On April 11 2013 17:18 Orek wrote: April 11 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first secretary of the ruling Worker's Party in North Korea. It is 5pm local time, but no ceremony has been reported yet.
April 13 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first chairman of the national defense commission.
April 15 Kim Il-Sung's birthday.
We might see something soon.
If the missiles are actually already fueled, they can't just keep them ready forever, if they wan't to achieve something. I wonder how this affects it though.
The actual rocket design is a liquid fuel rocket using a hypergolic combination of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as fuel, and inhibited red fuming nitric acid as oxidizer; this fuel/oxidizer combination does not vaporise like liquified hydrogen/oxygen gas at 35°C. As a result, once the fuel/oxidizer combination were fed into the missile, it could maintain a 'ready to launch' condition for several days, or even weeks, like the R-27 SLBM; however it could not be kept longer than this, because of tank corrosion caused by the red fuming nitric acid. A fueled Musudan would not have the structural strength to be land transported, so would have to be fueled at the launch site
While we are speculating, my bets are on April 15th of those dates.
Nothing against you, but it almost sounds like you wish something exciting would happen. 2012 was the 100th year since the birth of Kim Il Sung, and there were speculations of NK doing something big, but 2012 came and gone. It's better to just do nothing for NK than to embarass themselves on an eventful anniversary.
Heh well, truthfully i would like something to happen to North-Korean government especially, but then i think about all the (possible) casualties both sides and i quickly change my mind.
But you are right. Probably nothing will happen, but since the dates got brought up and how there has been news and talks about the readiness of the missiles, it's interesting to speculate.
Anyway, just watched a new documentary what was filmed fairly recently compared to the other documentary's out there.
On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote: Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Uh, yeah, the US and USSR were both constantly coercing client states into capitalism/communism in a series of coups and proxy wars. That's kind of the whole "Cold War" thing, and yes, the US won. While it is true that Gorbachev just sort of destroyed the USSR without being forced to, it could just as easily have continued on had he not "surrendered", but in terms of the Third World, the US and France, despite a few notable failures such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the most part managed to destroy the ability of sovereign governments to become Communist or even socialist, especially in Africa and the Americas. Mossadegh, Allende, Sankara, Guzman, Arbenz, Goulart, etc. were all very much defeated rather than collapsing.
On April 11 2013 23:17 Aveng3r wrote: I just feel bad for ordinary people in north korea. Imagine if they ever find out how the rest of the world lives and all the shit that their government tells them isnt true?
Your own government lies to u also every day, so what? (the NK's probarly think the same).
On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote: Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Uh, yeah, the US and USSR were both constantly coercing client states into capitalism/communism in a series of coups and proxy wars. That's kind of the whole "Cold War" thing, and yes, the US won. While it is true that Gorbachev just sort of destroyed the USSR without being forced to, it could just as easily have continued on had he not "surrendered", but in terms of the Third World, the US and France, despite a few notable failures such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the most part managed to destroy the ability of sovereign governments to become Communist or even socialist, especially in Africa and the Americas. Mossadegh, Allende, Sankara, Guzman, Arbenz, Goulart, etc. were all very much defeated rather than collapsing.
Gorbachev never wanted to USSR to end. He had to reform because of the situation they were in so no he couldn't have easily continued.
On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote: Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Uh, yeah, the US and USSR were both constantly coercing client states into capitalism/communism in a series of coups and proxy wars. That's kind of the whole "Cold War" thing, and yes, the US won. While it is true that Gorbachev just sort of destroyed the USSR without being forced to, it could just as easily have continued on had he not "surrendered", but in terms of the Third World, the US and France, despite a few notable failures such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the most part managed to destroy the ability of sovereign governments to become Communist or even socialist, especially in Africa and the Americas. Mossadegh, Allende, Sankara, Guzman, Arbenz, Goulart, etc. were all very much defeated rather than collapsing.
Gorbachev never wanted to USSR to end. He had to reform because of the situation they were in so no he couldn't have easily continued.
Cold war reality was a lot more complex then straight up ideology. In the 80s the Soviet Union was heavily relient on imports. Chiefly they were exporting oil and natural gas for imports like grain. And even then the oil revenue wasn't enough. I think the deficit was something like $20 billion. By 1989 their economy was pretty screwed.
