backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by cyberguyz.. on Apr 3 at 5:40 PM


  (Source: Reuters)
North Korea also promises traditional assault on South Korea

It's been an at times bizarre, at other times alarming last couple of weeks for U.S. and North Korean relations.  With North Korea's economy in shambles, the nation's young dictator Kim Jong-un, much like his father, has turned to dire threats against the U.S., despite a professed love for American culture.  The love/hate relationship between Jung-un and America took an alarming turn this week when North Korea threw out a decades long armistice with its democratic southern neighbor.

I. We Will Nuke You

Now North Korea has gone a step farther, with the nation's foreign minister telling the state-run KCNA news agency, "Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest."

It is unclear whether the North was referring to the capital city of South Korea, Seoul, or to the U.S. capital, Washington D.C.  North Korea labels the South a breakaway state and "puppet" regime of the U.S.  It never formally made peace with the U.S. and South Korea following the Korean War of 1950-1953.  But until this week a protective armistice remained in place.

North Korea has made some progress on its nuclear weapons program.  In December, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile, which it used to launch a satellite into space.  It is thought to have designed the rocket with the help of Iran, another state hostile the U.S. who is reportedly pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program.  Reuters reports that Iranian observers were on hand at the test.

North Korea's military
North Korea's military, seen here in a training exercise, claims it has decided to nuke the U.S. or its allies in a "preemptive strike". [Image Source: KCNA]

The U.S. quickly moved before the UN to place sanctions on the North after that test.  China, which typically is supportive of North Korea, a major trade partner, agreed to some sanctions.  In response to those sanctions, North Korea defiantly conducted its third major nuclear test on Feb. 12.

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, February's nuclear test measured "approximately several kilotons" while the first North Korean nuclear test in 2006 was under 1 kiloton and the second in 2009 was about 2-7 kilotons.  Those bombs would likely be capable of causing significant damage if they reached a populated area, but are smaller than the 16- and 21-kiloton explosives that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (respectively) at the close of WWII.

Since WWII, there has been no nuclear act of war.

Experts expressed doubt that North Korea would be able to successfully use its newly acquired intercontinental ballistic missile technology to hurl a small warhead around the globe at the U.S. capital, approximately 6,890 miles away.

II. China Finally Backs Tough Sanctions Against North Korea's Ruling Elite

In the wake of the recent nuclear test the U.S. urged China to agree to tougher sanctions.  China, whose state media has lashed out at North Korea's seemingly psychotic behavior in recent months, eventually agreed.

The latest sanctions hit close to home for North Korea's dictator and other members of the nation's military ruling elite.  Under the new sanctions China and others who trade with North Korea can no longer define what constitutes a luxury item; many items such as yachts, racing cars, luxury automobiles, and certain types of jewelry are now explicitly banned.  That means that the lavish lifestyle long enjoyed by the ruling elite while their people starved could be coming to an end.

North Korea soldiers
North Korea also promises a traditional attack on its southern neighbor. [Image Source: KCNA]

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice comments, "These sanctions will bite and bite hard."

And China's  U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong concurs, saying his nation wants to see "full implementation" of the strict new punishments.

North Korea
As ally China loses patience with North Korea and backs sanctions, the North's leaders inch their fingers toward the trigger button. [Image Source: CNN]

But like a child whose toy is taken away, North Korea appears to be on the verge of a violent and self-destructive outburst, despite China pleading with it to behave itself.  North Korea claims that routine military exercises by South Korea and the U.S. military in recent weeks are part of a secret plan to fire nuclear missiles at its cities later this year.

As the KCNA comment alludes to, it's using that accusation as a justification for scrapping the long-standing armistice.  Now the only thing up in the air is whether it will back its posturing with force.

III. President Obama, South Korea Tell North Korea Not to Try Anything Stupid

President Barack Obama said that if North Korea was to try to launch a nuke that the U.S. would employ its own nuclear weapons (the so-called "nuclear umbrella) and/or its missile defense program to respond.  South Korea and Japan, the U.S.'s closest allies in the region are mobilizing their strike capability in anticipation for a potential attack from North Korea.

