North Korea test fires long range rocket.

[Bob The Mercenary]

North Korea test fires long range rocket. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_nkorea_missile)

Security Council diplomats said Friday that a draft resolution in circulation could reaffirm and tighten enforcement of the demands and sanctions of a resolution passed after North Korea conducted a nuclear test on 2006.

That makes me feel so much safer.

So wtf happens now?

[Kim]

Well, I'm sure Rozen Aso, Barack Obama, and the SuperfriendsUN Security Council will probably tell North Korea to knock it off. I'm not sure how inclined North Korea will be to listen, but having the UN as an enemy seems less than a bright idea, and probably won't have any positive outcomes for NK.

[Kepor]

North Korea has typically shown a remarkable disregard for world opinion. I was rather surprised that they admitted their nuclear weapons program.

[bluestarultor]

Is anyone really surprised by this? Really? I mean, when people want The Bomb, there's pretty much fuck-all anyone else can do about it. Same as with Iran. Having nukes is a symbol of being a world power, because it gives you the power to wipe someone you don't like off the face of the planet. In practice, it's really less that than "Hey, just so you know, I'm entering into the circle of people who aren't going to be firing off missiles anytime soon, but totally could, anyway," but it still stands that all it takes is one press of a button to kill thousands or even millions of people. The only thing stopping anyone from doing so is the fact that there are a bunch of other people who can do the same and might retaliate, so really, no one wins. But it still carries the status.

[01d55]

It's not just the status - it's the safety. India and Pakistan got nukes so as to protect themselves from Pakistan and India. Isreal developed nukes (n.b. they're technically not allowed to have done so and officially refuse to admit that they've got nukes, but everyone knows that they got 'em) in response to that one time all of their neighbours tried to kill them. Iran and NK? They figure the U.S. is fixin to fuck their shit up and reckon that a good 'ol a-bomb is a one way ticket to safetyville.

Now you hear a lot about how terrible it is that Iran might get / NK has got nukes, mainly 'cos the U.S. is making a big stink about those nukes, as opposed to Pakistan, India, and Israel, about whose nukes the feds made a perfunctory statement of concern (at best). The reason for our particular concern with those two countries being that we was fixing to fuck their shit up and reckon that their getting nukes would spoil our party.

[Kepor]

Israel, North Korea, India, and Pakistan are all non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which forbids production of nuclear weapons for countries that did not have them prior to the treaty in 1968 (hell of a grandfather clause). North Korea was a signatory, but withdrew fairly recently. Iran is a signatory, meaning they can't manufacture nuclear weapons, but they are allowed the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (which is their alibi).

As far as the security thing goes, that's quite true, and quite unfortunate. While nuclear deterrence makes sense for each individual nation-state, as a whole it's basically another threat of extinction.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I was going to make a seperate topic for this but I think it related to here, feel free to break up if necessary.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/nuclear-weapons-barack-obama
Barack Obama promising to actually pay attention to the non-proliferation treaty and get US and Russia to cut back and even maybe eliminate all thier nukes. Though we've heard such statements before and I don't really think it'll happen.

[Osterbaum]

North Korea has typically shown a remarkable disregard for world opinion. I was rather surprised that they admitted their nuclear weapons program.
While I don't really think much of North Korea, to be fair they really aren't the only ones who don't seem to give a shit about world opinion when it's against them.

I don't think it's a good thing that they're getting nukes, I just don't feel this particular argument to be too solid against them.

[Lord Setheris]

Well, so far the US officials claim no satellite made it into orbit, but Russian and Korean officials claim one did. This part is actually the most confusing element to me, because knowing north korea, it was equally likely they would release a statement claiming Kim Jong Il simply lept into the sky and placed the device into orbit to the cheers and roars of elementary school children.

Here is what happens now:
North Korea has made China uncomfortable. And when china gets uncomfortable, bad things happen. Maybe the whole world will just cut off all trade with North Korea, effectively starving their nation of resources.

