habit of making sneaking attacks on South Korea when they don't respond. Recently they sank a ship that killed dozens. In the past they have shelled civilian or military areas, kidnapped people across the border, and axed people cutting down a DMZ tree (since they claimed that Kim Il Sung himself planted it). I mean, what do you think the recent cyber attack was about? Without a proper show of force, these provocations will increase. We don't really need a proper USS Pueblo incident, do we?

Re:The winner? (5, Insightful)

bragr (1612015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308497)

That won't really work in this situation. Kim Jong Un isn't just some bellicose asshole sitting at the helm of North Korean and giving the world the finger because he feels like it. All the confrontations, defiance, and war mongering are instrumental, mainly to keep his hold on power. Take that away and his grip will start slipping. Once that happens he would have to escalate to something we couldn't ignore (probably war, or at least a large conflict), or he'd be replace by someone controlled by the military, which would quite likely go to war as well to solidify their new hold on power. No matter how you look at it, practice bomb runs are better than mass casualties.

Re:The winner? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308507)

If we appear weak then forces inside the regime have no motivation to help stop the insanity. A show of force launched from some place they can't hope to touch is a benign reminder of what they're up against.

It doesn't matter to us much one way or the other.

Could mean a lot for our friends though.

Re:The winner? (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308539)

FWIW North Korea tends to get more and more aggressive until there is a response. If this doesn't work, they'll start shelling an island, or try to sink a ship. Better to send them a message before they get too crazy.

The response here is probably a good one. Fly a few planes around. It serves little military purpose to let your enemy know you've been doing practice bombing runs. But it's a decent way to send a message to North Korea, "stop being annoying."

Re:The winner? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308943)

thats what we all are doing for APK
how well has that been going?

north korea strikes first = loser north korea (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308427)

north korea strikes first = loser north korea

Re:The winner? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308469)

That's stupid.
Now, if they touched dicks...

Re:The winner? (2, Informative)

murdocj (543661) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308833)

In case you haven't noticed, the USA is at war with North Korea. There was never a peace treaty, and NK has exited the armistice agreement. This has zero to do with dick waving and lots to do with trying to save a lot of lives.

Good luck with that (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308341)

"North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' main land."

Given the success of their missile program so far, I think China should be more worried than the US - and that's assuming NK is aiming at the US.

Re:Good luck with that (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308431)

If I were North Korea and I just wanted to blow up some Yankees out of spite, I'd say "forget the missile" and try to work out how to get a nuke into a standard intermodal container on a ship bound to a busy port near a population center.

Slashdot, check me on this. As North Korea, are my nukes powerful enough to do damage to land-based civilians from a boat pulling into harbor in Oakland or New York or Los Angeles? I know detonating a nuke in the NYC harbor was among of the canonical cold-war-turns-hot scenarios.

Captcha: "terrors". you don't say.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308519)

One does not "pull a boat" into Oalkand or LA without the US already knowing what is on it and where it came from.
In exchange for fast customs clearance the US clears the vast majority of containers before the ship departs from foreign ports.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308629)

One does not "pull a boat" into Oalkand or LA without the US already knowing what is on it and where it came from.

One does not simply "pull a boat" into LA.
It's black gates are guarded by more than just LAPD.
There is evil there that does not sleep.
The great eye is ever watchful.
It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire, ash, and dust.
The very air you breathe is a poisonous smog.
Not with 10,000 men could you do this. It is folly.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308719)

So what you're saying is, once NK gets hobbit technology we're in trouble?

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308815)

Quick, arrest all the midgets!

Re:Good luck with that (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308883)

One does not "pull a boat" into Oalkand or LA without the US already knowing what is on it and where it came from.
In exchange for fast customs clearance the US clears the vast majority of containers before the ship departs from foreign ports.

Hahaha...only 8-10% of containers are inspected before departing foreign ports, and roughly the same when they're coming into port in North America, there's just too much of it to search and look it up. The majority of shipping relies on documentation and belief that the shipper is "following the regs and laws."