Obama upset
President Obama threatened to retaliate against North Korea should it attack.
[Image Source: Matt Ortega/Flickr]

With Chinese support of its unruly neighbor waning, perhaps North Korea's last and closest ally is Russia.  Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin this week urged the U.S. to act carefully, commenting, "Let's keep our minds cool and keep focused on the need for the only possible rational course of action, and that is returning to six-party talks."

North Korea has a long history of belligerence and bellicose rhetoric with the South, but it's never resorted to full blown war, since the armistice.  Despite the armistice in 2010 the North sunk a South Korean naval ship, killing 46 sailors and bombed and island killing another two South Korean soldiers.

But there are some signs that South Korean and U.S. leadership believe North Korea to be on the verge of actually backing up its threats this time around.  Typically the South never responds to threats, but in a rare response the military warned the North that it would respond resoundingly to any attack, including with action to eliminate the leadership of the North.

The U.S. and South Korea are expected to continue their wargames in the region through April.  If the North is to follow through with its threats of nuclear and/or traditional attacks on the U.S. and its allies, it's expected to come before the end of April.

IV. Rodman Says North Korean Dictator is Simply Misunderstood

If there was one moment of levity in the tension of the last few weeks it's been former NBA superstar champion Dennis Rodman's bizarre trip to North Korea.  Kim Jong-un oddly idolizes Mr. Rodman.  And for his part Mr. Rodman called the dictator his "friend" after his recent visit to the hostile state.

Mr. Rodman has since gave several interviews:


In an interview with ABC News Mr. Rodman -- wearing a suit decorated in graphics of hundred dollar bills -- is asked if he was aware of North Korea's threat to "destroy" the U.S. and the fact that the nation imprisons nearly 200,000 of its own people in political prison camps.  Rodman responds, "I don't condone that.... I hate that he's doing that."

But he still insists that Kim Jong-un was a "good leader" in a way, "a great guy", "very humble", and that he considered the leader "a friend".  Rodman accuses the U.S.'s high incarceration rate as being similar to North Korea's prison camps.

He also delivers a (supposed) message from Kim Jong-un to President Obama, stating, "He wants Obama to do one thing, call him... He said, ‘If you can, Dennis – I don’t want [to] do war. I don’t want to do war.’"

Mr. Rodman tells Americans (and the interviewer George Stephanopoulos), "Don't hate me.  Don't hate me."

Source: North Korea



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nothing they haven't said before
By tayb on 3/7/2013 5:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
North Korea only has one missile capable of reaching the mainland US and it's so inaccurate not even North Korea could reliably tell you where it would hit. Further, they don't have the technology to arm such a missile with a nuclear weapon. The only way they would attack the U.S. with a nuclear device would be to carry it into the country and detonate it. Good luck with that.

Far more likely is a surprise artillery attack against northern Seoul. This area of Seoul is not nearly as densely populated as the southern areas but a surprise attack could still kill a few thousand people. North Korean artillery is not capable of reaching any other areas of Seoul and even if it were Seoul has enough artillery bunkers to house nearly 3 million people.

North korea attacking anyone would be a move of extreme desperation. Shelling Seoul would unequivocally result in the downfall of the regime and we all know the primary motivation of that regime is to remain in power. The allied counter attack against North Korea would be devastating but should North Korea desire to not back down the war could be extremely deadly. North Korea has over a million troops, 200,000 special forces, ships, fighter plans, biological weapons, chemical weapons, the ability to detonate nuclear bombs on the ground, tanks, artillery, and short range missiles. It would not be a quick war. Many thousands of soldiers on both sides would die. For this reason alone I hope cooler heads prevail.

No one should be in any rush to preemptively strike against North Korea for threatening to preemptively strike. It sounds funny to say that.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/13/graphic-dp...
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_n...
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-report...




RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By BifurcatedBoat on 3/7/2013 5:53:55 PM , Rating: 4
The drawn-out nature of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may have seemed to undermine the perception of the US military being able to get things done quickly, but you have to remember that in no recent conflict have organized forces been able to stand up to US military power for more than a few weeks.

It's playing world police force in a hostile environment that has been difficult for the US military - a role that it was never really suited for.

I don't think that a war with North Korea would be very long at all. In the opening days of such a conflict, it's possible that NK could use WMDs to deliver substantial damage to South Korea, or maybe even the US if they could manage to send a nuclear missile over here and get lucky with where it lands.