[Jagos]

The US still gives aid to North Korea. And China, in a sense is a benefactor. With regards to the region, Japan might be taking a more... harsher stance than say the US since they are the most powerful country in that region for the time being.

[Meister]

Threads should be titled descriptively. Something like "This is so wrong!" doesn't tell anybody what the thread is about
Yo.

... looking at the first page this is actually a pretty widespread thing, so we'll have to have more of an eye on thread titles here from now on.

EDIT: Original thread title: "No they di'ant!" Just for future reference since I'm gonna edit it now.

[Funka Genocide]

if we were going to waste time and lives invading somewhere for the purposes of spreading democratic freedom, we should have started with North Korea.

Iraq and Afghanistan were a bunch of underfed asshats with world war 2 surplus rifles. North Korea are a bunch of underfed asshats with world war 2 surplus nukes.

not to mention all the attrocities commited against the north korean people by their leaders at least break even with the bullshit sadam and the taliban were up to.

ah well, chickens coming home to roost and such.

[Pip Boy]

if we were going to waste time and live invading somewhere for the purposes of spreading democratic freedom, we should have started with North Korea.

Iraq and Afghanistan were a bunch of underfed asshats with world war 2 surplus rifles. North Korea are a bunch of underfed asshats with world war 2 surplus nukes.

not to mention all the attrocities commited against the north korean people by their leaders at least break even with the bullshit sadam and the taliban were up to.

ah well, chickens coming home to roost and such.

I'm not for the invasion of countries for reasons of spreading democracy nearly as much as I am for the invasion of countries for "Holy shit, they're building nukes and blatantly lying to the international community about it."

[Funka Genocide]

I was being facetious, translated into something more straightforward it would read something like:

Instead of making a bare-faced grab for resources with a flimsy excuse, we should have used our military forces to neutralize a real potential threat, using similar flimsy excuses.

[Jagos]

There's this big thing called China which N. Korea answers to...

I have this idea in my head we focused on the middle east because the idea of terrorism is what we want to prevent from spreading. The idea of communism working on a grand scale (as it did for Russia and China) keeps us working to contain N. Korea, prevent nukes from coming out of there, and keep MAD enforced.

Kinda hard when NK doesn't care about itself though.

[shiney]

Don't be facetious in discussion then Erick, it keeps backfiring. It is for serious discussion...this isn't a warning or even like a mod-fuck you, just, people keep misinterpreting your facetiousness so it obviously isn't working.

That said, the probable reason the US and such haven't invaded NK is that Japan & China wouldn't like it (and they concern us more than the other countries in the middle east), and the fact that we don't have vested financial interests in the region or country. We have allies, but they are allies who determine how policy goes down there. We're the guy who leans out from behind Japan and shakes our fist going "Yeeeeaaaah." but if Japan says we're not attacking then we're not attacking.

Meanwhile in Iraq there's nobody who says "Don't attack" and we wouldn't listen anyways because of the interests we have in place. Nevermind that NK is far more of a threat because their leader, instead of lying and saying "We don't have anything go ahead and look", is saying "We have stuff, we're testing long range missiles, and we've proven we are crazy jackasses".

Honestly the US and them need to get a better grip on their priorities, North Korea will be the big problem country and if they ever dare to try any funny business you know they will get annihilated this time. The Korean war went semi-well for them, the second Korean war would result in the absolute topple of the Kim Il-Jong regime.

Is my guess.

[POS Industries]

if we were going to waste time and lives invading somewhere for the purposes of spreading democratic freedom, we should have started with North Korea.
That is, in fact, specifically where we did start and why the large share of this is even happening today.

When they call it "The Forgotten War," they ain't kidding.

[Jagos]

We invaded the Korean peninsula. China interfered. We have a divide of communism in the North and capitalism in the south. Fifty years later, South Korea is a rival to Japan in terms of GNP. N. Korea barely has enough resources for its people and its government.