Re:Good luck with that (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308885)

Remind me, how is the "War on Drugs" going? Still having issues with that whole importing tons of cocaine every single year thing? And you think they can't slip a cargo-container with a nuke inside past the Coast Guard? They don't even have to get it through customs. Just set it off in the Port of LA - instant panic.

Re:Good luck with that (4, Interesting)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308521)

Depends. I'm not familiar with the geography of Oakland's or New York's harbors, but a low yield nuke in the LA-Long Beach port would probably have (relatively) few immediate casualties. The port itself is huge, and the surrounding area relatively under-populated (compared to other areas of the city). The Hiroshima blast radius was only about 1 mile with little direct structural damage outside that radius. Such a blast at the LA port would still probably kill thousands, but very likely far less than Hiroshima did. They ensuing chaos (we Angelenos LOVE a good riot) would probably kill as many people as the bomb.

My guess would be that Oakland would be even less severe, and New York would be worse.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

NF6X (725054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308671)

Depends. I'm not familiar with the geography of Oakland's or New York's harbors, but a low yield nuke in the LA-Long Beach port would probably have (relatively) few immediate casualties. The port itself is huge, and the surrounding area relatively under-populated (compared to other areas of the city). The Hiroshima blast radius was only about 1 mile with little direct structural damage outside that radius.

Also, keep in mind that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were detonated at an altitude calculated to maximize damage. The same bombs detonated near ground level, whether on a ship in the harbor or in a sea container stacked in a yard on land, would have somewhat lower blast radius, I think.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Firehed (942385) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308907)

Yes, but hasn't yield increased significantly since the mid-40s? It looks like 2-3 orders of magnitude based on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield) This may not be true for NK's weaponry, but let's say they succeed in bribing someone that has competent engineers to lend a hand.

Also, what of the radiation fallout?

Re:Good luck with that (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308875)

I'd imagine the damage to the port would be the biggest problem. It'd be terrible not having a port for however long it took to reconstruct.

Radiation detectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308913)

are very good and widely deployed at and at approaches to US ports of entry. NK's nuclear device would very probably be detected well before it was close enough to do any prompt damage. Maybe they could detonate a device 1000km west of Hawaii as a fallout weapon, but I don't it's on for them to nuke NY harbor.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308835)

I know detonating a nuke in the NYC harbor was among of the canonical cold-war-turns-hot scenarios.

That's because it was an actual program that Soviets were developing (proposed by Sakharov, of all people). That involved a thermonuclear warhead, though, for a sufficiently powerful blast (and a devastating tsunami following in its wake).

Re:Good luck with that (5, Informative)

mrchew1982 (2569335) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308447)

Who do you think the stealth bomber runs are done to impress? CHINA!!! Sure, Kim Jong Un might know about them and use them as propaganda, and it might scare him a little that he can't see the things on radar, but my guess is that we're really trying to impress China. I'm sure that the island is right at the edge of their early warning radar coverage, and if we slip in and drop the payload without raising an alarm (with a bomber that we designed in the 70's no less...) China will sit up and take notice. The Chinese are the only ones in a position to twist Kim's arm hard enough to make him stop acting like a four-year-old, the Chinese are the ones that we are trying to scare.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308575)

The Serbians figured out how to detect and shoot down stealth bombers decades ago. There is wreckage of one in a Serbian museum. You can bet that NK has been developing similar systems.

I don't want to to on about it but America always does this. It assumes its stuff is unbeatable and then quickly discovers it isn't. That's why you keep having trouble with war games and other countries "cheating". Just sayin'.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

jonnythan (79727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308661)

That was an F-117, not a B-2.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308721)

If I recall correctly, didn't that one crash due to fatigue, rather than being shot down?

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308741)

No I'm pretty sure it was shot down. But the issue was that the planes were on enormously fixed courses through Serbian airspace, so a commander simply did the logical thing and put his missiles right along the flight path, and lit off as many as he could. They're stealthy, not radar invisible.

I imagine that using them with randomized flight paths and the like would make them near impossible to spot - your AA can't shoot everywhere at once.

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308669)

The Serbians figured out how to detect and shoot down stealth bombers decades ago.

F117 != B2

Re:Good luck with that (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308609)

How would this impress China? Do you think they aren't aware of our stealth technology?