Beyond that though, the US would quickly win the air-superiority battle, and it would be all downhill from there. At that point, from the NK perspective, you'd have to spread out and intermingle with the civilian population, hoping that the other side cares about collateral damage - as has been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The combat phase of the war is effectively over at that point, and I don't see any reason why it would take especially long to get there. NK is not a very big country.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By jimbojimbo on 3/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By random2 on 3/7/2013 11:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that in spite of their public world stance on North Korea, and because North Korea has always been the slightly mentally deficient but loved child, the Chinese will be running supplies to the N. Korean guerrillas and regular army. Everyone knows a well funded and supplied force that cannot be seen or rooted from the indigenous population will bleed the U.S. dry, economically and spiritually at home and abroad.

Can the U.S. afford another trillion dollar war? Is the american middle class, (or at least what is left of it) prepared to foot the bill again? Not likely. You think there has been a severe redistribution of wealth away from the working poor, and the middle class in America....just wait. Sooner or later the people will start catching on.

Then there is the inherent problems of a nuclear strike against an obviously technologically frail foe. It won't win the U.S. any sympathy in the worlds eyes, and it will certainly provide the Chinese with a cause they may feel obligated to pick up.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By mcnabney on 3/8/2013 9:55:19 AM , Rating: 5
If it happens it won't be a trillion dollar war.

The South Koreans would bear the brunt of the land forces with the US being predominantly air power with perhaps selective landing/raids against special targets (nuclear, chemical, biological, leadership) in the North.

Will we lose some planes and soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen die? Without a doubt. The high cost is in setting up a 150k person occupation. If NK is occupied after the war it will be by South Koreans (or possibly Chinese). Our role in such a conflict is to kick ass and take names.

Now, if China escalates it will become WW3 - so it still won't be a trillion dollar war. It will be a hundred million dead people. All those nukes are paid for.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By RufusM on 3/8/2013 12:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
It seems like China is realizing North Korea is a lost cause. I doubt China would come to North Korea's aid if they attacked South Korea or launched a nuke.

In the case North Korea launches a nuke, hopefully there are enough intercept missiles over there to destroy it before it leaves North Korean airspace.


By delphinus100 on 3/8/2013 9:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I doubt China would come to North Korea's aid if they attacked South Korea or launched a nuke.


Their strongest fear seems to be the prospect of umpteen numbers of NK refugees crossing the Chinese border in the event of any major hostilities, but all the more if anyone splits or fuses some atoms...


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Helbore on 3/8/2013 3:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
I actually think there's more chance of China attacking and occupying NK themselves, then China attacking America if war broke out.

China has learned that its an economical powerhouse. They're doing better selling Americans cheap shit than they would ever do by killing them.

China supports NK out of dated international politics. But if NK became a thorn in China's side - which is exactly what they'd be if they started an all-out war - then China would squash them like a bug.


By pixelslave on 3/8/2013 6:41:38 PM , Rating: 3
According to some state sponsored newspaper I read yesterday, the Chinese are actually afraid that when NK eventually obtains Nuclear missiles, they will not only ask for money by threatening US, but also China -- after all, it's much closer to send a nuke to Beijing, than to send it to D.C.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By theapparition on 3/8/2013 10:28:21 AM , Rating: 4
It wouldn't be a long war at all if you turn the entire area into glass.

Even a conventional war would be quick. A million soldiers don't matter if they all surrender quickly when the chain of command falls.

Now, if you want to try to establish a police state and help rebuild while you fund a new government, then that's where the casualties and drawn out campaign starts. Get in, kill this regime, and get out. Let the country naturally evolve from there. If the new government threatens you, then rinse and repeat.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Guspaz on 3/8/2013 12:44:28 PM , Rating: 3
People keep comparing it to Iraq and Afghanistan, but there's one key difference here: South Korea. In both the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, the active war phase was very short, it was the protracted occupation that consumed most of the cost and caused most of the casualties.