If we're going to have peace there, you have to look at who's the big dogs in the yard and make them play. That's China and Japan, not the US. Though N. Korea wants to talk to us more, it's damn near impossible without China coming to say "we want this buffer zone."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The reason Korea hasn't been invaded to put in democracy is the same region everywhere else far worse than Iraq and Afghanistan weren't invaded, they have no resources the US were interested in.
And China has plenty of interests in North Korea so would oppose anybody trying to invade.
Just like the last time the US tried it.

And unless say all the other world powers give up full details of all thier nuclear programmes and thier armaments I can hardly see the argument against North Korea.
I mean Israel still hasn't admitted to all the nukes they are stockpiling and they have shown a continual aggressive intent against local arab peoples and nobody is demanding Israel comes clean and abandons all its weapon. Israel is actually using its army to attack foreign peoples which North Korea aren't doing to the same extent.
The US is the source of much of the nuclear technology of Israel so they are being completely hypocritical if they are to criticise North Korea.

[Kepor]

There's this big thing called China which N. Korea answers to...

China's influence on North Korea is often overestimated. Despite the fact that N.K. is basically reliant on China to survive, N.K. often goes against China's preferences. N.K.'s nuclear weapons program is a marked example.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Pentagon to cut missile defense spending and recommends cancelling 2nd Boeing airborne laser demonstration program. (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWEN692820090406)

This is all leaving me very uneasy. Even if NK is years away from completing a functioning warhead, they have shown that they have nothing against proliferating fissile materials throughout the world to aid their battered economy. Why wait until they're a threat? I don't mean military action, I'm just getting anxious watching all these politicians "talk".

[Edit] Also, apologies for the thread title. It won't happen again.

[POS Industries]

Why wait until they're a threat?
Because it's highly unlikely that they will ever be one. This is a country that can't even keep the lights on through most of the day, and what resources they do have are of Chinese origin. Their economy tanked before it was the cool thing to do, what little money they do have has been pumped to a smaller degree into classic communist military parades and to a larger extent into Kim Jong Il's wannabe gangsta lifestyle. So far all they've done is one failed explosive test that some doubt was even really nuclear to begin with and this recent bottle rocket they fired into the pacific. Ooooooooh scary!

This entire "look at us, we're trying to get the bomb" charade is just a pathetic and mostly impotent cry for attention and I honestly don't see any point in wasting time and money placating their national ego. If we're going to worry about nuclear threats, getting all those former Soviet warheads rounded up and accounted for should be our key concern.

[Mesden]

Because it's highly unlikely that they will ever be one. This is a country that can't even keep the lights on through most of the day, and what resources they do have are of Chinese origin. Their economy tanked before it was the cool thing to do, what little money they do have has been pumped to a smaller degree into classic communist military parades and to a larger extent into Kim Jong Il's wannabe gangsta lifestyle. So far all they've done is one failed explosive test that some doubt was even really nuclear to begin with and this recent bottle rocket they fired into the pacific. Ooooooooh scary!

This entire "look at us, we're trying to get the bomb" charade is just a pathetic and mostly impotent cry for attention and I honestly don't see any point in wasting time and money placating their national ego. If we're going to worry about nuclear threats, getting all those former Soviet warheads rounded up and accounted for should be our key concern.

On top of that, the "Why wait until they're a threat?" opinion is what has gotten us into stupid wars before, like Vietnam where we decided "Why wait until they're a communist threat?" and Bay of Pigs for the exact same reason. If we justified every course of action like that, we'd preemptively invade every country that looks at us funny, like Iran and, for the past while, Iraq.

[01d55]

Pentagon to cut missile defense spending and recommends cancelling 2nd Boeing airborne laser demonstration program. (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWEN692820090406)

This is all leaving me very uneasy. Even if NK is years away from completing a functioning warhead, they have shown that they have nothing against proliferating fissile materials throughout the world to aid their battered economy. Why wait until they're a threat? I don't mean military action, I'm just getting anxious watching all these politicians "talk".

[Edit] Also, apologies for the thread title. It won't happen again.

