North Korea conducts nuclear test

On May 25 2009 13:20 Clasic wrote:
Rofl. Does this happen every month or what?

On May 25 2009 13:23 koreasilver wrote:
Anyone that thinks North Korea is an actual threat at all are just misinformed. I mean, North Korea of today is the equivalent of a diabetic, epileptic dog that has lost all his teeth.

On May 25 2009 13:23 koreasilver wrote:
Anyone that thinks North Korea is an actual threat at all are just misinformed. I mean, North Korea of today is the equivalent of a diabetic, epileptic dog that has lost all his teeth.

On May 25 2009 13:33 HeadBangaa wrote:
China could end this bullshit with a snap of the fingers, but they won't because they are retarded, or are basking in this east vs west bullshit.

On May 25 2009 13:33 HeadBangaa wrote:
China could end this bullshit with a snap of the fingers, but they won't because they are retarded, or are basking in this east vs west bullshit.

On May 25 2009 13:13 hahaimhenry wrote:
I hope they realize America can turn them into a gigantic parking lot in seconds.

Thoughts?

On May 25 2009 13:39 Hippopotamus wrote:
If China does anything then China is an evil totalitarian state trying to extend its influence in the far east to ultimately take over the world and attack America.

If China does nothing then:



So China's pretty fucked and should just stick to making cheapass goods for the rest of the world.

On May 25 2009 13:40 HnR)hT wrote:
Incidentally, does anybody know why there are American troops in Korea still?

On May 25 2009 13:45 koreasilver wrote:

Political and symbolic reasons, probably.

On May 25 2009 13:49 psion0011 wrote:
Why would anyone want to take over NK? Nobody wants their shit because they'll be inheriting 25 million starving peasants with absolutely zero skills.

It would literally ruin south korea's economy if they suddenly reunified.

On May 25 2009 13:18 koreasilver wrote:
They just want attention and help. Obviously they themselves know that they aren't in the position to get into an actual war with anyone.

On May 25 2009 13:40 HnR)hT wrote:
Incidentally, does anybody know why there are American troops in Korea still?

On May 25 2009 13:22 hahaimhenry wrote:
Well if they want attention, they're doing a pretty good job. The fact that nuclear weapons are in play gets anybody interested/frightened. But seriously they have nothing to face up against.. I dont't know.. the world?

On May 25 2009 14:38 Zato-1 wrote:

The world? You wish. Half of South American countries are too busy staring at their belly buttons and promoting populist agendas. Africa is a joke as far as influence on asia is concerned. China and Russia like having a more extreme communist nation playing the part of the irrational, unreasonable, unstable threat because it makes them look reasonable by comparison, and their influence over NK and their vetoes in the UN security council give them leverage with the US. Half of Europe is too scared that Russia will cut off their gas supply to lift a finger, and the UN is a toothless dog.

As long as China and Russia support NK, the US will have precious few allies- South Korea certainly, Georgia probably (not that it matters), Colombia in South America, maybe Canada or some european countries.

On May 25 2009 13:40 HnR)hT wrote:
Incidentally, does anybody know why there are American troops in Korea still?

On May 25 2009 14:38 Zato-1 wrote:


As long as China and Russia support NK, the US will have precious few allies- South Korea certainly, Georgia probably (not that it matters), Colombia in South America, maybe Canada or some european countries.

On May 25 2009 15:52 Jayme wrote:Russia.. well Russia is slowly but surely trudging back to its soviet union type government.

On May 25 2009 16:17 hymn wrote:
They've got freedom of speech and etc. It's not like a man's going to say "Putin sux ass!" and he's going to jail...

On May 25 2009 15:00 QuoC wrote:


wow, i mean, i don't know much about the world politics and whatnot..
but you SURE know what everyone's thinking, huh?
maybe you should run for president. of the world.

anyways, i always wondered.. i know we obviously (US) have technologies to detect & stop a nuclear missile (if we don't, i don't know if we can even be considered a powerful country) but as everyone agrees with how we can turn them into a desert within seconds, can't they do the same IF the missile does hit our country and take out half of the states? I mean.. I don't know where all our technologies and whatnot are (I'm sure we hide them pretty well, probably underground somewhere) but once a nuke -no pun intended >_>- hits us and wipes out half of our states (let alone any weapons that gets demolished at that point), won't we basically go from the top of the most powerful countries to the bottom? just wondering.