In the case of North Korea, it would not be the US providing the occupation force, it would be the South Koreans. They are the same language and cultural history as the North, and who knows what impact exposing the population of the North to the truth of reality (they're kept in the dark about just how destitute and backwards they are compared to South Korea) will have. All this to say that the situation is radically different from that which presented itself in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not sure how a unified Korea under the south would work out; I tend to think it would either go extremely well, or extremely poorly. In either case, however, the US involvement outside of the initial war will be relatively minor. Not non-existent, mind you, but South Korea is a wealthy nation capable of handling a good deal of the post-war situation itself.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By fredgiblet on 3/10/2013 5:37:56 PM , Rating: 3
They wouldn't be wealthy for long. Rebuilding East Germany took a ton of money, East Germany was in far better shape than North Korea is.


By Pavelyoung on 3/23/2013 9:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
So are we not supposed to help South Korea because its going to be expensive to bring NKorea up to a standard of living that will allow them to feed themselves?


By Phoque on 3/9/2013 12:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's playing world police force in a hostile environment that has been difficult for the US military - a role that it was never really suited for.


Until a given army can send in remotely controlled robots which can sustain being sprayed with bullets, grenade explosions and dodge incoming rockets, playing world police in a place such as Irak won't be a role suited for any armed forces, however prepared they are. It's just too chaotic.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Spookster on 3/7/2013 5:59:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The only way they would attack the U.S. with a nuclear device would be to carry it into the country and detonate it. Good luck with that.


Thousands of illegal immigrants and drug runners from Mexico and other countries enter the US undetected every day so I wouldn't simply dismiss NK from being able to carry a nuclear device into the country.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By tayb on 3/7/2013 6:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Marijuana isn't easily detectable. Nuclear weapons are very easy to detect. These things aren't small. We're talking devices that would need to be trucked into the country in the back of an 18-wheeler.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Spookster on 3/7/2013 6:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's being naive. Unless we have nuclear material detectors that can accurately cover every square mile of the country 24/7 then no. I'm not talking about them walking through a border control point. Drug runners are high tech these days and use submersibles to bring their cargo in underwater to any point along the thousands of miles of our shorelines. Illegal immigrants have large elaborate tunnel systems which drug runners also use.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Spookster on 3/7/2013 7:16:56 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah no. The DNDO doesn't have that capability as of yet.

http://www.dhs.gov/news/2012/07/17/written-testimo...


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/2013 7:33:18 PM , Rating: 1
That's what they want you, and our enemies, to think. You seriously think all of our capabilities are common knowledge on the Internet sitting there for all to Google?? Come on!


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Lord 666 on 3/7/2013 7:53:38 PM , Rating: 3
Plus, its the CIA and other agencies bringing in the bulk of the drugs either directly or indirectly through cartel assistance. Who do you think made crack?

The ones that get caught are the sacrificial lambs.


By Spookster on 3/7/2013 10:19:44 PM , Rating: 3
Same thing to you. You know they have pills to help you with this condition of yours.


By Spookster on 3/7/2013 10:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
You know they have pills to help you with this condition of yours.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By 1prophet on 3/8/2013 9:27:01 AM , Rating: 1
That's the same type of arrogant bravado tough guy mentality that somehow the USA can't be touched that allowed 19 with box cutters to bring this country to its knees on 2001.


By theapparition on 3/8/2013 10:34:06 AM , Rating: 3
They didn't bring the country to it's knees. What are you smoking?

They managed to kill over 3000 innocent civilians and bring down some buildings. Hurt the country economically. Yes, terrible tragedy, but in the grand scheme of things, didn't inherently affect America at all.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2013 7:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
Believing we have capabilities that are kept secret, is some kind of "arrogant bravado"? Notice I didn't say we couldn't be nuked. But yes, I believe we have classified forms of detection. What's the problem with that? Stfu with your 911 crap.


By mindless1 on 3/13/2013 12:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
and I believe it is quite possible to shield a truck enough that it won't be detected from space even if they otherwise had the capability.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Samus on 3/8/2013 12:10:13 AM , Rating: 4
a small nuclear weapon gives off the radiation signature comparable to a rack of bananas at the grocery store. It can also be fitted to the trunk of a crown Vic taxi cab.

negotiations must be successful we have too many other problems right now in this country.


By e36Jeff on 3/10/2013 10:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is that if they have one that small, they don't need to sneak it across the border, they can just strap it on an ICBM and fire away. The type of bomb tech that they are currently at is below Fat Man and Little Boy, both of which were around 5 tons, and fairly easily detectible with existing technology.