1. We're not waiting, we're abandoning a dead end project long after it became clear the thing was never gonna work.

2. NK is not a threat to us. We are a threat to NK. There is no country that threatens the United States, the very idea that any other country could threaten the U.S. (save the symmetrical threat of M.A.D.) is absurd. The foreign policy elite promotes this absurd idea constantly to manufacture public consent to their program of threatening and waging aggressive war on other countries.

[Pip Boy]

There is no country that threatens the United States, the very idea that any other country could threaten the U.S. (save the symmetrical threat of M.A.D.) is absurd. The foreign policy elite promotes this absurd idea constantly to manufacture public consent to their program of threatening and waging aggressive war on other countries.

Are you serious? America may be one of the most powerful nations in the world, but we're far from invincible, and an arrogant attitude like that in foreign policy would only make things worse. As much as I wish all of that "Go America" G. I. Joe crap would actually help the country, you can't make bullets out of patriotism and Uncle Sam isn't going to save us when times get tough. Nor will the hand of God reach down to save us when we have half of the world's nukes flying at us. America may be a one of the world's most powerful countries, but so are France, England, Russia, China, Japan, and Germany. You are really overestimating the power of the American armed forces.

[Doc ock rokc]

Are you serious? America may be one of the most powerful nations in the world, but we're far from invincible, and an arrogant attitude like that in foreign policy would only make things worse. As much as I wish all of that "Go America" G. I. Joe crap would actually help the country, you can't make bullets out of patriotism and Uncle Sam isn't going to save us when times get tough. Nor will the hand of God reach down to save us when we have half of the world's nukes flying at us. America may be a one of the world's most powerful countries, but so are France, England, Russia, China, Japan, and Germany. You are really overestimating the power of the American armed forces.

So very true. But do to being a superpower during the cold war we have a lot of nukes and a lot of Anti missile systems in place. but i really think that those wont give a flip if we piss off everyone. that's why we are allies with France, England, the new Russia, China, Japan, and Germany. because when the nukes start flying we wont be the ones on their launch list. We also have the UN on our side if NK attacks first. But the chance of their bottle rocket...rocket getting here is the exact same as a snowball jugglers job in hell

[Pip Boy]

So very true. But do to being a superpower during the cold war we have a lot of nukes and a lot of Anti missile systems in place. but i really think that those wont give a flip if we piss off everyone. that's why we are allies with France, England, the new Russia, China, Japan, and Germany. because when the nukes start flying we wont be the ones on their launch list. We also have the UN on our side if NK attacks first. But the chance of their bottle rocket...rocket getting here is the exact same as a snowball jugglers job in hell

Either way, taking this situation lightly, much less arrogantly, would be unwise, especially when we're dealing with nukclear weapons. One nuke on the right city would be a national tragedy that make 9-11 look like a walk through the park.

[01d55]

http://www.wand.org/images/militarybud.jpg

Look at that fucking ridiculous chart and tell me that anyone can threaten the United States. We could spend a tenth as much and still spend four times as much as Canada!

From the standpoint of a defensive military force - an armed force oriented towards its proper role as a deterrent and defence against foreign aggression - the U.S. Military is incomprehensibly oversized.

As the enforcement arm of a global empire, it's much more reasonably sized, perhaps even a bit too small. Attacking a country that isn't geographically adjacent requires a vastly disproportionate expenditure than would a commensurate defence against such an attack, largely due to logistics. However, this does not mean that there is any country that threatens the U.S. Imperialism is unjustifiable. To say that the possibility that a country might be able to resist aggression from America means that country threatens America is Orwellian.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Are you serious? America may be one of the most powerful nations in the world, but we're far from invincible, and an arrogant attitude like that in foreign policy would only make things worse. As much as I wish all of that "Go America" G. I. Joe crap would actually help the country, you can't make bullets out of patriotism and Uncle Sam isn't going to save us when times get tough. Nor will the hand of God reach down to save us when we have half of the world's nukes flying at us. America may be a one of the world's most powerful countries, but so are France, England, Russia, China, Japan, and Germany. You are really overestimating the power of the American armed forces.