On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote: Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Uh, yeah, the US and USSR were both constantly coercing client states into capitalism/communism in a series of coups and proxy wars. That's kind of the whole "Cold War" thing, and yes, the US won. While it is true that Gorbachev just sort of destroyed the USSR without being forced to, it could just as easily have continued on had he not "surrendered", but in terms of the Third World, the US and France, despite a few notable failures such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the most part managed to destroy the ability of sovereign governments to become Communist or even socialist, especially in Africa and the Americas. Mossadegh, Allende, Sankara, Guzman, Arbenz, Goulart, etc. were all very much defeated rather than collapsing.
Gorbachev never wanted to USSR to end. He had to reform because of the situation they were in so no he couldn't have easily continued.
Cold war reality was a lot more complex then straight up ideology. In the 80s the Soviet Union was heavily relient on imports. Chiefly they were exporting oil and natural gas for imports like grain. And even then the oil revenue wasn't enough. I think the deficit was something like $20 billion. By 1989 their economy was pretty screwed.
The economy was down, but the collapse of the USSR was almost solely political. Economic problems didn't really get too bad until after 1991, after the Soviet Union collapsed.
On April 11 2013 17:18 Orek wrote: April 11 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first secretary of the ruling Worker's Party in North Korea. It is 5pm local time, but no ceremony has been reported yet.
April 13 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first chairman of the national defense commission.
April 15 Kim Il-Sung's birthday.
We might see something soon.
If the missiles are actually already fueled, they can't just keep them ready forever, if they wan't to achieve something. I wonder how this affects it though.
The actual rocket design is a liquid fuel rocket using a hypergolic combination of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as fuel, and inhibited red fuming nitric acid as oxidizer; this fuel/oxidizer combination does not vaporise like liquified hydrogen/oxygen gas at 35°C. As a result, once the fuel/oxidizer combination were fed into the missile, it could maintain a 'ready to launch' condition for several days, or even weeks, like the R-27 SLBM; however it could not be kept longer than this, because of tank corrosion caused by the red fuming nitric acid. A fueled Musudan would not have the structural strength to be land transported, so would have to be fueled at the launch site
While we are speculating, my bets are on April 15th of those dates.
Nothing against you, but it almost sounds like you wish something exciting would happen. 2012 was the 100th year since the birth of Kim Il Sung, and there were speculations of NK doing something big, but 2012 came and gone. It's better to just do nothing for NK than to embarass themselves on an eventful anniversary.
Heh well, truthfully i would like something to happen to North-Korean government especially, but then i think about all the (possible) casualties both sides and i quickly change my mind.
But you are right. Probably nothing will happen, but since the dates got brought up and how there has been news and talks about the readiness of the missiles, it's interesting to speculate.
Anyway, just watched a new documentary what was filmed fairly recently compared to the other documentary's out there.
Wow, excellent documentary! Well put together and really trying to get the images of those people into the world. I can only hope that the (grand)children of those indoctrinated 5 year olds performing for their 'great leader' will be able to look back at this documentary as a thing of the past.
Kim Jong Un - Do something man, you can change the lives of these people if you just slowly open up your country.
On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote: Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Uh, yeah, the US and USSR were both constantly coercing client states into capitalism/communism in a series of coups and proxy wars. That's kind of the whole "Cold War" thing, and yes, the US won. While it is true that Gorbachev just sort of destroyed the USSR without being forced to, it could just as easily have continued on had he not "surrendered", but in terms of the Third World, the US and France, despite a few notable failures such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the most part managed to destroy the ability of sovereign governments to become Communist or even socialist, especially in Africa and the Americas. Mossadegh, Allende, Sankara, Guzman, Arbenz, Goulart, etc. were all very much defeated rather than collapsing.
Gorbachev never wanted to USSR to end. He had to reform because of the situation they were in so no he couldn't have easily continued.
Cold war reality was a lot more complex then straight up ideology. In the 80s the Soviet Union was heavily relient on imports. Chiefly they were exporting oil and natural gas for imports like grain. And even then the oil revenue wasn't enough. I think the deficit was something like $20 billion. By 1989 their economy was pretty screwed.
The economy was down, but the collapse of the USSR was almost solely political. Economic problems didn't really get too bad until after 1991, after the Soviet Union collapsed.
I wouldn't say solely political. The Gorbachev reforms clearly played a role. But the economic stagnation of the 70s and 80s, war in Afghanistan, and drop in the global oil prices at the very least had some influence. That being said,the economy really went to hell after the Soviet Union broke up.
Local news affiliates here are claiming that North Korea has loaded up a nuke on a launcher near the eastern coast. Both CNN and FOX local channels are reporting it.
On April 12 2013 07:04 Serejai wrote: Local news affiliates here are claiming that North Korea has loaded up a nuke on a launcher near the eastern coast. Both CNN and FOX local channels are reporting it.
Source? All i'm seeing on CNN is that a report has come out saying N.Korea MAY be able to put a nuke on their missle.
On April 11 2013 14:03 white_horse wrote: What "mainly put north korea in its current position" is because of the embargos? As far as I know, international sanctions didn't start until late in the 20th century. North korea was already lagging behind its neighbors at that point. And I'd like to know some specifics. You keep talking about having to "take everything into account" and certain "reasons" that led to communism's downfall but avoid actually mentioning them. If you're trying to convince me that communism didn't work because of external factors (such as the US' interference or influence against communism) or give me some bullshit argument that communism failed because it wasn't "correctly implemented", you should take your argument elsewhere.
Why should he take such an argument elsewhere if it would completely invalidate what you have said? Either what you said should not have been said here or a counter-argument is also in place here. Why do you act like you know it all and your view is the only possible correct one?
Communism did not fail, it was beaten by capitalism, that doesn't make capitalism better. If I 6 pool while you fast-expand and I win, does that make 6 pool better? No! It just happened to counter you. Same for communism, it could work in a different setup. I'm not at all pro communism at a large scale (I think it could work on a small scale, < 100 people), but these arguments as to why it's not preferable are just not backed by reason. You make many assumptions without realizing or mentioning them and you go on an unreasonable bashing spree.
You want a reason? The reason is that communism is a failure. Because as far as I know, there isn't an argument that communism works. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and more importantly, we would be able to see many communist states around the world today living in comparable peace and wealth to the western powers. I don't see many communist countries today and the few ones that are left are the laughing stock of the entire world.
Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Just because it failed does not mean it can not succeed (in perhaps a different form or different climate).
And of course I did not mean communism "beat" capitalism in the way you wish to read it ... please don't go into semantics.
On April 12 2013 07:04 Serejai wrote: Local news affiliates here are claiming that North Korea has loaded up a nuke on a launcher near the eastern coast. Both CNN and FOX local channels are reporting it.
Source? All i'm seeing on CNN is that a report has come out saying N.Korea MAY be able to put a nuke on their missle.
Same and all those new articles from the past hour are based on a month old report. I imagine if NK was trying to setup a nuclear missile for launch it would have been bombed already and we would be going into attack mode.
On April 12 2013 07:04 Serejai wrote: Local news affiliates here are claiming that North Korea has loaded up a nuke on a launcher near the eastern coast. Both CNN and FOX local channels are reporting it.
Source? All i'm seeing on CNN is that a report has come out saying N.Korea MAY be able to put a nuke on their missle.
Can't source, it's local channels. They don't exactly have twitters or anything and their tabloid-style websites don't seem to have anything posted. If it's not on major networks then it's probably just our local anchormen being retarded and mixing something up.
Also it's FOX and ABC affiliates, not CNN. My bad.
On April 12 2013 04:23 white_horse wrote: Capitalism didn't "beat" communism. That's wrong. I hate it when people say that. "Beat" implies that during the cold war the US and its western friends somehow successfully defeated the communists in a war and then forced them to switch to capitalism or that the US somehow coerced communist countries into switching to capitalism. None of these ever happened. Communism failed under its own weight because it's a bullshit system and the ex-USSR states ultimately accepted capitalism as a more successful system for its peoples.
Uh, yeah, the US and USSR were both constantly coercing client states into capitalism/communism in a series of coups and proxy wars. That's kind of the whole "Cold War" thing, and yes, the US won. While it is true that Gorbachev just sort of destroyed the USSR without being forced to, it could just as easily have continued on had he not "surrendered", but in terms of the Third World, the US and France, despite a few notable failures such as Vietnam and Cuba, for the most part managed to destroy the ability of sovereign governments to become Communist or even socialist, especially in Africa and the Americas. Mossadegh, Allende, Sankara, Guzman, Arbenz, Goulart, etc. were all very much defeated rather than collapsing.
Gorbachev never wanted to USSR to end. He had to reform because of the situation they were in so no he couldn't have easily continued.
What I meant is that with more moderate reforms the USSR certainly would've have collapsed as early as it did if at all by now. I mean, there were pretty huge reforms under Nixon, Carter, and Reagan, but it's not like the U.S. barely avoided collapse--the main difference is that the U.S. was already relatively politically "open" so that our equivalent of glasnost was not nearly as much of a shock.
On April 12 2013 03:52 fellcrow wrote: What gives the US the right to govern the entire world? South Korea shouldn't even exist, most Koreans, including those in the south, hate their governments. The north is a dictatorship, but it's advancing and as a country doing a lot for themselves. Good for them. south Korea is run by a select few people, same people who took power when they split from the north and now they control everything in south Korea. But, because they are buddy buddy with us, we ignore anything bad the south Korean government does. Tldr, one Korea, Fuck the south just as much as the north, starcraft is ok
User was warned for this post
Tyranny is freedom and freedom is tyranny.
Welp, I know which presidential candidate YOU voted for. (Hint: He's in office slowly sinking us into dictatorship right now.)
Related and hilarious: THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA
On April 11 2013 17:18 Orek wrote: April 11 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first secretary of the ruling Worker's Party in North Korea. It is 5pm local time, but no ceremony has been reported yet.
April 13 1st anniversary of Kim Jong-Un's election as first chairman of the national defense commission.
April 15 Kim Il-Sung's birthday.
We might see something soon.
If the missiles are actually already fueled, they can't just keep them ready forever, if they wan't to achieve something. I wonder how this affects it though.
The actual rocket design is a liquid fuel rocket using a hypergolic combination of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine as fuel, and inhibited red fuming nitric acid as oxidizer; this fuel/oxidizer combination does not vaporise like liquified hydrogen/oxygen gas at 35°C. As a result, once the fuel/oxidizer combination were fed into the missile, it could maintain a 'ready to launch' condition for several days, or even weeks, like the R-27 SLBM; however it could not be kept longer than this, because of tank corrosion caused by the red fuming nitric acid. A fueled Musudan would not have the structural strength to be land transported, so would have to be fueled at the launch site
While we are speculating, my bets are on April 15th of those dates.
Nothing against you, but it almost sounds like you wish something exciting would happen. 2012 was the 100th year since the birth of Kim Il Sung, and there were speculations of NK doing something big, but 2012 came and gone. It's better to just do nothing for NK than to embarass themselves on an eventful anniversary.
Heh well, truthfully i would like something to happen to North-Korean government especially, but then i think about all the (possible) casualties both sides and i quickly change my mind.
But you are right. Probably nothing will happen, but since the dates got brought up and how there has been news and talks about the readiness of the missiles, it's interesting to speculate.
Anyway, just watched a new documentary what was filmed fairly recently compared to the other documentary's out there.
A new assessment of North Korea’s nuclear capability conducted by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that the country has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile.
Keep in mind its from the same people that brought us 'nukes in iraq'.
the scud missiles are loaded and they estimate it'll be launched in the next 2 days, if they do launch it because the fuel is already loaded. supposedly confirmed with thermo imaging.
On April 12 2013 07:49 jinorazi wrote: the scud missiles are loaded and they estimate it'll be launched in the next 2 days, if they do launch it because the fuel is already loaded. supposedly confirmed with thermo imaging.
then they just need to roll a d20 to work out which direction it will go.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/north_south_korea/north_korea.png)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/north_south_korea/south_korea.png)