With that level of tech, the most likely, and most realistic, method of attack wouldn't be across a border, but on a ship at pulling up to a major dock. You don't even bother trying to get into a city with the bomb, you just pull up to the dock and pull the trigger. Even if the casualties are low compared to setting something off in the heart of NYC, if you did this to the Port of Los Angeles, the economic impact woud be massive, and you would shut down the docks for a very, very long time.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By ritualm on 3/8/13, Rating: -1
By inighthawki on 3/8/2013 2:10:44 AM , Rating: 5
Perhaps you should also think twice, saying you cannot do something doesn't prove you can and just don't want people to know.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By marvdmartian on 3/8/2013 8:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the size of the weapon depends entirely on the yield of the weapon, and the sophistication of the design.

While the original atomic bombs were ~13 to ~21 kilotons in size, a "backpack" (or "suitcase") nuke, which is quite a bit smaller, can yield approximately 6 kilotons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpack_nuke

And while a 6 kiloton weapon likely wouldn't completely devastate a city like LA, Chicago or NYC, it would make it pretty much unliveable for quite a few decades into the future! The psychological effect on the American populace would be much greater, though.

From the size of the weapon shown in the Wikipedia page, I'm betting you could cross the border in a 4x4 heavy duty truck, with enough lead around it to keep it from being "seen" by any technology they might have out in the middle of the desert, where the "coyotes" bring the illegal immigrants across the border.


RE: Nothing they haven't said before
By Exterous on 3/8/2013 8:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
The originals were also 10-12 feet long and weighed ~10,000 lbs. It required about 40 years of sophisticated development which required massive investments of time, education and money to make man portable nuclear weapons - which I doubt North Korea can currently match. While I certainly don't know for sure given the time and effort expended to achieve such small yields I think NK is a ways away from being able to field a 'backpack' nuke


By mindless1 on 3/13/2013 12:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
If they were the first to develop them I'd say that's true, but given the advantage of prior development by other countries to copy, the timetable should be accelerated and for all we know they may have bought a few and have them lying around ready to use.


By gwem557 on 3/8/2013 5:38:22 PM , Rating: 3
The sophistication required to construct a portable nuke is so far beyond NK's technological capability, that it's laughable. NK isn't going to be 'walking' a nuke into the US or anywhere else anytime soon.

They'd have to get one from Russia. And nukes are EMINENTLY identifiable by their isotopes, so we'd know where one originated, and that'd start wwIII. Russia knows this, and so won't be selling them any. This is a moot conversation.


By SlyNine on 3/7/2013 6:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
The war would be easy, the occupation hard. The U.S. military beat Iraq in about 2 weeks (really less but they had to actually occupy the land to claim victory). It's the occupation that costs US.

If the US decided to just do the war part and not care about the people after words, or leave it to the south, the perception would be entirely different.


By jimbojimbo on 3/7/2013 8:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
False and false. You linked some articles but are they reliable? I know that most of Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery and the first hours will be absolutely devastating. I've been one of those US military conducting exercises in South Korea twice a year.


By Jeffk464 on 3/9/2013 1:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you "ship" a nuclear missile on an ICBM, that obviously comes with a return address. The smart way to do it is through normal shipping channels, bring it in through a major port with Hyundai painted on the outside of the container.


By mmatis on 3/9/2013 8:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well of course you're right! After all, there is simply NO WAY the Norks could build a nuclear device that would fit on a cargo ship that could then be sailed into San Francisco bay. Or any other major US port. After all, they do not have the technology to build ocean-going vessels, and none of their supporters are capable of doing so, either!


US should free North-Korea
By Phoque on 3/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: US should free North-Korea
By mik123 on 3/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: US should free North-Korea
By sviola on 3/7/2013 5:28:31 PM , Rating: 4
If they bomb the South, no more Samsung Galaxy Phones and Tablets will be available.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By MadMan007 on 3/7/2013 11:30:22 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe Apple can use their cash to pay North Korea to invade South Korea.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By Motoman on 3/8/2013 10:39:07 AM , Rating: 5
Are you kidding? You could probably get any DPRK citizen, or soldier, to invade anybody for the promise of an apple.