I think the point 55 was making is that the economies of all the most powerful countries in the world are all so tied into each other and particularly into America that it would require a very odd set of circumstances for them to wage war against America as it would have drastic effects on thier economy which would hamper not only the aftermath of the war but wargoing ability itself.

In purely military terms, however, the US is the strongest but would certainly be threatened by China in particular. Especially as the US Navy, which would be crucial in such a war, continues to rely on massive warships which military wisdom has really discredited recentely.

Getting back to the subject at hand, North Korea really aren't a threat to anyone. Back when they announced they were detonating a small nuclear warhead a year ago (I think it was about it) China began specifically monitoring the region where they said the test was and said they found nothing, despite NK saying the test was a success. Most of the stuff that comes out of there is just talk.

[Pip Boy]

http://www.wand.org/images/militarybud.jpg

Look at that fucking ridiculous chart and tell me that anyone can threaten the United States. We could spend a tenth as much and still spend ten times as much as Canada!

From the standpoint of a defensive military force - an armed force oriented towards its proper role as a deterrent and defence against foreign aggression - the U.S. Military is incomprehensibly oversized.

As the enforcement arm of a global empire, it's much more reasonably sized, perhaps even a bit too small. Attacking a country that isn't geographically adjacent requires a vastly disproportionate expenditure than would a commensurate defence against such an attack, largely due to logistics. However, this does not mean that there is any country that threatens the U.S. Imperialism is unjustifiable. To say that the possibility that a country might be able to resist aggression from America means that country threatens America is Orwellian.

Hey. I spent like, 180 dollars on a used Xbox. And it was broken. So I spent 100 dollars repairing it. And it broke again after 2 months. So I bought a new Xbox for 200 dollars.

Obviously, this means that my Xbox 360 Arcade must be better than my neighbor's elite because I spent more money on it.

POINT BEING: Spending a lot of money on military does not make your military more powerful. It just means you spend a lot of money on military. There is no telling how much of that was spent on something useful and how much was spent on gold-plated toilet seats.

Now, I don't think that North Korea alone does stand even a tiny chance in a war against America. Even North Korea teamed with like, China and Japan would find itself hard pressed against the USA. But even then, one bomb on US soil would probably be the biggest tragedy in the entirety of US History. Trying to win a nuclear war is like trying to win an earthquake.

[Osterbaum]

What would North Korea actually gain from attacking the United States?

[Kepor]

North Korea isn't out to attack the United States. This rocket seems more of a national security thing, like Iran's suspicious enrichment program.

When the world's most powerful country calls you an axis of evil, you want an ace up your sleeve.

edit: Also, how the budget breaks down is

Military Personnel..............118,920
Operation & Maintenance...165,344
Procurement....................101,679
RDT&E..............................75,117
Revolving & Mgmt Funds........2,454
DoD Bill.......................463,514

In millions of dollars. The link is here (http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_greenbook.pdf), if anyone wants it.

[Osterbaum]

North Korea isn't out to attack the United States. This rocket seems more of a national security thing, like Iran's suspicious enrichment program.
This is the point I was trying to make. Every time North Korea is brought up in the forums, I just get this feeling from peoples posts like everyone is expecting war to suddenly break out.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I intrepret a lot of the posts I read.

[Kepor]

Thing is, North Korea's rocket program brings up the security dilemma. Namely, that any attempt to secure your borders can also threaten your neighbors and ultimately end up making you less secure.

So while there probably isn't any current intention of attack, increasing tensions is not a good sign.

[Hatake Kakashi]

The problem that North Korea (and more specifically, Kim Jong Il) continues to bring back to the surface is merely that it knows it can be rewarded for committing acts -regarded by the international community as a whole, and by the local regions- of disobedience, disregard, and generally poor diplomacy. We had a standing avoidance of contact with NK for quite a while, due to our abhorrence to negotiating with what could be seen as a hostile entity. So what did Kim Jong Il do about it?