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308627)

The Chinese are the only ones in a position to twist Kim's arm hard enough to make him stop acting like a four-year-old, the Chinese are the ones that we are trying to scare.

I doubt it is about convincing China to influence NK. Its about showing China that all of their territorial claims [google.com] won't go unchallenged. It is also about showing US allies that they should be even better buddies with the US because the US is the only one in the world willing to stand up to China.

China doesn't even have to respond militarily, a lot of countries in the area have China as their single largest trading partner. Threatening to screw with their economies is major leverage in this "debate."

NK is just a convenient excuse for everybody to whip out their dicks and get with the tape measuring.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308895)

So, you don't think a country that may have nukes (run by what appears to be unstable leadership) that shares borders with both China and a US Ally (and is close to other third parties, such as Japan) is just an excuse for posturing?

Re:Good luck with that (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308903)

erm... scratch that "don't" - that's what happens when your sentence evolves while you're writing it :P

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308931)

That is correct.

Re:Good luck with that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308731)

You are stupid.

Re:Good luck with that (5, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308467)

they've gotta be getting to the point where even China isn't going to take their crap for much longer. They WERE trying to destabilize the region. NOW they're trying to destabilize the entire world.

I see NK like some punk little child that goes around trying to start trouble everywhere he can, that always runs back and stands next to his big brother whenever anyone gets fed up with his harassment. This makes him bold beyond common sense, kicking and spitting on the others around him that would otherwise break his face. And Big Brother has got to be getting sick of it by now.

And just like in the neighborhood, china's the hulk of a big brother that is the only reason any number of others in the neighborhood don't tackle the punk and give him the pounding he so badly needs and deserves.

So really the big brother is the only one that can effectively fix the problem, by finally picking him up by the hair, shaking vigorously, and screaming "ENOUGH!"

I just hope that china is even a fifth as annoyed with him as the rest of the world is. Seriously, even China-style communism would do that country a world of good. I'd just love to see Jinping make a trip over to Pyongyang and sit the little dictator/delusional-god in a small chair and discuss making some minor adjustments to how NK is run.

(contrary to some suggestions in earlier comments, this is not the sort of problem you can ignore till it goes away... the more you ignore little punks like this, the bolder they get. ignore them, and it will never end, it will only continue to escalate)

Re:Good luck with that (0)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308597)

That's why they want long range nukes capable of destroying the US. They don't want to be reliant on China for security, they want Mutually Assured Destruction.

Re:Good luck with that (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308675)

They don't want to be reliant on China for security, they want Mutually Assured Destruction.

Pretty sure they are just going to have to settle for AD.

Re:Good luck with that (1, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308889)

They do have reasons to be pissed at the entire rest of the world though...we've basically been screwing them over for decades.

Who was the first to nuclearize Korea? Not NK -- Eisenhower in the 50s. We planted a bunch of nukes right on the border, and were flying fighter jets armed with _nothing but_ nuclear bombs, and driving 20 kiloton nukes around in jeeps and helicopers just south of the DMZ -- and official policy was that if they attacked, we'd denoate all of 'em rather than let the North Koreans take them. Now, I know what you're saying -- that was the 50s...but that's just when it started. We kept it up until 1991, when we decided to withdraw the nukes to submarines and aircraft carriers and such just offshore. We've had them under constant threat of nuclear attack for sixty years!

The United Nations is still officially at war with North Korea.

It is said that North Korea has violated the 1953 armistice 221 times (many of which they dispute) -- but nobody counts how many times our side has. At the very least, the armistice prohibits nuclear weapons in the Korean theater -- so we've been violating it non-stop for around sixty years.

We say North Korea is developing nuclear weapons in violation of the Nonproliferation treaty. But one of the conditions of that treaty was that we would assist them in building nuclear power plants. Russia agreed to do this in the 80s, but never did. The USA then agreed to build them four LWRs in the 90s in exchange for more IAEA inspections. We got the inspections, but they never got the reactors. Never even made an attempt to start building them. Instead, we announced after the collapse of the USSR that we were taking our ICBMs formerly aimed at Russia and pointing them at North Korea. Bush and Obama have since also publicly stated that we are keeping our nuclear arsenal aimed at North Korea.

We've been threatening to nuke them for 60 years; and now we're shocked when they do the same thing? We've broken every damn promise we ever gave them, all with a loaded gun aimed at their head...is it REALLY a surprise they're not our best fucking friends?

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308945)

Are you kidding me? We've broken every damn promise we've ever made to them, all with a loaded gun pointed at their head...and we're supposed to be surprised that they're not our best fucking friends?

Let's start with the question of when and how nuclear weapons were first deployed on the Korean Peninsula. It wasn't from North Korea. It was the USA under Eisenhower in the 50s. We had fighter jets armed with _nothing but_ nuclear weapons on constant alert; 20 kiloton nukes being carried around in jeeps and helicopters just south of the DMZ, all with the understanding of detonate first, ask questions later...lest they fall into enemy hands. We kept that up for decades, only withdrawing them in the early 90s -- not because we didn't think there was a threat anymore, but because we decided it was safer to keep our nukes on submarines and aircraft carriers parked just offshore. We've had them under constant threat of nuclear attack for sixty years now.

Also, worth noting that the entire UN is _STILL_ officially at war with North Korea.

Then we say they violated the 1953 armistice 221 times -- many of which they dispute. What nobody keeps track of is how many times we have. At the very least, that armistice prohibited the introduction of nuclear weapons into the Korean theater -- so we've been in constant violation for around sixty years.

Then there's the claims that North Korea violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. What nobody ever mentions is that a condition of that treaty was that non-nuclear signatories, in exchange for signing, would be given assistance by nuclear states in building nuclear power for peaceful uses. The USSR promised to build these reactors for NK in the 80s...and never did. So in the 90s, the USA promised to build them four LWRs in exchange for them agreeing to more IAEA inspections. We got the inspections, but never even broke ground on a single one of those reactors. Instead, when the USSR collapsed, we declared that we were taking the ICBMs we'd had aimed at Russia, and pointing them at NK. So now they've got nukes in subs, nukes in aircraft carriers, and nukes halfway across the world all ready to be fired at them at a moment's notice. This policy of keeping our nukes focused on NK has since been reasserted by Bush and Obama.

So...we've had them in our nuclear crosshairs for sixy years, and as soon as they do the same to us everybody freaks the fuck out. If you sit there bullying some kid for the first fifteen years of his life, how the hell are you gonna act surprised when he starts going to the gym and punches you in the face one day?

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308953)

Sorry for posting this twice; my first comment didn't appear and I thought maybe I had forgotten to submit it fully.

Re:Good luck with that (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308645)

They marked you funny but frankly its true, for those that didn't read about it we recovered their first stage from the ocean after their "sat" launch and found...its an uprated Scud missile. For those that I'm sure will say "So what?" you might want to look up "Stalin's Organs" which was the rocket artillery the Soviets used in WWII, the Scud was just a slightly more modern take on that. Imagine taking a Vietnam era Hellfire rocket and saying "We'll just build a really really REALLY big one of these and fly to the moon!"...yeah, not really made for that chief, gonna blow up in your face more often than not. This is why we have a hard time to this day saying how effective the Patriot battery was against the Scud because Saddam did the same trick and ended up with a rocket so fragile and explosion prone that they often ended up in pieces whether we shot anything at it or not, neither the fuel nor the engines were ever made to do any kind of range, it was just a cheaper weapon to make than the traditional artillery cannon which is why the Soviets favored them.

Finally remember that the Soviets weren't no dummies,unlike the USA in the 80s that would hand out its best tech to anybody that would say "we hate commies" the Soviets were smart enough to keep lower quality designs for export, designs its military derided as "monkey models" for the M placed at the end of the model, T72-M for example. So not only are they trying to build an ICBM out of something built for at best short range inaccurate barrages, but on top of that they are doing it with grossly inferior models to start with as the Soviets kept the best gear for the Warsaw Pact and everybody else got M models.

Sooo...yeah, maybe if they just drove the bomb over the giant leaking sieve of a border that nobody will fix because its a political hot potato? Then they might do something but with their "ICBM" tech I'd be more worried about the thing getting a couple hundred feet and turning into a fireball, possibly setting off the nuke (after all we have NO clue how safe their weapons are designed) and even if it doesn't spreading radiation all over Korea and possibly China. I have a feeling this is just some more bullshit posturing because their last aid packages have run out and they hope if they rattle the saber followed by the tin cup they'll get a little extra scratch. Personally I'm shocked China has put up with them for this long, maybe when the last of the old guard are dead they'll pull the plug and that will be that.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308697)

Everybody makes export models of weapon systems. You sound like you think it was Soviet only.

Israel gets the cutting edge stuff. Everybody else? De-rated engines and simplified avionics.

And so it BEGINS! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308349)

please deport the cute NK chicks b4 any war, kthxbye

Re:And so it BEGINS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308565)

You could impress them with your ability to read at night and well-stocked kitchen.

Re:And so it BEGINS! (0)

asshole felcher (2655639) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308633)

I visited North Korea on an asian sex tour about 10 years ago... not impressed. I'd take a Thai lady boy over the trollops I saw there.

Re:And so it BEGINS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308855)

Yea. Koreans in general are kinda ugly without the typical mounds of plastic surgery that a huge % of SK chicks get.

Hopefully it's still there.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308407)

Although the outcome of any conflict is pretty much assured to leave North Korea a pile of melting slag, I've got a 21 day holiday in South Korea planned for July, and hopefully most of it is still there when I get there :(

Re:Hopefully it's still there.. (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308549)

First, NK is already pretty much a steaming pile, as a little time surfing with google earth would show.

But the melting slag comment sounds like something last heard around these parts just before Desert Storm.
Even if NK used one of the Nukes, there is no way the US would respond in kind. We know which way the wind blows, and it would not be necessary.

Re:Hopefully it's still there.. (2)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308611)

Even if NK used one of the Nukes, there is no way the US would respond in kind. We know which way the wind blows, and it would not be necessary.

Perhaps not; neither China, Japan, nor South Korea would appreciate the fallout. But turning every military base in NK into a firestorm with conventional weapons and sending conventional bunker-busters into every possible hiding place for NKs leadership wouldn't be out of the question.

I know B-2 are cool toys... (1, Insightful)

ark1 (873448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308419)

but why is this news for nerds? Looks to me like this will another political debate.

Re:I know B-2 are cool toys... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308527)

That will only if everyone omits verbs.

"Showing the flag" with something invisible (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308425)

Yeah, OK.

Re:"Showing the flag" with something invisible (1)

hey! (33014) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308603)

Think of it as rattling a silent saber.

I think they are just... (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308443)

I think they are just trying to posture before they make their demands known.
1) Season pass to Disney.
2) Candle lit dinner with Denis Rodman, Mickey Mouse, and Goofy.
3) Orgy with aforementioned individuals.
If their demands are met they will give up the nuclear arsenal.

Plz, don't bomb them .. I need Kim Jong-un pics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308449)

If US would bombs the living crap out of NK, we will loose awesome pics of Kim Jong-un doing all kinds of awesome things.

Big whoop (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308459)

I read in the world's most accurate and true paper, Rodong Sinmun, that glorious North Korea has been flying stealth alien saucers armed with beautiful nuclear weapons aimed at Obama's melon. The report is accurate, because it comes from an eyewitness account from Kim Jong-un HIMSELF as he flew around in a saucer looking at things. He finds Ohio wheat to be "quite mesmerizing."

I'm Going to Begin Flying Stealth Drones Too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308475)

Too bad you won't be able to see them!

I agree on single Nuclear Strike- on Jersey Shore (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308501)

Glorious Leader, I agree on a Single Nuclear Strike on US soil and only single strike, if it targets Jersey Shore.
Thank you.

its (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308503)

"... commitment to protecting it is allies in the region"??? Huh?

Perfect Analogy (5, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308509)

North Korea is like the baby chihuahua barking at you from across the street, behind a 6 ft chain link fence, and tied to a tree. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Re:Perfect Analogy (4, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308665)

That's a terrible analogy. North Korea could pretty easily launch a nuclear weapon right into downtown Seoul and kill half a million people while launching a war that will kill a million more.

They're not a threat to the US mainland, no. But they're a huge threat to South Korea.

Re:Perfect Analogy (1, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308689)

They're not a threat to the US mainland, no. But they're a huge threat to South Korea.

None of their recent threats have been at South Korea, they have all been directed at the US and most specifically mention the mainland and Pacific bases. The analogy in this case is apt.

Re:Perfect Analogy (5, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308817)

None of their recent threats have been at South Korea

Other than the part where they talk about turning SK into a "sea of fire" and about "raining bullets on them" etc. Have you not been paying attention?

Re:Perfect Analogy (1)

luther349 (645380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308753)

yea we lost that war rember.

Re:Perfect Analogy (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308767)

If you got too close and cornered it, a chihuahua could jump up and chew on your balls for a couple seconds, but it would not cause any long term damage, and it would not survive the encounter

Re:Perfect Analogy (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308865)

In GP's analogy, South Korea is that guy who had the unfortune of being tied to that fence on the other side.

Re:Perfect Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308745)

A chihuahua with the world's fourth largest army, ill-equipped though they may be. Seriously, you're an idiot.

Bomb'em with Water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308583)

Make em wet!

A farce (3, Insightful)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308717)

KJ Un has no exit. NK old apparatus (tied with China) certainly doesn't want the country to join the "West" (and having most of the commanders to pay for their crimes), and China certainly doesn't want NK to merge with SK (ie having an immediate neighbor that joins the "West" club). KJ Un studied in Europe, he is far from being stupid, he likes life, good food, women ... in other words he is definitely not as crazy as his late father, KJ Il.
So what do you think? You really think KJ Un wants a war? Or keep living with that level of UN penalties, poverty, ...? Un wants to end that. And he doesn't have much choice considering the political+geographical situation. He pushes the apparatus to their limits, high pressure, and hopes this will lead to an opening. Either the internal apparatus breaks down, Un seize the opportunity to instill a Gorbachev like coup. Or a (arranged) war will actually take place - just to allow the US and SK to take over (NK army (ie generals) will give up quickly).

--
And of course Eric Schmidt was in NK to talk about the Internet...

Re:A farce (0)

luther349 (645380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308771)

or like what happened last time nk kicks the shit out of sk and us and we lose again.

This is risky business (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308793)

One B2 bomber costs more than all of North Korea.

Obligatory (1)

NetNinja (469346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308829)

I'm So Ronery
  So ronery
  So ronery and sadry arone

There's no one
  Just me onry
  Sitting on my rittle throne
I work rearry hard and make up great prans
  But nobody ristens, no one understands
  Seems like no one takes me serirousry

And so I'm ronery
  A rittle ronery
  Poor rittle me

There's nobody
  I can rerate to
  Feel rike a bird in a cage
It's kinda sihry
  But not rearry
  Because it's fihring my body with rage

I'm the smartest most crever most physicarry fit
  But nobody else seems to rearize it
  When I change the world maybe they'll notice me
But until then I'rr just be ronery
  Rittle ronery, poor rittle me

I'm so ronery

Well that's stupid. (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43308857)

If they're stealth bombers, how will the North Koreans notice to get scared?

Re:Well that's stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308941)

Herro?

send an 'invisible plane' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308893)

as a show of force... but who can see it?

Cannon fodder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43308955)

It's all just cannon fodder. North Korea doesn't want to go to war. Hell, their leader is infatuated with US culture just like his dad was. The only reason this is played up is to keep the war machine rolling. After the Cold War Washington has been inventing the "next big threat" in a effort to keep the military spending and subversions of right going. The only thing Jung is doing is to try and secure himself a seat at the big boy table. It's our politicians and media that fan the flame to get the shitizenry worked up that we "must fear North Korea!!!!" It's the next logical step from Afghanistan.
 
You know all the conflicts that the democrat White House was supposed to end? It's pure comedy gold when you hear MSNBC trying to now justify drone strikes and a ramp up for North Korea.

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>