And I don't mean an iThing. I mean an actual apple.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By dgingerich on 3/7/2013 5:28:47 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, their nukes can reach us, but just the west coast and slightly inward. The farthest east they could nuke would be around Las Vegas. (My childhood best friend lives there, so he'd better not try anything.) They have some pretty decent ballistic missiles.

However, if they invade South Korea, we'd suffer major economic repercussions, even for years after the invasion. That would cost a lot of millionaires a lot of money. What do millionaires hate more than not making money? Losing what they have. We'd go to war in a heartbeat if he were to try anything.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By SlyNine on 3/7/2013 6:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Source...


RE: US should free North-Korea
By wiz220 on 3/7/2013 6:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
They have a missile that can reach us, but they are not thought to have a nuclear warhead that can go on this missile. So, technically, they do not have nukes that can reach us.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By danjw1 on 3/7/2013 7:37:23 PM , Rating: 3
They have enough artillery along the border to flatten South Korea's capitol, Seoul. We have troops that man the border, right along side the South Koreans. If the north were to make a real attack on the the south, the United States is bound by treaty to be involved.

The economic impact wouldn't just be on wealthy people, it would be felt around the world. It would be unlikely that Japan would be able to stay out of the conflict.

If war were to break out, our best hope is that a group of mid-level officers being smart enough to see that Kim is leading them into a no win situation. If enough of them turn on the regime, that could shut it down quick.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By StevoLincolnite on 3/7/2013 8:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
And if the North uses Nuclear weapons... I can see North Korea being the worlds largest car park in return.
At-least the South Korean's won't have to complain about lack of parking space. :p


RE: US should free North-Korea
By Reclaimer77 on 3/7/2013 8:27:03 PM , Rating: 1
Actually in today's climate, especially with THIS American President, I can see North Korea basically getting away with it. I hate saying that, but it's true.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By jamdev12 on 3/7/13, Rating: -1
RE: US should free North-Korea
By StevoLincolnite on 3/8/2013 8:39:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are paying $800 million dollars a day for that one and instead of increasing taxes on everyone which is the right thing to do, we want to cut the knee caps out of the most vital things that make our country the best in the world, its education system


Finland and South Korea have the best education systems in the world, not the United States.

As for the USA being the best country in the world? That's highly debatable... I'll take my higher average wage, lower crime rates, lower pollution levels, better eduction and better health in my own country any day. :P


RE: US should free North-Korea
By mik123 on 3/8/2013 3:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Higher average wage? Which country is that?


RE: US should free North-Korea
By valentyn0 on 3/9/2013 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
Quite a number of european countries: Island, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Liechtestein, Switzwerland, and many many others. If u are an arrogant Us average citizen and think u are the wealthiest average employee, think again.

Us has around 40k per year average wage.

Denmark tops the wage with over 6,6 K $ per month ( calculate that by a year and see where u get).


RE: US should free North-Korea
By SlyNine on 3/10/2013 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 4
This statement LOL.

" If u are an arrogant Us average citizen " Don't you realize just how hypocritical you just made yourself out to be?

Besides that, what is the average price of goods and fuel there. I'm not saying you don't make more on average (despite the fact that you are comparing an average of 300 million to an average of 5 million, the size of some US cities) But saying the average American is arrogant is stereotyping and makes you look arrogant.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By e36Jeff on 3/10/2013 11:18:06 PM , Rating: 3
That statement is directly contradicted by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_... This shows the US with a higher average income than Denmark. I found the chart that I assume you were referencing, which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_... I can find multiple pages on wikipedia with info that contradicts the second article, so I don't know which is correct.

Even if we assume the second article is correct, if you get to pick specific members of the EU, we should get to pick specific states, in which case, Maryland, my home state, has yearly average income of 70k. This is close to, but lower than Denmark. If Maryland was in the EU, it would rank 3rd in average income.

I know people love hate on America, but please, dont just assume we are all just average arrogant Americans. Those people are just a very vocal minority. I know my country has issues with education, among other things. I dont run around thinking I'm better than you because of where I grew up, and you shouldn't either, otherwise you are just living down to the sterotype of the arrogant European.