He waved an explosive around and disturbed the general peace until he was able to grab Mr. Bush by the ear and walk him right back to the point where we would be supplying aid to his country. And he continues to do so with any other leader whose attentions he covets, and will continue to do so. He's learned, as a spoiled child would, that throwing a tantrum, albeit a "nuclear" or "long-range" one, gets him the attention (and thus, the funding and aid) that his somewhat narcissistic ego has come to depend upon. And we've somehow got to find a way to break him of that nasty little habit.

Whether or not he's actually able to threaten the US itself doesn't seem to be the issue at hand. He seems to be much more interested in threatening our interests and allies near his location, as it generally gives him what he wants without the extra effort of having to get to us directly. I don't really see any end to it soon, as he's shown a tendency to disregard treaties and diplomacy when he has to tighten his belt a little. The sad truth is, we're not likely to hear the last of him until he's removed.... permanently.

Even then, there's a distinct possibility of yet another like-minded individual waiting to take his place.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

don't really see any end to it soon, as he's shown a tendency to disregard treaties and diplomacy when he has to tighten his belt a little. x

How is this different from every other major power in the world, particularly the US.


This is the point I was trying to make. Every time North Korea is brought up in the forums, I just get this feeling from peoples posts like everyone is expecting war to suddenly break out.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I intrepret a lot of the posts I read.

I totally don't know what forum you were reading. We were ridiculing the idea and were saying pretty much the only way war is going to break out is if someone discovers oil under North Korea and the US decides its another time to bring "democracy" somewhere.

[Osterbaum]

I totally don't know what forum you were reading. We were ridiculing the idea and were saying pretty much the only way war is going to break out is if someone discovers oil under North Korea and the US decides its another time to bring "democracy" somewhere.
Then I was propably wrong. But it was bugging me, so I thought I'd adress it.

[Kepor]

We were ridiculing the idea and were saying pretty much the only way war is going to break out is if someone discovers oil under North Korea and the US decides its another time to bring "democracy" somewhere.

Not quite true. If North Korea decides to invade South Korea, the US (and others, I hope) would step in. Extremely unlikely. But talks between the two countries took a sour turn recently, and the missile test probably won't reassure South Korea.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Not quite true. If North Korea decides to invade South Korea, the US (and others, I hope) would step in. Extremely unlikely. But talks between the two countries took a sour turn recently, and the missile test probably won't reassure South Korea.

Can you really see North Korea attempting to invade South Korea? It's pretty unlikely.
And the US would mostly be going in to save thier South Korean assets in the long haul so it a similar situation to finding oil.

[Jagos]

They might try to invade because they covet S. Korea's success. But knowing that South Korea is under US protection stops NK from deciding to do something stupid.

[Kepor]

Can you really see North Korea attempting to invade South Korea? It's pretty unlikely.

Extremely unlikely.

Ridiculously unlikely. But increased tensions raise the possibility.

Although I don't think there's any way North Korea could win if it came down to it. International intervention aside, is it really likely that North Korea could control twice as much territory as it does currently? With a population three times its current size? 50 million of which are hostile to North Korea rule and highly concentrated?

[Whomper]

It should be noted that the U.S. already has several military bases inside South Korea (my friend Jason is stationed in one of them). It wouldn't be a matter of "going in"; we're already there. So yeah, I don't see North Korea making any boneheaded moves.

[Jagos]

That DMZ always stays hot though. Last I remember, NK does antagonize that area just to see how far they can go.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well it is one of the most heavily guarded areas intthe world but they never do anything. Both sides have such a ridiculous amount of troops on that one spot that neither side could really do anything without starting a huge incident.

[Hatake Kakashi]

Yes, but NK's leader likes to cause incidents. It gets him back to the bargaining table to see what else he can milk out of anyone who's listening.