On May 25 2009 13:17 AltaiR_ wrote:
kim jong il is trying to be the threat he was 5 years ago. as soon as things get out of hand us will intervene and people will hate america more. the end.

On May 25 2009 16:48 ondik wrote:
You say that NK is just trying to scare world to get more economical help and that fall of NK would economically destroy SK. But tell me one thing - when crazy Kim Jong Il is on his deathbed, what keeps him from one simple order "nuke them with all we got"? Don't you think his mind is sick enough and full of hate to do it?

On May 25 2009 16:36 HeadBangaa wrote:
Are you so sure about that last statement, hymn? I thought public demonstrations against government figures caused people to disappear, even in modern Russia?

I may be wrong, but that's what other slavs have even told me.

On May 25 2009 16:48 ondik wrote:


lol.. um.. NO

On May 25 2009 16:17 hymn wrote:

Now, how did YOU reach that conclusion?

It looks to me that Russia is going to stay in this state of a democracy where there is the party of Vladimir Putin unopposed. But the Russians are definitely NOT oppressed like in the 1950's. From what I've seen they look proud and happy to be a strong nation again. They've got freedom of speech and etc. It's not like a man's going to say "Putin sux ass!" and he's going to jail...

On May 25 2009 13:23 koreasilver wrote:
Anyone that thinks North Korea is an actual threat at all are just misinformed. I mean, North Korea of today is the equivalent of a diabetic, epileptic dog that has lost all his teeth.

You say that NK is just trying to scare world to get more economical help and that fall of NK would economically destroy SK. But tell me one thing - when crazy Kim Jong Il is on his deathbed, what keeps him from one simple order "nuke them with all we got"? Don't you think his mind is sick enough and full of hate to do it?

On May 25 2009 14:25 HunterX11 wrote:


It will certainly make German reunification look like a picnic, but also remember that the North is resource-rich and the South is the "poor" part of the peninsula.

On May 25 2009 14:26 Zato-1 wrote:

Do not speak of 'them'. It's 'him', and that is Kim Jong Il. Attention he wants. Help? Not so much. He'd rather be respected and feared than be offered a helping hand and take it. Don't assume he has his nation's best interests in mind just because he's their ruler.

On May 25 2009 14:32 jjun212 wrote:


i just thought it was because korea sent troops to the middle east to maintain good relations

and the US is just honouring that. (even though they had troops there anyway)
it'd be rude to take them out?

On May 25 2009 22:52 Diomedes wrote:


No, that was Iraq where Iraq once had the 8th military in the world but then years later couldn't even control it's own territory anymore. Where not even Kuwait was afraid but the US was trembling in fear.


NK can devastate Seoul withh artillery and then sent their 1 million brainwashed soldiers across the DMZ. Won't happen. But if they do it's not going to be pretty. That's why SKorea is always pissed off at the aggressiveness of the US and Japan towards NKorea.



I would be more worried about Kim Jong Il being the only sane person in NK.

On May 25 2009 16:17 hymn wrote:

Now, how did YOU reach that conclusion?

It looks to me that Russia is going to stay in this state of a democracy where there is the party of Vladimir Putin unopposed. But the Russians are definitely NOT oppressed like in the 1950's. From what I've seen they look proud and happy to be a strong nation again. They've got freedom of speech and etc. It's not like a man's going to say "Putin sux ass!" and he's going to jail...

On May 25 2009 22:10 hymn wrote:
Would you please care to elaborate a bit cause this looks childish to me. Do you have proof about someone actually saying that he hates the Russian government and then the whole system starts to make his life as miserable as possible? I've read articles in some Russian newspapers that don't approve of some moves of Putin and so on. The papers are still alive.

I agree, it's not the same level of freedom like in the Western democracies but they do have the right of free speech.

On May 25 2009 22:24 HnR)hT wrote:

Russia is ruled by a KGB thugocracy. Russians have not come to terms with their historical crimes, and the Russian state promotes official patriotism that deliberately whitewashes Stalin and inculcates nostalgia for the USSR. Russian historiography, at least since the days of Nikolay Karamzin, has encouraged the mentality that the people exist to serve the state and not the other way around.

....

All this implies, by the way, that in a matter of decades Russia will no longer be capable of playing its historical role as an ally and protector of Orthodox Christendom, and of Slavic peoples, in the Balkans and elsewhere. It is the conventional wisdom (among those who think about such things for a living) that, if the present trends continue, the 21st century will see Russia in its final death throes.

On May 25 2009 23:35 Random() wrote:


Bah,

You will not grasp her with your mind
Or cover with a common label,
For Russia is one of a kind –
Believe in her, if you are able.

Russia lived through world's most horrible war, Russia lived through Stalin's shit, Russia lived through communism/socialism bullshit, and you say some puny KGB remnants are now going to kill her?

On a serious note, what you say has some merit, but "Russia is going to die" is just emotional/ sensationalist crap by people who, ironically, do that for a living. Russia in a much better state now than it was under Yeltsin, or as the Soviet Union under Khruschev, Brejnev and the like.

On May 25 2009 23:47 HnR)hT wrote:

Fedor Tiutchev, my 3rd favorite Russian poet (after Pushkin and Merezhkovsky). Good job.

It's not sensationalist crap, it's the iron law of demographics. Russians are quite literally dying out faster than any other people. It's a horrible historic injustice, because of the things you mention, but it is true.

On May 25 2009 22:24 HnR)hT wrote:

Russia is ruled by a KGB thugocracy.

On May 25 2009 22:24 HnR)hT wrote:
Russians have not come to terms with their historical crimes, and the Russian state promotes official patriotism that deliberately whitewashes Stalin and inculcates nostalgia for the USSR. Russian historiography, at least since the days of Nikolay Karamzin, has encouraged the mentality that the people exist to serve the state and not the other way around.

On May 25 2009 22:24 HnR)hT wrote:
More to the point, the entire immense organism known as "the Russian people," is sick and dying. Russia has even lower fertility rates than the white Europe, coupled with through-the-roof mortality rates due to primitive, underdevoloped health infrastructure and a culture of alcoholism and violence.

On May 25 2009 22:24 HnR)hT wrote:
The Putin government, despite superficial and largely symbolic measures, has utterly failed to combat such trends, being instead too busy enriching its individual members (by some estimates, Putin is now by far the wealthiest man in the world) and seeking, desperately and foolishly, to "matter" on the world stage "like in the good old days."

On May 25 2009 22:24 HnR)hT wrote:
All this implies, by the way, that in a matter of decades Russia will no longer be capable of playing its historical role as an ally and protector of Orthodox Christendom, and of Slavic peoples, in the Balkans and elsewhere. It is the conventional wisdom (among those who think about such things for a living) that, if the present trends continue, the 21st century will see Russia in its final death throes.

On May 25 2009 23:47 HnR)hT wrote:
It's not sensationalist crap, it's the iron law of demographics. Russians are quite literally dying out faster than any other people. It's a horrible historic injustice, because of the things you mention, but it is true.

On May 26 2009 07:55 eMbrace wrote:
Really North Korea, launch your nuke. It will probably be a failure, and either way -- North Korea will no longer exist the moment your press the button.

On May 26 2009 08:25 ViruX wrote:


Don't worry about the nuke it probably would be a failure?

On May 26 2009 08:32 Zozma wrote:
In the event of a nuclear war, I only pray that I can make one "Nuclear launch detected" joke on TL before dying horribly.

On May 26 2009 10:13 cUrsOr wrote:
maybe the nations without nuclear arsenals should tell them to disarm.
the largest military in the world, with hundreds of warheads, and the ONLY history of actually using nuclear weapons on civilians- is now telling them they cant have them. that- is bullshit.

also- how many countries had north korea invaded in the last 40 years? how many countries has the US invaded? imo we should stfu.

On May 25 2009 15:00 QuoC wrote:


wow, i mean, i don't know much about the world politics and whatnot..
but you SURE know what everyone's thinking, huh?
maybe you should run for president. of the world.

anyways, i always wondered.. i know we obviously (US) have technologies to detect & stop a nuclear missile (if we don't, i don't know if we can even be considered a powerful country) but as everyone agrees with how we can turn them into a desert within seconds, can't they do the same IF the missile does hit our country and take out half of the states? I mean.. I don't know where all our technologies and whatnot are (I'm sure we hide them pretty well, probably underground somewhere) but once a nuke -no pun intended >_>- hits us and wipes out half of our states (let alone any weapons that gets demolished at that point), won't we basically go from the top of the most powerful countries to the bottom? just wondering.

On May 26 2009 10:13 cUrsOr wrote:
maybe the nations without nuclear arsenals should tell them to disarm.
the largest military in the world, with hundreds of warheads, and the ONLY history of actually using nuclear weapons on civilians- is now telling them they cant have them. that- is bullshit.

also- how many countries had north korea invaded in the last 40 years? how many countries has the US invaded? imo we should stfu.

On May 26 2009 11:05 Probe. wrote:
There's no device that can stop a nuclear missle after it has been launched. But basically it takes time for a missle to hit and when we see one or if any country with nuclear missles sees one heading towards them, you better believe they're taking the rest of the world with them when they die.

On May 26 2009 11:05 Probe. wrote:
There's no device that can stop a nuclear missle after it has been launched. But basically it takes time for a missle to hit and when we see one or if any country with nuclear missles sees one heading towards them, you better believe they're taking the rest of the world with them when they die.

On May 26 2009 11:25 Random() wrote:

Of course there is such a device, it's just another missile to intercept the larger ICBM. Or a huge laser on a Boeing-747 o_O. These systems aren't perfect, but they exist for quite some time.

On May 26 2009 10:13 cUrsOr wrote:
maybe the nations without nuclear arsenals should tell them to disarm.
the largest military in the world, with hundreds of warheads, and the ONLY history of actually using nuclear weapons on civilians- is now telling them they cant have them. that- is bullshit.

also- how many countries had north korea invaded in the last 40 years? how many countries has the US invaded? imo we should stfu.

On May 26 2009 19:17 zatic wrote:
Haha do you actually believe this stuff works? It's like deflecting a bullet with another bullet. Even in controlled tests where they KNEW the trajectory of the incoming missile beforehand they missed like what 4 out of 5 times?
There are a total of 9 10* anti ballistic missiles installed to protect the US. Go figure how well protected they are from ballistic missile attack. NK launches 2-3 and they are almost guaranteed a hit.

It is still a fact: There is no defense against a ballistic missile attack, yet.

Doesn't really matter though, as as I have mentioned elsewhere it's completely stupid to deliver a nuke by ICBM for a state like NK. Just ship it in a container and detonate once it's arrived in Oakland. Way easier than building a huge ass ballistic missile and actually launching it without breaking the warhead. If you don't trust UPS with your nukes put it on a fishing trailer and sail down to LA. Plenty of time to press the button should the coast guard board you while you try to enter port.

*) EDIT: lol just read up on this, the 10 missiles were installed before there was even one single successful test under somewhat close to realistic conditions. US Navy - your tax billions at work!

I'm wondering what N. Korea hopes to gain by testing a nuke.

On May 26 2009 19:28 The Storyteller wrote:


If the US stopped being "hypocritical" I would be shitting myself. It may be easy for Americans to say that the US should be less hypocritical, but as someone in Asia who is uncomfortably close to North Korea, I would much rather the US continue being Asia's policeman.

No country without nuclear weapons wields enough power to get North Korea to listen. And of the countries that do have nukes but haven't used them before, Britain, France and India are not exactly in a position to dictate terms to North Korea.

That leaves China and Russia... China and Russia handling North Korea and its nukes?! I'll take the US any day!

On May 27 2009 03:47 baal wrote:
dont be retarded, as soon as a country has a nuclear weapon it becomes untouchable, you want US to handle it? they wont handle it, as they havent handled Kim for decades now, if somebody invades North Korea they will make a crater out of Seoul.

Thats the whole point of the nuke, Kim says fuck you "cant touch me" MC Hammer style.

On May 27 2009 03:47 baal wrote:


dont be retarded, as soon as a country has a nuclear weapon it becomes untouchable, you want US to handle it? they wont handle it, as they havent handled Kim for decades now, if somebody invades North Korea they will make a crater out of Seoul.

Thats the whole point of the nuke, Kim says fuck you "cant touch me" MC Hammer style.

On May 27 2009 15:47 DarkYoDA wrote:


You're over-reading into it... What do you mean by handle? Watch how they handle them IF N.Korea really do nuke someone. But for now, handling them isn't a one step procedure. Handling them before and after they nuke a country are different issues altogether.

On May 27 2009 16:46 baal wrote:


They are not going to nuke are you serious? wtf.

On May 27 2009 17:23 Passion wrote:
Darkyoda, I don't think the plan ever was for North Korea to take over Asia as soon as they had a nuclear bomb. They have been under constant threat of attack (rightfully so or not) for a long time. I guess hopes are this will give them a break, or at least a lot more leverage.

As long as NK is not under attack, they won't use their bombs. So until that happens, the biggest threat would be trade/the selling of their nuclear technology to people who have nothing to lose and are crazy enough to maybe actually use it. It seems unlikely, however, that any terrorist group would be capable of hosting and using it.

On May 27 2009 17:41 DarkYoDA wrote:
Who do you think will buy from them? I don't see how the costs of development can ever be offset by realistic or substantial proceeds from sale of nuclear arms to anyone. There's only one country I can think of that may buy from N.Korea but to avoid an uproar, I'll keep that point to myself. Even then I don't think that country will buy from them but develop it on their own.

On May 27 2009 18:29 zatic wrote:

I don't think once you are ready to sell nuclear weaponry you will have any problem to find buyers. In fact you can probably start a nice bidding war.

On May 27 2009 19:48 eStoniaNBoY wrote:
M/S Estonia was taken down because it was smuggling Soviet technology to NATO and Isreal.
852 people died because of that. It is speculated that the techonology was VERY high tech communication/radar and missile system.

On May 27 2009 19:48 eStoniaNBoY wrote:
M/S Estonia was taken down because it was smuggling Soviet technology to NATO and Isreal.
852 people died because of that. It is speculated that the techonology was VERY high tech communication/radar and missile system.

On May 26 2009 08:32 Zozma wrote:
In the event of a nuclear war, I only pray that I can make one "Nuclear launch detected" joke on TL before dying horribly.

On May 27 2009 20:18 zatic wrote:

Yeah, please give sources for this. Also, so what Soviets sold conventional weapons in the 90's like crazy, everybody knows this. Give me one example where nuclear weapons were being sold. Again, there is certainly not a lack of potential buyers.

Maybe you should watch more movies.

On May 29 2009 02:08 konadora wrote:
North Korea threatens and demands aid.

South Korea, US and other countries give in because they can't be bothered.

Both sides become happy.

Few months later, North Korea bitches again.

/repeat process

On May 29 2009 02:13 Railz wrote:



You're an ego-manic, power hungry dictator whose had power clamps on your society for years. You're now on your deathbed, you call your eldest son "girly" (which I assume is a bad name to call someone who might proceed you). What do you do. The process can't last forever, especially with a sickening KJI.

On May 29 2009 01:42 Ancestral wrote:

I was reading in a pro DPRK forum someone saying that North Korea would "sink the entire island of Japan" if it continued it's hostile imperialist stance towards the U.S. I think the entire forum was nothing but trolls, but it was on an official DPRK site.

On May 29 2009 02:30 Aurra wrote:
I was just thinking (which is rare for me).

I hope my cause of death is a nuke, how awesome would that look on an obituary.

"Cause of death: He got nuked."

On May 27 2009 19:48 eStoniaNBoY wrote:M/S Estonia was taken down because it was smuggling Soviet technology to NATO and Isreal.
852 people died because of that. It is speculated that the techonology was VERY high tech communication/radar and missile system.

There are far more superior systems than a weak nuclear bomb that North Korea is building.

So the question you all should ask is why they are doing so? Is Taiwan next to be threatened? What about Iran?

On May 29 2009 02:38 Aurra wrote:

I don't want to die in some pussy way like having a heart attack. Who even does that?

On May 29 2009 02:51 Shikyo wrote:


Hey, I read something like this in a thriller by a Finnish author called Ilkka Remes. Interesting ^_^