And just so you dont think I'm pulling numbers out of thin air, here are my sources:
US income per state(also has the US average in the middle of the chart, its 50k, not 40k): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_b...
population/land size info for the state of MD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland
population/land size info for Denmark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
List of countries by average wage(2004 number): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ranking...

the rest of the info is cited in my post.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By mindless1 on 3/13/2013 12:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
Trying to fight arrogance is a waste of time. It will always. be. everywhere.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By TSS on 3/8/2013 9:19:38 AM , Rating: 3
Well what would be the point? NK's objective obviously would be to do as much damage as possible but the US can defeat the NK without nukes. At that point, dropping those on north korea would just mean you're destroying the land you're trying to conquer.

And you know north korea hasn't tapped any of their own resources significantly over the past 50 years, while south korea is a really close ally. It's investment possibilities waiting to happen, and if there's anything you could use right now....

Not saying there won't be any nukes. Kim might find a 5 or 10 kiloton babynuke in his back yard. But i wouldn't expect any megaton sized blasts no.

Besides just think about what you would do if mexico went insane, detonated a nuke in china and then china leveled your backyard entirely. So i'd say the best course here is to prevent rather then cure.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By jimbojimbo on 3/7/2013 8:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
But the billionaires don't care and can't wait to steal the millionaires' money.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By gwem557 on 3/8/2013 5:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no. They do NOT have missiles that can reliably reach us. Not even close. I don't know where you're getting your information.


RE: US should free North-Korea
By MadMan007 on 3/7/2013 5:18:30 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately our WarBank Credit Card is maxed out.


Occupy?
By half_duplex on 3/7/2013 9:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing of value in North Korea, no strategic worth as we own South Korea, and stability in that region is not vital to the US.
There would be no need to occupy, in fact, we could do the vast majority of the job without putting a boot on the ground.

Remove their ability to conduct war, eliminate a large majority of the ruling elite, done.

If they decide to nuclear/chemical on the South, so be it, the world will see what communist dictatorships like North Korea feel is acceptable.

I say we let them have their temper tantrum, then eliminate the rulers blood line from the worlds future.




RE: Occupy?
By JeBarr on 3/7/2013 9:33:31 PM , Rating: 1
You do realize the USA is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons for war.

Maybe not the first and only nation to employ chemical weapons, but yep, they did that too.

The world certainly did see what a democratic nation is capable of.

I am American born but you are acting like the USA could do no wrong and that communists are evil scum of the Earth. That makes you both naive and wrong.


RE: Occupy?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/8/2013 1:28:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The world certainly did see what a democratic nation is capable of.


Helping to bring a campaign of tyranny and world domination to a halt? Yes, they did see it. And they thanked us for it.

Take your moral relativism argument somewhere else, jackass.

quote:
I am American born but you are acting like the USA could do no wrong and that communists are evil scum of the Earth. That makes you both naive and wrong.


No. You are just removing all the context, history, and stated intentions of North Korea and boiling it down to "we used nukes, so Korea can too!" Like a goddamn idiot.

We used nukes to end a conflict, one which we didn't even start. This is a HUGE difference from North Korea threatening to use nuclear weapons in peacetime as a first-strike. Hello?


RE: Occupy?
By ClownPuncher on 3/8/2013 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 3
The US obviously can do wrong, but communists are scum. That said, NKoreans aren't communists.


RE: Occupy?
By mik123 on 3/8/2013 3:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
NK looks like commies to me.


RE: Occupy?
By ClownPuncher on 3/8/2013 4:23:05 PM , Rating: 3
The proletariat has no power in North Korea.


Mr. Rodman
By rbsguy on 3/7/2013 5:24:11 PM , Rating: 5
Watching Mr. Rodman reminds me of the proverb, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"




RE: Mr. Rodman
By TSS on 3/8/2013 9:31:29 AM , Rating: 3
Oh cmon now. He might not be the brightest pickle in the jar but i definitly don't think he deserves all this hate.

Atleast he's trying to use what little pull he has with a crazy person to try and avoid a whole lotta death and misery. If you knew the ayatollah in iran idolized you, and there might just be a sliver of hope of avoiding what is otherwise an unavoidable conflict, wouldn't you try?

And about what he's saying in the press, what else would he say? Kim idolizes him, if he calls him a friend he might listen, if he calls him a murderer or something like that he might go full mental there and then.