[Magus]

Not worried about NK at all (or Iran for that matter). If someone wanted to take Kim Jong Il out for ideological reasons (the whole "pro-democracy" bent) I wouldn't raise a protest other than the material/human cost of such an enterprise, to both the U.S. and the NK people, but a national security reason would just be a flimsy excuse, really.

As someone else mentioned, I think it was Megaman FTW (possibly in opposition to the opinion that the U.S. is untouchable on a national scale, but I'll quote them anyway), the only countries that are threats to the U.S. are allies who in the modern age would have no reason to attack us ever that I can think of. The only actual threat that could even be thought up at this time would be China, and we're not enemies with China or anything, we're close economic partners at this juncture, despite what pundits like to bring up. Oh, and sometimes they bring up Russia, like recently after the invasion of Georgia, but seriously, if it didn't happen during the Cold War it sure isn't going to happen now.

The only real threat to the United States at this point in time is international terrorism, on the scale of thousands, not millions, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

[Bob The Mercenary]

The only real threat to the United States at this point in time is international terrorism, on the scale of thousands, not millions, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

I think that's part of the reason why NK and Iran are seen as a larger threat. They haven't exactly kept their weaponry to themselves over the years. What are the chances of a dirty bomb or even a small yield nuke landing in the hands of terrorists once either country has completed refining it?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think that's part of the reason why NK and Iran are seen as a larger threat. They haven't exactly kept their weaponry to themselves over the years. What are the chances of a dirty bomb or even a small yield nuke landing in the hands of terrorists once either country has completed refining it?

Pretty small. To make a nuke you need large production capacity so even if you have the specs you are unlikely to be able to actually make it.
No country is just going to hand out bombs and nukes to random organisation. There is a difference between selling off a few rifles and giving out bombs for no apparent reason. These countries supply terrorists because it is profitable. No terrorist organisation is going to have the resources to make the selling of large scale bombs profitable.

Even if a terrorist group obtained a bomb, how would they use it? You need something to drop a bomb and terrorist groups usually don't have bombers in thier arsenal.

[Jagos]

I think that's part of the reason why NK and Iran are seen as a larger threat. They haven't exactly kept their weaponry to themselves over the years. What are the chances of a dirty bomb or even a small yield nuke landing in the hands of terrorists once either country has completed refining it?

Things they believe they can do is try to flood the US economy (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23counterfeit.html) with fake money.

As you can see, they're more of a sideshow than a real threat.

[Mannix]

A good blog for info on North Korea is One Free Korea. (http://freekorea.us/).

Also, there's a blog post by a North Korean defector that was educated in North Korea's top university translated here (http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/04/ask-korean-news-best-commentary-on.html).

News stories in the Korean media translated into English can be found here (http://koreabeat.com/).


The post by the North Korean defector is actually pretty interesting.

Well it is one of the most heavily guarded areas in the world but they never do anything. Both sides have such a ridiculous amount of troops on that one spot that neither side could really do anything without starting a huge incident.

Actually, a lot of stuff happens. North Korea has done lots of provocative things that under other circumstances would have resulted in a war - there have been several semi-successful attempts to tunnel under the DMZ, there have been a couple of spec-ops incursions on the coasts via submarine, and there have been a couple of small scale sea battles that left South Korean dead in the double digits.

A war with South Korea/the US is the North Korean State's ONLY reason for existence. They basically have to do crazy provocative shit to stay in power, whereas the South/US's interests lay in stability and thus benefit (in the short-term) from not responding or paying to shut the Norks up.

[Jagos]

Mannix, I'm not quite understanding that last sentence. Are you saying we (the US) don't really want to take down Kim Jong Il because we just want peace?

[Mannix]

Mannix, I'm not quite understanding that last sentence. Are you saying we (the US) don't really want to take down Kim Jong Il because we just want peace?

No, I'm saying that we don't 'take down' North Korea (in the short term) because our interests in the region are mainly economic, and paying Kim Jong Il to shut up for a little bit is less expensive than a war (in the short term).