New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack | Hacker News Reader

New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

nytimes.com

70 pointscpeterso114 comments

Wow. More juvenile posturing, or the beginning of the end for North Korea? Depends on whether anyone takes them seriously. And with a growing nuclear capability, they can't be taken not-seriously. This is suicide for them.

The unfortunate reality is that a "threat" of war, or even a war itself, is what it might take for real changes to take place in the country.

That sucks for the people in the short run, but might change the game for their future.

Threatening a nuclear strike is pretty serious stuff - I hope the North Koreans are sensible enough not to fuel up any rockets in the near future...

I also wonder if there is a back channel somewhere where they tell the Chinese, who would then presumably tell the US, that they really are just posturing and there is no real threat.

That makes more sense. The game of politics is many-layered, and we're just seeing the top layer.

The nuclear strike isn't an immediate threat. They don't have the means to put the weapon where it actually hurts.

The more serious threat is the artillery pointed at Soeul...

Couldn't Seoul protect itself like Isreal did with the Iron Dome?

Seoul is close enough to the DMZ to be within range of more or less standard artillery pieces. These things either shoot shells (giant bullets), or wickedly hilarious amounts of rockets. Even if they were interceptable (I doubt it), the sheer volume of fire would overwhelm pretty much anything.

The "Iron Dome" is an anti-missile system. Artillery shells are a lot harder to shoot down. Last I heard, the US military was working on a laser-based system to heat the shells mid-flight and cause them to detonate prematurely. I don't know if this technology is mature enough for actual use, or if it's likely to be deployed to SK.

How would non-explosive artillery shells detonate prematurely?

> non-explosive artillery shells

Artillery shells contain explosives in the nose.

And in the rest of the shell.

Iron dome shoots down rockets with other rockets. The US has some tech in forward operating bases in Afghanistan to shoot down rockets and mortars with 300 round/minute 50 caliber Gatling guns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM). Both of these technologies only work against explosive/fueled rounds because you can blow them up.

The artilery that North Korea has pointed at the south could be just slug launchers i.e. imagine a giant sized bullet. Because a slug has not fuel or explosives to detonate you can't really stop it by hitting the round with something else.

Artillery doesn't fire slugs unless you count tank rounds that are designed to kill other tanks (e.g. discarding sabot depleted uranium rounds). Most artillery rounds are fused for air burst to spread shrapnel around efficiently.

Artillery fires projectiles, which are hard, if not impossible to stop mid flight. They are actually consideres so stable that many shooting ranges cross over towns.

This is one of the reasons why South Korea created a special administrative region to house a sister-capital city and relocate several ministries and agencies[1] in the next couple of years.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_City

I believe Iron Dome is designed to deal with what would be traditionally termed short range weapons like mortars and light-rockets. These weapons are light weight, can be fabricated in comparatively primitive conditions and can be deployed by irregular forces.

The conventional weapons that North Korea could use against Seoul are from the other end of the spectrum. Nearly all of them are patterned after Soviet versions which were designed to fit in a doctrine that favored the deployment and use of large numbers of heavy tube and rocket artillery. North Korea possesses large numbers of 153mm and 170mm guns and 240mm multiple unguided rocket launchers. Many of these are in fortified positions that are within range of Seoul.

Source: http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-ko...

Israel is protecting against at most a few rockets at a time. Shoot the rocket, and it disintegrates into relatively harmless pieces.

Seoul is under continuous threat of thousands of artillery guns, basically lobbing enough boulders to level the city (which contains 1/4 the population of South Korea) in about a half-hour. No modern technology is capable of stopping that kind of low-tech assault on that scale.

North Korea is akin to a drunk with a double-barreled shotgun and Tourette Syndrome: acts irrational, says disturbing things, can cause a lot of harm to one person, and will be put down fast once he does - but can't be stopped prior because attempting to will cause him to harm someone. The hope is to keep him just content enough, as long as it takes, that he'll give up or self-destruct on his own.

A volkswagen beetle and about 5 gallons of gas would do the trick, no?

If there is one thing that marathoning Mythbusters on Netflix has taught me its that gasoline is a poor explosive for everything except looking pretty.

I think the 5 gallons of gas is the amount it would require to drive from NK to Seoul.

Closer to $5 worth of gas than 5 gallons of gas. Seoul is about as close to NK as San Francisco is to PA.

I agree. What I don't understand is why they are doing this. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

If North Korea ever decides to uses their nuclear weapons, South Korea will be just as badly off. Actual use of nuclear weapons is a lose-lose scenario for all parties involved (and, indeed, all parties not involved). Threatening use of nuclear weapons is another matter altogether.

It is probably also worth noting that every single western nuclear power reserves the right to first use of nuclear weapons. In fact, the only countries who have ever adopted a no first use policy are the USSR/Russia (for 2 decades, but not any more), India (this is apparently more ambiguous now) and China (who continue to hold to it).

Wikipedia briefly mentions a North Korean pledge to the same effect, but I think this latest news shows that we should probably not take that too seriously.

The Soviets actually considered a first strike in November 1983 during the epic mix up that was the NATO Able Archer 83 exercise.

The Soviets had always believed that the Americans wanted to attack them, perhaps understandably given that in the 1950s and early 1960s there were senior US military leaders who actually wanted to initiate a full nuclear war with the Soviets while the latter were still strategically weak.

The Soviets thought that the Americans were preparing a first strike during Able Archer and were preparing to preempt it - thankfully the exercise ended and everyone on the Soviet side calmed down and took their fingers off the button.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

Not quite. Due to the tensions and an error in a Soviet early-warning system, it looked like the US had indeed launched a couple of rockets in a first strike. If not for Petrov's level-headed reaction, nuclear war might have started by error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm...

That was a separate incident - just happened to be right before Able Archer.

I see, my bad.

Nice to know that we came that close to annihilation twice in 1983.

I can recommend watching Threads to get some idea of just how grim things would probably have been in the UK had there been a war at that time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/

NB Threads, although it depicts an absolutely devastating attack on the UK (~90% dead within a few years), actually uses a rather optimistic attack plan - a real attack would actually have been far worse.

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

A rational North Korean state would not engage in nuclear war in just about any scenario as it would mean almost certain destruction for itself in response. To help persuade their enemies not to invade they try to appear as irrational as possible.

There's an interesting segment in this psychology lecture about irrationality that seems related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5IrSEIPdwk#t=44m36s

    There is some advantage to being irrational, to having a temper.
    Because if you have a temper and you're known to be irrational, people
    are forced, by dint of your irrationality, to treat you better. Who am
    I going to take from? The person who's extremely reasonable or the
    person who has a hair-trigger temper? Well, I'm going to pick on a
    reasonable person because the unreasonable person might do unreasonable
    things. And this is faintly paradoxical, but often to be irrational, or
    at least to have a reputation for mild irrationality, gives you an
    edge.

Much like Nixon's Madman theory when it came to US foreign policy in the early 70's.

"His administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable American response, leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations would avoid provoking the United States."

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

I like better sources that poorly sourced Wikipedia articles for controversial statements like this. I'm not sure I have enough evidence to believe the statement in your kind comment. (I'm a Wikipedian, which is why I'm deeply dubious about politically tendentious statements cited to Wikipedia.)

I have read other accounts of that "strategy" being used by Nixon - would take me a while to find the exact references so I used that Wikipedia article.

I don't believe there's any advantage to being irrational or having a temper. Sooner or later someone is going to call your bluff. If you initiate violence, you might get your ass kicked by someone stronger. If you flip out irrationally, they can simply laugh at you as you flail about, or begin ignoring you / avoiding you.

When someone calls your bluff, it's game over. Everything changes from that point forward. Either you can never act that way again, because people will know it's a bluff, or you freak out and do something terrible and then one way or another will be dealt with (police called, go to jail, get put on ignore, get an ass kicking, get nuked to complete annihilation, whatever).

The tragedy here is that America has subsidized North Korea's behavior and ability to exist. We're partially responsible for their regime thinking it can keep doing this, and naturally their threats have to escalate. Their bluff should have been called a very long time ago. It's like taking in someone bullying you, clothing him, feeding him, etc.

Do you or any of your family members live in Seoul?

I'm not connecting the point between that question and my position on whether being irrational or having a temper is advantageous.

If you were just asking to be nice, I have a few old friends in South Korea (in the military, teaching, and local) but no family.

How do you figure that America is subsidizing them? We've tried invading them, ignoring them, and buying them off, and none of them worked very well.

The key point is that this is really a proxy war between China and the US. North Korea exists only as a proxy of China - they cannot be defeated in war until China allows it, they will continue to exist as they do as long as China allows it, and the regime will collapse about 10 minutes after China stops supporting them. The current state of affairs exists because China likes having a thorn in our side and very much does not like having a close US ally on their border.

The only plausible end that I can see is them doing something so provocative that China gets fed up with them and afraid that they'll be drawn into a shooting war, and forces the Kim dynasty out and somebody who is reasonable and favors Chinese-style reforms in.

Nothing to gain? For North Korea threatening with war is a time-proven way to get aid, both economic and food.

To be honest, dismantling their military regime, opening their borders and requesting help would be more effective.

For everyone except the people in power.

Not if the aim is retaining permanent power for Kim Jong-un and the military junta that actually runs North Korea.

There is probably a Pareto improvement that could be made by agreeing to hand Kim and the other leaders almost any amount of material wealth in exchange for them stepping down and allowing South Korea to govern North Korea. It would have to be better to live in a first world nation with hundreds of millions / billions of dollars than to be the Great Leader of North Korea. I guess the fact that this doesn't happen just goes to show how much better sovereign power is than money.

Absolutely, if you could figure out a way to make that deal without Kim executing the 'traitors' first. Those plots, like valkyrie, are always exceptionally risky. There's no doubt plenty of the Hitler style demigod fear is present (not necessarily with the top of the junta, they know Kim is just a puppet, but everybody else).

Would South Korea want to govern North Korea?

Yet this threat is unprecedented. Ending a 70-year-old truce, promising(!) a preemptive nuclear strike! These threats cannot be ignored or pacified in the same way as a gunboat firing at a fishing boat.

Might have as much to do with internal politics. Keeping the populace on edge, loyalty tests to the new regime: no one would dare oppose the Leader when we are on the brink of war.

Dictator theatre is as much for the population being dominated as it is for the outside world.

The more horrifying idea is that some higher ups in NK actually believe in the standard propaganda.

Unfortunately I think the opposite is true and history is on their side. When haven't we or the rest of the world not caved? I remember back when Clinton was in office and Jimmy Carter did an end run on him and gave the North Koreans what they wanted.

Their economy is in the dumps, their people are starving, and they have gulags or worse throughout their country, so its not like the value other human life. Then back this attitude up with a large military which has access to conventional and other weapons, being next door to a rich and vibrant nation. Its not a good situation.

Until China decides North Korea is a danger to China and makes North Korea very aware they will take action to neutralize them North Korea will act with impunity.

The real threat to the US is that we cannot be one hundred percent sure what China will do if North Korea acts and we rush in to help South Korea.

One theory is that KJU is proving his mettle to honor his grandfather and father, and to build support against and avoid a coup or assassination by a family member or military.

Joel Skousen has an interesting analysis. North Korea attacks South Korea, the US defends South with tactical nukes. Then there is a nuclear strike on the US from Russia and China in retaliation, which might explain why the US gov is building super bunkers in the Ozarks .

I find it shocking to think that China and Russia will begin WWIII over North Korea (or will move their military in unison. You don't exactly see Chinese/Russian war games going on. They're both positioning for regional control against one another, not as best friends).

If China and Russia launch against the US, we know it in seconds and launch against both them. Which means that within an hour, China Russia and the US are basically no longer major international players.

They know it's suicide. They know we can respond and do as much or more damage. They won't do it, neither will we.

That's about the most silly analysis I've ever seen.

There isn't a chance in hell Russia and China end their entire existence just to defend a war against North Korea that the North also happened to start.

How do I know that? Tons of historical evidence says it would never happen. Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the original Korean War. There have been countless proxy skirmishes over the decades. None of the majors are even remotely interested in committing suicide for a proxy.

We invaded Korea with hundreds of thousands of troops, and fought a real war with massive casualties. We even fought a war with China at that time. Nobody launched any nukes at the US. Nobody is going to launch nukes at the US in the parent scenario either.

This isn't a video game. You launch nukes, everyone dies, and your civilization and culture is erased for all time. Russia would see a thousand nukes rain down on it, obliterating every relevant city. Ditto China. North Korea is not even remotely worth it, and they know it.

> Nobody launched any nukes at the US.

You're right about Korea being a limited war. Both sides had protected rear areas that were vital to the war, and were careful not to step over the line.

However the USSR had only tested their first a-bomb in 1949, and their strategic delivery systems were .. minimal .. for years after that.

I was thinking more along the lines of Russia using short range nuclear weapons as a threat in Europe and Korea against both US forces and allies. Since Russia had the bomb in 1949, and was designing the R7 in 1953, I suspect they had the ability to put a nuke on top of a short or medium range missile before the end of the Korean war, and of course at the least deliver a nuke via bomber (not to the continental US necessarily, although there was the concept of using the pole as the route to do it via one way trip; I have no idea if the Soviet bombers had range for a one way trip in 1953).

> Joel Skousen has an interesting analysis.

A simple visit to his website, and wikipedia page, convinces me that Joel Skousen is about as non-authoritative a source as one can possibly get on this subject.

> Then there is a nuclear strike on the US from Russia and China in retaliation

This is a huge jump in logic without any explanation.

Perhaps if you spent more than four seconds on his website, you might the analysis interesting, http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/threats.html

> "More than ever, I still consider the nuclear attack on America as inevitable, both because the real axis of evil (Russia and China) are still building for that attack, and because our own government is controlled by those intent upon destroying US sovereignty and delivering our nation over to a socialist New World Order."

Classic Mormon survivalist subculture crazytalk.

Yep, as even if you assumed half of that were correct, it wouldn't change the fact that Russia and China have absolutely no desire to commit suicide by nuclear war, and particularly over North Korea.

If those countries wanted to commit nuclear suicide, they could have and would have done it a long time ago. The past had a lot more provocations that could have been used to justify it, than the recent times have.

He presents arguments why it is not nuclear suicide. If you weren't so smug you might learn something.

DRPK's military is still stuck in the 1950's.

Our military got caught with its pants down when going up against a military that was trained in the hills of Afghanistan in the 1980's...and responded by combining its perfected 1950's style warfare with a 2010's style drone warfare, and fairly quickly learned its lesson with the 1980's style warfare.

I can't imagine what it would be like to go up against a military that has skipped 2 generations ahead of yours. North Korea either truly has no clue what they are up against, or they are just trying to get more aid money again.

Isn't the case that the US obliterated the Taliban's military forces (not their ability to wage a guerrilla war) using a rather clever special forces + bombing + northern alliance approach?

I don't think we got caught with our pants down at all. Guerrilla war in Afghanistan always has to be assumed. I personally don't know anybody that thought a prolonged occupation of Afghanistan was going to go well, and I'm talking about laypersons. The powers that be might have thought they could handle it, but that's not the same as getting caught with your pants down.

I'd argue the US got caught with its pants down radically more so in Iraq than Afghanistan (specifically post the initial invasion).

It's funny how North Korea's open threats against South Korea and the US are met with basically rolling of eyes, while veiled threats from Iran against Israel and the US are met with massive fear and warmongering.

Iran doesn't have China on its side.

Neither does North Korea, when it comes to this. Also, Iran could be said to have Russia on its side. I think the difference comes down to it being more politically expedient to Israel's and the US's interests for Iranian regime change.

Also, Iran is more 'hegemonic' than Nk. NK has no chance of social, political nor economic influence in the Far East. Iran can exert social, economic and political influence on the ME.

It's a concern about Iran's (their leadership's) willingness to commit suicide to destroy Israel. And particularly about the belief in self-fulfilling prophecies in religious doctrine (whether Christianity, Islam, or Judaism). Communists don't generally believe in an afterlife, and I would argue also aren't viewed as being as likely to be suicide bombers. It is thus Iran presents a different kind of fear: namely that the world is afraid they're willing to die to kill their enemy; that Iran is actually crazier than North Korea, despite the bluffing on North Korea's part.

In what ways is Iran's leadership more "willing to commit suicide" than North Korea's leadership? We know North Korea has nuclear weapons and they have directly threatened to use them against the US. We don't know Iran has nuclear weapons and, AFAIK, they have not threatened the US. Iran has threatened Israel, but Iran is responding to actual military strikes from Israel. Also, Iran has shown for the decades that they (most likely) won't act on their threats.

Because there is oil in Iran that can be harvested while engaging in war and "freeing" the people.

Interesting how the New York Times covers this more as a threat than a political move.

The New York Times: "North Korea Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack"

BBC News: "North Korea ramps up nuclear rhetoric as UN vote looms" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21695887)

Easier to trivialize when you're not the one being threatened with nuclear attack I think.

Will someone excuse my excessive ignorance and be so kind to explain me why the DPRK is so pissed with the US? Thanks

This

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

should give you some background.

It's mainly because of their support for South Korea during the Korean war of 50s. NK hates SK and the US loves SK. The friend of an enemy is an enemy. There are many reasons, but this forms the base.

The main reason is that the US essentially fought the Korean War for South Korea against the North, and still maintains many active military bases and thousands of troops in South Korea, especially one right in the middle of Seoul. Any attempt to invade the South would mean war with the US, thus one of the longstanding demands of the DPRK has been that the US remove all its troops from the country.

Also, the US helps the South Korea military (and previously, its economy). I believe there is a clause in the constitution where in the case of a full scale war, a US general will assume command of all the military forces of the South

Interesting. Here's a quick copy I found on Wikipedia: "A still functioning UN Command is technically the top of the chain of command of all forces in South Korea, including the US forces and the entire South Korean military – if a sudden escalation of war between North and South Korea were to occur the United States would assume control of the South Korean armed forces in all military and paramilitary moves. However, in September 2006, the Presidents of the United States and the Republic of Korea agreed that South Korea should assume the lead for its own defense. In early 2007, the U.S. Secretary of Defense and ROK Minister of National Defense determined that South Korea will assume wartime operational control of its forces on December 1, 2015. U.S. Forces Korea will transform into a new joint-warfighting command, provisionally described as Korea Command (KORCOM)."

It's worth adding that while the conflict is complicated and the lead up was long, the North was basically the aggressor in the war and that the NK army was backed 5:1 by Soviet troops.

The Koreas are effectively a proxy war between the US and China.

Absolutely. China could dismantle North Korea in a heartbeat, by pulling all support at a minimum or telling the military junta it's over and if they want to survive at all they have to play ball. Kim would be served up on a platter the next day. North Korea is nothing but a way for China to poke the US constantly.

I wonder if this is true. Having a rogue dictator developing nukes in your backyard is not the thing most governments are comfortable with.

Beijing - Pyongyang is merely 800Km, after all.

It was at least true in the past. Whether China, with their changing politics, culture and economy, still feel that way today, is a big question. I'd certainly believe the equation is very different in their eyes now (different in the sense of the consequences, China has a lot more to lose these days having come so far).

Before North Korea had a nuclear weapon, much less the ability to build numerous of them, China propped up North Korea in countless ways for decades (from food to weapons to moral support). China could have very trivially killed Kim (or requested his overthrow), with absolutely no consequences. It's not like the weak and vastly smaller North Korean army was going to invade China, particularly after the Kims were gone.

I believe China could still dismantle North Korea. I think their fear is the chaos that could follow, from millions of refuges to perhaps a new military dictatorship to loose nukes.

Eh. I'm not saying that Chinese leadership doesn't enjoy the ability to poke the US, and play that up for domestic political reasons, but indications I've seen are that they've been getting sick of North Korea's shit. Check their language in these periodic crises from the late 90s until now -- they practically sound like they're on the US's side now compared to the late 90s.

There's a more practical reason for them to hope the regime doesn't fall: it creates a refugee crisis on their border and the CCP governance model is 'stability uber alles'.

(Sorry, didn't mean to mod you down, but pre-touchscreen HN decided it was a good idea to separate the up and down arrows by 1 pixel.)

True in 1952 but hardly true now. More recently China has indulged the Kims because they don't want tens of millions of refugees flooding over the border.

Kim Jong-Un may be about to find that his sponsor's patience is neither unconditional nor unlimited. The Chinese leaders are not stupid. They know they have a problem.

The best endgame for Kim is an offer of exile in China, at this point. That may be what he is fishing for here.

I wonder what's the possibility of China simply annexing NK

Considering what would happen if the borders to China were opened, I think it would be a huge humanitarian situation.

The US military had a big involvement in the Korean War (88% of the South Korean force [1]), and to this day are posted at the demilitarised zone in the Korean Peninsula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War [1]

Here is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea

Interesting article - the division is similar to how Germany was divided into east and west.

Kinda similar, but then also different. Afaik the relations between east and west germanies were peaceful, while north and south koreas are at war, albeit in extended ceasefire. I'm not sure if DPRK even acknowledges ROK as a lawful government/entity.

I wonder how much of the 'hate' being expressed is really just a tool to maintain the iron grip of the NK leadership on it's own people. Best way to unify a people is give them someone to hate.

It ostensibly because of the US' role in the Korean War. In reality, it's solely for propaganda reasons.

I used to live next door to a rather cool and beautiful Japanese woman, and the only time I ever saw her rattled was when N Korea first tested in 2006. She was genuinely scared her country would be attacked the next day.

North Korea should scare everyone. NK's only ally, China, has clearly stood alongside everyone else in the fricking world and proposed sanctions. That is like USA cutting off Isreal's aid - its huge.

(Although they may have given them the damn bombs in the first place)

No one is going to lob nuclear bombs back, but right now, any freighter leaving Pyongyang is going to be searched very very throughly. And I would move out of Seoul for a few days.

And nobody cares because there is no oil or other goods to harvest in North Korea.

If someone cared, NK would be right.

If they had those resources, they would just have stronger ties with China. They have long had the ability to rain destruction down on Seoul, South Korea (a heavily populated city with strong ties in the West, and increasingly ties with China, AFAIK) in the event of aggression against them. None of the Middle East countries have such a situation (that I know of).

Your monthly dose of brinkmanship from the DPRK.

There's this counter-intuitive trend that when the heritage of a dictatorial seat goes to a young one, everyone awaits for reforms, whereas the regime tends to rapidly increase its aggressive behavior. The same happened in Syria when Bachar got his seat. I'd be interested in listing other examples, typically in less recent history.

Well, I guess it still counts as recent history, but Gorbachev and the August 1991 coup in the Soviet Union - for an example of what happens when you try to be a reformer.

I really don't think it's counter-intuitive? Even a dictator doesn't rule alone, so when there's a change of power, the new ruler needs to assure his immediate subordinates that their loyalty will not go unrewarded and that he's not going to be a reformer and throw them and their fiefdoms under the bus.

If you're a regime big-wig in North Korea you're not dumb enough that you don't know that you're in the wrong - or, at least, that there is absolutely no way you and your family is going to survive having to explain yourself to the public.

So if your boss decides to put the country on the path to more freedom, you have the option of seeking asylum for your and your family in one of the few countries in the world that will take you, and live the rest of your life (a) in fear of angry underlings out for your life (b) in a lot less comfort than you're used to - or to stage a coup, kill your boss and assume power to "protect the revolution against corrupting, imperialist US influences".

The only comfort in their maniacal prison system state is that they make funny propaganda videos (the one with "we are the world" should totally get an SNL cover). Other than that it's a complete human tragedy. Let's hope for a Korean spring soon..

I think the relevant players (I mean, not the UN and their 'strong-worded letters') have decided it's time to call the bluff

Doing a Nuclear test is one thing, mounting it on a rocket and sending it far away is another.

I think they decided to stop this before it gets ugly.

Off-topic: http://xkcd.com/859/ :)

Thank FSM I don't program in lisp :)

Yes, it is a different thing, but they don't have to send it that far away. Seoul is just 30 miles from the border.

The problem is more one of having a small enough nuclear device and of keeping it intact during launch than of range.

Yes, they can send it by plane, maybe even a suicide mission

Much easier than packing it for deployment in a rocket

30 miles is approximately 5 to 15 minutes of early warning depending on plane speed (considering time after crossing the border, but I'm sure Seoul has monitoring capabilities that go beyond)

Planes are slow and large targets that are easy to intercept. You bet ROK monitors everything and anything that comes anywhere near the border, and has enough anti-air to stop anyone from reaching Seoul.

Don't ignore the real artillery that NK can actually use to destroy the lives of many, many koreans. If it all was about one weapon that didn't really fly, the situation would be a lot more fun.

I've been wondering all day how this will end, and especially if anything will happen on/before the 11th of March when North Korea will apparently cancel cease-fire if the South don't stop doing drills.

It's just another layer of threat. Nothing substantial will happen in NK, they know the can only lose. My best guess is that it's all propaganda aimed at the people in NK to secure the future of the elite.

Well, they do have a huge army( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peoples_Army ), things could get quite messy. They might not do anything, except threaten others. But sometimes others react to threats...

Does Pyongyang have no PR?

This is their PR. You wrongly assume you're the target for their PR-moves.

I like these sanctions, the one aimed at Iraq starting from 1990's. Really helped for everyone living there. Who would not love a dying child from hunger on his arms, it is like a Easter present.

There's a pretty easy way for the government to avoid situations like that. If your people are at the mercy of foreign governments in order to survive, it really is in your best interest to not continuously piss them off.

That is working on the assumption that the government in question gives a shit about their population.

The problem here is that the sanctions hits a population that is already suffering under the actions of their own government, and has much less of an effect on the regime it is meant to punish.

The DPRK has been taught over the years that if they rattle their sabers and then back down, they get foreign aid. As far as they're concerned, it's a winning strategy.

Is it a sane strategy? Decidedly not -- one day the foreign aid won't come, or it won't be enough, and their only option is to escalate. When they become a credible & real threat (which they are very quickly becoming), other nations will have no choice but to act out of self-preservation.

If you look at what these sanctions are aiming to do, they are very specifically targeted at the senior leadership of North Korea. The sanctions go after the "illicit activities of North Korean diplomatic personnel, North Korean banking relationships, illicit transfers of bulk cash and new travel restrictions", most of which will not directly affect the vast majority of children in the country.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/us-proposes-toug...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com