It's easy to forget what power words can have if they reach alot of people, especially when browsing a forum like this where words are used and thrown away like copypaper. But just try and imagine what you would say if a journalist points a camera at you while you know somebody who will care about what you say has his hand on a big red button.


RE: Mr. Rodman
By SlyNine on 3/10/2013 5:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
I would say pushing that red button is the biggest and last mistake you'll ever make buddy. Do yourself a favor and dont push it.


RE: Mr. Rodman
By CaedenV on 3/8/2013 3:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
On the plus side he said he would be going back... maybe he would stay?


Uh
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2013 5:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares what the heck Dennis Rodman does?




RE: Uh
By Lord 666 on 3/7/2013 8:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
We should have sent Andy Dick to do stand up comedy there. His reputation of hard partying has earned him the nickname "Angel of Death" after Chris Farley, Phil Hartman, and David Strickland died around him.

One night out with some coke, American hookers, and booze would permanently end NK's leadership problem.


RE: Uh
By KITH on 3/11/2013 7:43:14 PM , Rating: 1
What does Andy Dick have to do with Strickland's suicide and Hartman's murder?


By Scaredy Retard on 3/7/2013 6:43:31 PM , Rating: 5
Just gonna leave this safe-for-work image here. It captures North Korea's recent behavior very succinctly:

http://imgur.com/xFE9QXi




guess what?
By poohbear on 3/10/2013 12:44:22 AM , Rating: 3
Rofl i've never heard anyone say "guess what" so many Times In an interview!! I thought Rodman was smarter than this, he came off as a complete fool!!! please just stick to playing basketball!




!!!!!!
By EmilyGrands22 on 3/9/2013 8:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
til I looked at the draft of $7374, I have faith ...that...my sister could realy earning money in their spare time on their computer.. there sisters roommate has been doing this for under twentey months and a short time ago paid for the loans on there appartment and purchased a gorgeous Ariel Atom. I went here, Big44. comCHECK IT OUT




NK can't be that stupid
By masamasa on 3/10/2013 5:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Launching a missle or nuke at this point means they will be obliterated from the face of the earth. About time to wipe these hooligans off the planet.




Say, "Yes" to peace.
By Sam07 on 3/10/2013 8:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to break it to you guys but anyone who thinks the Korean peninsula is going to break out into war again are ignorant, delusional, stupid, evil or some combination of the four. The North knows they don't have any reprieve as Kim Jung-Il was kind of a failure of a ruler and left the country in a precarious state. Kim Jung-Un knows this which is why he pretty much has to reach out to the South in terms of aid and economic development. The US doesn't get it yet because lets face it, DC is really far away from Asia and the DC analysts and think tanks have been chanting that the North's leadership is going to fall any time now. That's why the US has attempted to starve out the North with sanctions and isolating the country.

Unfortunately for the analysts who were hoping for such a scenario to play out, quite the opposite has occurred where the North is actually quite self-sufficient and aside from being somewhat of a poor nation (although their per capita GDP is still higher than nations like India) is doing quite well now. In fact, the Chinese intellectual leadership has recently admitted that they have to "let go" of the North to allow them to go their own way -- which will more than likely involve developing tactical nukes so the US and Japan can't bully them around then open the nation up to the rest of the world.

But apparently no one on Dailytech has a clue about such strategic matters and how these intricate moves play out.




By overlandpark4me on 3/11/2013 6:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they're quaking in their boots from that statement. What a joke he is, and I'm not referring to the midget either.




By cyberguyz on 4/3/2013 5:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
The kid is 28 years old. His dad is dead and his grandpa is dead too. He knows this is not 1950 and that the U.S. has 100 times more nukes than he does. He also knows the U.S. doesn't even have to get off it's butt to turn South Korea into an island. Hell, the U.S. is flying B2 bombers right over his house and can fly a cruise missile right up his ass any time they really wanted. So who is the suicidal asshat that is egging him on?

And what's up with Rodman? Is he on crack?




Rodmans a Diplomat?
By random2 on 3/8/2013 12:03:30 AM , Rating: 1
Dear Dennis

Please don't quite playing basketball...What? That's done?

Ok then, well, don't give up what ever it is your doing these days, because diplomacy aint your gig man.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki