Didn't get this alert here in Tokushima. However we are quite used to typhoon alerts. It's rather impressive when a room full of phones start alerting at full blast.
A VERY relevant video posted as a comment on HN yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbB0srzLuuo Highly recommended viewing. It is a fictional newscast of how the world can go from normal to nuclear armageddon in an hour. edit: added some context.
I would have included the title of the video in the comment, to give a bit more context: Live news from Europe - NATO shoots down Russia jet over Latvian airspace (fiction)
That video is pretty stupid. WW3 will not start over a downed plane.
WW3 will not even start in case of one isolated nuclear explosion (Russia bombing one US city), there are limited response scenarios prepared for that.
On the production level, conventional war between Nato and Russia happens, and the BBC presenter is oh so calm and composed, but I supposed you can't ask much from a low-budget documentary (if I can call it that).
I like your optimism, but I'm not sure it's warranted. A "limited response" doesn't mean escalations won't continue, and we no longer have a guarantee that at any given point in time either Russia or the US will have a rational leader.
I was just pointing out that a downed plane doesn't automatically trigger WW3.
See for example the lawful (but provocative) downing of a russian plane by Turkey. The retaliation from Russia was basically just words and some economic sanctions.
I'm not sure if the leader of US or Russia can order a first strike without inbound missiles from the other side. Would the military execute a first strike knowing what the response of the other side would be?
"World War surely would not start over a single assassination"[0]. Given a sufficient tension (which is all time high now since the collapse of USSR between NATO and Russia) any single event might provide a tipping point to a chain reaction and downward spiral to the all-out war. Sure, neither side wants it, but looking back at history I don't think that's enough to prevent bad things from happening.
The context was extremely different. Nowadays there are mechanisms, organisations, and plans that prevent minor incidents from escalating. You cannot compare the world of today with the world of 1914.
Also the war did not "start over an assassination". It's much more complex than that, and the assassination was just the pretext.
None of the people I know across various providers (iOS and Android alike) got the alert in Tokyo. Almost everyone I know in Gunma (around 75 miles from here) got the alert, though... and Gunma is a good 650ish miles away from southern Hokkaido. It's a mystery to us why some people got the alert and others didn't.
If you're on iOS and in the affected area you should have received the alert.
If you're on Android you might need a device sold in the Japan market to get them (seems there are mixed reports on this, would love to hear from someone in the industry - does this stuff use standard GSM features and are these enabled on Android by default? could weird manufacturer skins disable them?).
You also need to be in the affected area to receive the message, although third party apps often let you customize the range or priority of messages to receive.
On my US-sold iPhone running on an MVNO I reliably receive earthquake/flood alerts. But I didn't receive the alert this morning since I live in the other end of the country where it was not broadcast.
Interesting, I assumed it was the carrier, but it might be the model. I have a Galaxy S7 which I got in Hong Kong. With this variant, I can't find the emergency alert settings anywhere. That might explain it.
Devices on MVNOs can still receive the alerts as long as they're set to receive. You'll have to dig around in the settings for it, but it should be on by default. If you got it through Yahoo though, probably no need to worry since you'd just get duplicates...
The SMS cell broadcast feature is kind of flaky. Nothing wrong with the technology, but it needs to be enabled in so many places to get through it rarely happens. Also consider that Japan never really did the whole GSM thing, so it's easy to imagine they haven't bothered with all legacy features still present in UMTS.
Not to mention that Japan uses different W-CDMA channels than many other places in the world, so if the people you know have foreign phones they may get limited CB coverage.
That's not it since the ETWS works fine normally, plus there's a strong correlation of people being north of Tokyo and receiving the alerts. kalleboo found an article listing the prefectures that received the alert and Tokyo is indeed excluded from it.
This NK situation is crazy -- seems like there is no good way to deal with this guy. If we silently ignore, he keeps testing until its too late. If we get aggressive, he pulls the trigger. And "diplomatic pressure" doesn't seem to be having any effect. We've already had years worth of sanctions -- and well, this just happened.
Is our only option to just surprise strike this guy into obvlivion and hope for the best, take casualties now? Assume that his capability is going to grow over time, just take whatever losses and assume eventually he will strike -- so best to eliminate the threat now while at the smallest point (but still obviously huge damage could be done to the innocent).
That is an extremely bad idea. It's easy to talk off-handedly about casualties, but remember these could be on the scale of tens of millions. This is not something which you just shrug and do. Direct military action has almost 0% of occurring, by initiative of the West at least.
I am not convinced KJU would fear a nuclear fallout. He has nothing to lose. If he were determined to survive, he is sure to have bunkers to protect him and he could almost certainly smuggle himself out of the country.
If he really valued the lives of his citizens, you would probably expect a different means of governing. I don't think you can treat this person as a rational individual when negotiating...
Once you're away from your powerbase your days are numbered. He must certainly know that he'd be hunted till the end of days, like Bin Laden, like Hussein.
Nothing to lose, apart from wealth, power, luxury, the prestige of being the leader of a nation with a large nuclear-equipped military, not to mention quite possibly his life... all things I suspect he values quite highly.
But if you assume the probability of strike is increasing over time, as is the population of all these areas, then the best alternative (although horrible to imagine), may be sacrificing 10m lives now to save 100m lives in 10 years.
Its not pretty, but can you say you believe given another 10 years unchecked development the likelihood of strike and deaths is lower?
The real question is what the fuck do do with the 25 million North Korean refugees? 99.9% of the people are unable to function in a modern country. No one wants them. China doesn't and despite saying so, South Korea doesn't want them either (despite saying re-unification).
There's always the possibility of a peaceful resolution. Kim might one day decide he's better off making friends rather than enemies, or a more moderate leader might stage a coup or something. People thought the USSR would be around forever, and then suddenly in went to pieces without anyone having to blow it up. But what are the odds of that actually happening? Nobody really knows. If they're remote, then getting it over with now is probably the best approach. If they're decent, then waiting might be better. It's a difficult decision to make.
USSR went away because Gorvachev dismantled it in a careful and systematic way. It was somewhat akin to the CEO breaking apart a monstrous company. Had it been anyone else the results more likely would have been dramatically different and, most likely, not in the more "acceptable" way.
As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike. For NK, it would mean a swift, permanent end to the regime. For the USA, it would mean an unacceptable level of causalities (not to mention a global economic disaster).
There is dissent in NK, it will eventually take out dear leader. This is the most desirable end-game for NK.
What I was referring to this: "As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike"
My question was not an appeal to emotion. My question was, "Had the missle not broken up but instead hit Japan". I'm not convinced they didn't attempt a first strike this morning, it doesn't seem like "wait them out, they'll probably never strike" is a sound argument to me given that they are already launching missiles over Japan.
The missile was clearly a message. According to the CNN journalist that talked about it, who is in NK, this is the response to the "fire and fury" threat by Trump.
>Is our only option to just surprise strike this guy into obvlivion and hope for the best, take casualties now?
This is why North Korea is dead set on developing nuclear bombs. As long as the US remains a threat North Korea has no other choice, it's not like getting rid of their WMD's would prevent the US from attacking.
> As long as the US remains a threat North Korea has no other choice, it's not like getting rid of their WMD's would prevent the US from attacking.
No, but China would, and even North Korea's conventional threat against South Korea would.
A non-nuclear PRNK has nothing to fear from the USA, because China loves its North Korean buffer against South Korea, and will not let anything happen to it. Wouldn't China love a non-nuclear PRNK even more? It would still be a buffer and could still cause massive damage to Seoul and South Korea's industry and shipping, but without the region-destabilizing nuclear threat to Japan, Guam, CONUS, etc.
If KJU wanted to be a responsible leader, it seems to me that he would drop his nuclear and icbm programs, come up with a narrative for why that was necessary (or simply lie to his people and launch short-range rockets all the time to maintain a facade of continued progress), accept international aid and modernization, and claim credit for it to his people. If the international community does things he doesn't like, he can still threaten to attack South Korea, which would be devastating. The nuclear threat is just one step too far, and if KJU isn't careful, he's going to find that out. Trump isn't going to attack offensively (at least not without Chinese and South Korean green lights), not only because the counterattack would be a disaster for U.S. allies and perhaps the U.S. itself, but because China would then get involved in some capacity on North Korea's side.
KJU doesn't appear to want to be a responsible or rational leader, nor does he want to help his people. It seems like he wants the nuclear threat to get sanctions lifted so he can be even more of a jackass to his subjects and prop up his own regime with more comfort and power. He's already living well; if he's not happy with the status quo and wants more power and lifted sanctions to benefit himself and not his citizens, that makes me worry about his rationality vastly more than I worry about Trump's, and I do worry about Trump's sometimes.
>No, but China would, and even North Korea's conventional threat against South Korea would.
Both these things exist now, and the war hawks are still pressing for war.
>A non-nuclear PRNK has nothing to fear from the USA, because China loves its North Korean buffer against South Korea, and will not let anything happen to it.
They do have everything to fear of China, and still could be a bargaining chip in some future deal between China and the US. They tried the whole "rely on a superpower" thing before, the USSR attempted to remove Kim Il-sung from power then the eventual collapse devastated the economy. The Juche philosophy exists for a reason.
>If KJU wanted to be a responsible leader, it seems to me that he would drop his nuclear and icbm programs, come up with a narrative for why that was necessary (or simply lie to his people and launch short-range rockets all the time to maintain a facade of continued progress), accept international aid and modernization,
Like they tried in the nineties and 00's, only to have the US reneg on the deals? [1] Or like they have constantly said they would be willing to do over the past several months? [2] That bridge is ablaze if not already burnt.
>KJU doesn't appear to want to be a responsible or rational leader, nor does he want to help his people
His main priority is maintaining power, this is hardly unique. Betterment of his citizens is a secondary goal, the Songun ideology isn't really a secret.
>It seems like he wants the nuclear threat to get sanctions lifted so he can be even more of a jackass to his subjects and prop up his own regime with more comfort and power.
He wants to remove the external threats so he only has to worry about the internal ones. Things wouldn't improve for his citizens immediately, but continuing the sanctions or war won't improve their situation either.
You are judging him from the "good for the state" position, but in reality dictators work from the "good for them and their family" position, and he is quite rational in that.
NK nuclear program worked as a blackmail tool - they were getting aid in exchange for concessions like freezing plutonium-related facilities, though not terminating them.
Besides that, Gaddafi was a "responsible" leader and terminated his nuclear program. Dictators are paranoid, don't you think Kim Jong-un learned his lesson?
Europe has received an order of magnitude fewer refugees spread out of 2.5 years. As to whether or not they've been having "trouble", I guess it all depends on how bad things have to get before you upgrade it from inconvenience to trouble.
Europe took in 2.5M in 2015/2015 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis), North Korea has 25M population. Europe economically is much stronger then South Korea. Plus the refugees are more functional in a modern world then 99.9% of the DPRKians.
Still have not encountered anyone from Europe who is happy about having refugees up to they arse. Except those that benefit from transporting/smuggling them and government agencies.
Money grabbers love refugees, 25M refugees will give billions of income, of course, from the expense of common man.
And you can talk all you want about the outcome and best scenarios, lives. Warmongers will war, money grabbers will grab, you will pay for that!
There has been a huge increase in terrorism and crime, as well as massive drains on public resources. 99% of refugees aren't going to come to a first world nation from their 3rd world war-torn nation and just "settle in and start being productive". Obviously a minority (Doctors, Lawyers if they can meet new/different standards) can contribute, but most of those people were in poverty and uneducated back home, and living in a totally different society -- so integration is pretty rough imo.
You might be surprised to find that you're completely wrong on this.
Data from the UN and Germany shows that 80%+ of refugees have a university degree or secondary education. When war strikes, those with more resources are the ones able to escape and pay their way through to the EU.
Of course this doesn't mean integration is any easier, but the reasons are not that simple.
Do you have a source for that figure? I agree that refugees who had the resources to make it to Europe would be relatively well off, but taking spouses and children into account, I would expect a much lower proportion with a degree.
The reuters article referenced below [1] claims that 58 percent [of adult refugees] had spent 10 years or more at school, and just under a third had attended university or a vocational school. Presumably, if you take children into account the figure will be even smaller.
you don't have a degree if you got rid of your passport, no matter how many years of education you had. and you shouldn't be allowed to use those credentials if you came illegally.
Statistics show that refugee population increase has a smaller impact on crime and public resource drain than equivalent 'native' population increase. A group of 1000 refugees will have less criminals and put smaller burden on state resources than 1000 local citizens. Go figure, everything you thought you new about refugees are wrong.
The referenced article doesn't have any figures on crime. A news article from 2017 [1] claims the opposite (refugees commit disproportionately more crime), but adds that just 1 per cent of migrants account for 40 per cent of migrant crimes. [2] has a lot more detailed stats and supports the claim that there are disproportionate increases in crime associated with refugees.
Are you sure about this? I guess we should stop trying to fight crime with those outdated notions of education, upward mobility, etc and instead focus on creating more of the conditions refugees have instead, since that appears to cause less crime. All this time I thought the peaceful Scandinavian nations had it figured out, turns out Syria had the right idea.
Also I'm not sure if crime stats are right. There have been a lot of cases of covering up crimes by immigrants/refugees due to social pressure and allegations of racism. See the Rotheram incident, which set of a storm of reports all over Europe, but was covered up for years due to social pressure (56 mass rapists in one town, 53 of whom were immigrant Muslims):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
It's frankly appalling how people appear to be more concerned about who would take care of refugees more than the 10s of millions of human lives which would be ended in the event of war with DPRK.
It's not just "this guy". The whole head of the government is like a machine. If he tries to bring it down the other elites will put him down. NK would not have been able to last this long by just one family having 100% power. It's a network.
It's definitely not one guy. This is a great read which helped me understand the perspective and situations dictators, and nation leaders in general, often face.
I posted this to a friend's facebook when he asked, I need to re-write it better but the idea is there. No one wants DPRK to fall or KJU to die, its too many fucking refugees.
What you don't realize is that no one (I don't mean average person, I mean politicians and leaders) really cares what the DPRK (by extension the Kims) do to their own people as long as they are not a threat to anyone else. China likes having the DPRK there as a buffer against the American forces in South Korea. It also provides a distraction as China is claiming the entire South China Sea.
South Korea while officially saying they want re-unification doesn't really want it. If and when the DPRK falls, you got 25 million refugees who are barely able to function in the modern world streaming to China or South Korea. China will not take the refugee in, they will either deploy PLA at the border and stop them or take over the DPRK as a puppet state. The economic cost to absorb the refugees is enormous. In the 20 years after West Germany and East Germany merged, over 1.3 trillion euros was spent on the former East Germany and its still behind economically the former West Germany. The GDP per capita for East Germany at the time of the merger was 10000USD (1990 dollars) and right now for DPRK it's less than 1500USD (current dollars). West Germany was also economically much stronger at the time then South Korea is now and has a much higher population (~60M West, ~15M East) compared to the Koreas (~50M South, ~25M North). South Korea doesn't have the money or the economic poweress help the DPRK like West Germany did with East Germany.
I get what you're saying, but I think South Korea would bear that cost.
I personally know people whose family was split by the arbitrary North/South border divide. For them, I think absorbing and reintegrating the population of the North Korean means more to them than just an economic burden.
Given that the South Korean government were elected democratically, you would hope that they would be prepared to represent the interests of the population.
That's one example, but time is against it. The generation that was split by the border divide/war is dying out. The younger generation doesn't really care about the DPRK.
With Brexit and the possibility of a return to a "hard" border that is rapidly changing I think (ex-Newry, NI, person here, now living in London). Though I'd say this hasn't gone away at all - there's plenty of "young people" taking part in this visceral display every year[1] and it to me at least, every time I go back it seems to be getting worse not better for at least the past 10 years.
There's been lots of talk that this won't happen but it's hard to see how there won't be at least some sort of checks reintroduced. This isn't too unusual, we had the Common Travel Area[2] since 20s well before Schengen but a return to any sort of militarized or "formal" border could easily kick it all off again in the border counties.
For an idea of the difficulty here's what crossing the border looks like the BBC did a little drone video where it's very easy to see how "leaky" it would be [3]. When I was growing up it looked more like this for the main routes [4].
I am sure you're right and I hope the old saying "where there is a will, there is a way" is true, but the numbers paint a very bleak picture. Even if the will is there, as GP said:
> South Korea doesn't have the money or the economic poweress help the DPRK like West Germany did with East Germany.
Realistically, a merger has to make sense for the chebols/conglomerates, right?
Edit: also where do China PR and Japan stand on unification? I've read claims that neither is very fond of it?
It's worth pointing out that East Germany was one of the most (maybe the most) prosperous countries in the Soviet sphere, whereas North Korea is horrendously poor. To put some numbers on it, the East German GDP in 1989 was about $160 billion, with a population of about 16 million, so about $10,000 per capita. North Korea's GDP is about $12 billion with a population of about 25 million, for a per-capita GDP of about $600.
Interesting point, but how many families were split between North and South ? If it's only people near the border, I bet a dollar the other ones will quickly bail out of helping NKans if the problem seems too large.
Looking through Google Maps, my guess is that they are better than the average non-developed country. They just don't have open trade, so their GDP per capita is very low comparing to reality. For example, they have two underground metro lines. For a city of only 2.5million, that's more than what other developing countries have.
I don't know very much about geopolitical whatevers, but can anyone explain-like-I'm-five why everyone assumes that taking out the North Korean government has to involve 25 million refugees (which is the entire population of the country) streaming into China and South Korea? They're not going to nuke all of NK into inhabitability, people will still live there. I'm sure some people will want to leave now that they're not under pain of death for doing so, but probably the vast majority will stay. Did Russian emigrants overwhelm Europe when the Iron Curtain fell, or Germans when the Berlin Wall did?
(Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious, because every time this subject comes up, everyone starts throwing around the "China doesn't want 25M refugees overnight" argument, so I assume there's some background I'm missing.)
> Did Russian emigrants overwhelm Europe when the Iron Curtain fell
Not Europe, no - because most of them didn't have the legal status to gain any european citizenship. But million jews rushed into Israel, with a total population of 8 million, which greatly affected the country.
Given that South Korea officially 'wants' unification, they won't have any other choice but to grant citizen status to everyone - and I don't doubt that a LOT of north koreans will jump on this opportunity right away.
"Did Russian emigrants overwhelm Europe when the Iron Curtain fell, or Germans when the Berlin Wall did?"
Those were largely peaceful changes. Neither Germany nor the Soviet Union got nuked nor have millions of people die in a war, as is very likely to happen if war breaks out with North Korea. If they had, then yes, there would have been probably millions of refugees trying to run for their lives. Take a look at any other major war and you'll see that this is in fact what happens.
To me it seems like this assumption is based on the fact that relatively many North Koreans try to escape the country even though it's very dangerous. If trying to leave the country isn't going to get someone killed by the government any more, maybe more people will try to leave in search of better conditions. Will it be 25 million? Who knows, probably not, but you could imagine whole villages leaving together.
Keep in mind that NK is in far worse shape than most (all?) of the Communist countries whose governments collapsed around 1991. Not that life in those countries was all sunshine and rainbows and fluffy rabbits, but the life in NK is a whole different scale.
Those governments also fell internally, meaning the people were pushing for a change and were somewhat ready to make it happen. Invading North Korea would be pretty different.
One big unknown (at least to me) is the level of indoctrination. Related to the above, a lot of people in Eastern Europe were fed up with their government, didn't believe anything they said, and were ready to build something better. It seems like a lot more North Koreans might buy into their government's views, in which case they might flee the "evil imperialist invaders." Heck, even without indoctrination, a reasonable person might not want to be near the fighting.
25 million refugees is obviously a bit much. The entire country won't pick up and move. But it would probably be many millions.
Considering the cost of war as seen in the middle east, wouldn't it be cheaper to make some kind of deal where the West, SK and Japan dump massive amounts of resources into improving NK's economy, in exchange for the regime opening up? Would they refuse a trillion-dollar offer?
Please explain US interventions in South America and invasions in Middle America in light of "do to their own people as long as they are not a threat to anyone else".
I said this in the other thread (before someone maliciously took the thread down using the dupe command):
If we have to address this at the root, it's China, the pink elephant in the room. China, our biggest trading partner and also an authoritarian government (US is probably kicking itself allowing such a horrible government to be so powerful), is propping up this vassel state and prevent any progress made in the peninsula. If China wasn't propping them up, North Korean government would have already fell long time ago.
So what happens now? Do we just let China keep protecting its puppet until the puppet has shipped a nuclear bomb to a port in Los Angeles? I hope not. I hope the world takes action before then - I hope the world punishes China and North Korea
China wants us a lot more than that puppet. China has uses for that puppet which why it exists, but if that puppet starts attacking the US it is safe to assume China will lead the war against them.
Seems Kim called the world's bluff on that missile "shield" touted ad nauseam whenever NK pops off a cracker. This thing flew basically through the middle of Japan's airspace and dropped in the drink on the other side. Getting the distinct impression that most of that American missile shield hardware is kept down with tent pens.
If the trajectory was measured and expected to miss Japan, there would be no need to use any defense system.
Those playing defense have a lot of incentive to keep their plans and capabilities quiet and uncertain until they are absolutely required. Once the defensive strategies are employed openly, the offense can more-reliably develop countermeasures.
It is (from my extreme sideline position) unknowable whether or not this particular weapon was capable of adjusting trajectory mid-flight. The point, however, is that it didn't and no shield test was deemed necessary. If it was calculated that it wasn't going to hit Japan, whatever was used to calculate it ended up being correct.
Using a missile shield when it's not needed reveals the location of installations, which can make them deliberate
future targets.
That is an unreasonable conclusion to reach given the evidence. You cannot reasonably allow a missile, potentially carrying a dirty bomb to enter your airspace, and relatively centrally so, and not act. Occam's razor suggests there is no shield.
Or it is known that the current state of the shield matches the first generation of Patriot interceptors, which means that it in a case where hail mary is not needed the US would not engage it.
Invoking philosophical razors does not change the reality that the missile did not hit anything of importance.
If you throw a punch and miss me (whether intentional or not), and I do not immediately react, it does not imply that I am incapable of defending myself.
It demonstrated clearly that Kim can hit any town in Japan and surrounding territories if he so chooses. The Japanese government went to some trouble to disseminate that information via SMS. If they could shoot down that missile and not terrify their own population they would have done so.
It's not exactly your "airspace" at 550km (the reported apogee) as, among other things, there's no air. That's 150km higher than the ISS orbits. It won't be a perfect ballistic curve due to the boost phase not being instantaneous and drag during the endoatmospheric periods, but based on how far it flew and how far it overshot Japan by, the halfway point between launch and landing is just at or just west of the Japanese coast. So a conservative estimate would be that when it crossed over a Japanese land mass, it was at least 500km up. So saying "you can't reasonably allow it" is a little odd when I don't think they could physically have stopped it at that altitude. By the time it dropped down into the reported range of THAAD, it'd have been well past Japan.
From what I've read, the most reliable period to shoot down these things is on their down-trajectory. At which point it was probably already no longer over Japan.
> The THAAD system that is deployed in Japan intercepts an incoming missile as it is coming down on the target, with a maximum altitude of about 150 km.
> Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), formerly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is an American anti-ballistic missile defense system designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase (descent or reentry) by intercepting with a hit-to-kill approach.
The most reliable time to shoot down a missile is when it is just lifting off. It's moving slowly, lots of fuel, etc. All it takes is a high powered laser hitting it almost anywhere in its cross section.
Japan has a limited number of land-based shield elements (radius of ~20 mi) that are deployed rather sparsely; they're looking into purchasing Aegis Ashore, which is supposed to have greater coverage... for next year.
I believe about seven destroyers in the Japanese navy are equipped with Aegis and can intercept; the 7th Fleet likewise, though not all of their destroyers are in Japanese territory at the moment (in fact, two of them were the ones in the news for crashes).
I wonder why it's okay to not give a shit when it's non-white people suffering.
It's the same deal with holocaust. Worse things are going on in North Korea, yet the West seems more concerned about events that happened 70+ years ago. It's like you are automatically an anti-semite for saying what's happening in North Korea are equal if not worse than what Jews have gone through, as if Jews have suffered the most out of human history or something. Of course it's fucking horrid what Jews went through but it's time we start paying more attention to modern day holocausts happening around the world.
119 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 175 ms ] threadWW3 will not even start in case of one isolated nuclear explosion (Russia bombing one US city), there are limited response scenarios prepared for that.
On the production level, conventional war between Nato and Russia happens, and the BBC presenter is oh so calm and composed, but I supposed you can't ask much from a low-budget documentary (if I can call it that).
See for example the lawful (but provocative) downing of a russian plane by Turkey. The retaliation from Russia was basically just words and some economic sanctions.
I'm not sure if the leader of US or Russia can order a first strike without inbound missiles from the other side. Would the military execute a first strike knowing what the response of the other side would be?
0. See WWI.
Also the war did not "start over an assassination". It's much more complex than that, and the assassination was just the pretext.
If you're on Android you might need a device sold in the Japan market to get them (seems there are mixed reports on this, would love to hear from someone in the industry - does this stuff use standard GSM features and are these enabled on Android by default? could weird manufacturer skins disable them?).
You also need to be in the affected area to receive the message, although third party apps often let you customize the range or priority of messages to receive.
On my US-sold iPhone running on an MVNO I reliably receive earthquake/flood alerts. But I didn't receive the alert this morning since I live in the other end of the country where it was not broadcast.
For the people who can't read it: Hokkaido, Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Akita, Yamagata, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma, Niigata, Nagano
That makes the Tohoku Region (northern Japan), northern Kanto (Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma), and northern Chubu (Nagano, Niigata).
Not to mention that Japan uses different W-CDMA channels than many other places in the world, so if the people you know have foreign phones they may get limited CB coverage.
If he really valued the lives of his citizens, you would probably expect a different means of governing. I don't think you can treat this person as a rational individual when negotiating...
Its not pretty, but can you say you believe given another 10 years unchecked development the likelihood of strike and deaths is lower?
As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike. For NK, it would mean a swift, permanent end to the regime. For the USA, it would mean an unacceptable level of causalities (not to mention a global economic disaster).
There is dissent in NK, it will eventually take out dear leader. This is the most desirable end-game for NK.
Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties.
Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides.
How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?
If, somehow, it ended up hitting Japan it certainly would have been a big scary incident but few causalities if any.
This is why North Korea is dead set on developing nuclear bombs. As long as the US remains a threat North Korea has no other choice, it's not like getting rid of their WMD's would prevent the US from attacking.
No, but China would, and even North Korea's conventional threat against South Korea would.
A non-nuclear PRNK has nothing to fear from the USA, because China loves its North Korean buffer against South Korea, and will not let anything happen to it. Wouldn't China love a non-nuclear PRNK even more? It would still be a buffer and could still cause massive damage to Seoul and South Korea's industry and shipping, but without the region-destabilizing nuclear threat to Japan, Guam, CONUS, etc.
If KJU wanted to be a responsible leader, it seems to me that he would drop his nuclear and icbm programs, come up with a narrative for why that was necessary (or simply lie to his people and launch short-range rockets all the time to maintain a facade of continued progress), accept international aid and modernization, and claim credit for it to his people. If the international community does things he doesn't like, he can still threaten to attack South Korea, which would be devastating. The nuclear threat is just one step too far, and if KJU isn't careful, he's going to find that out. Trump isn't going to attack offensively (at least not without Chinese and South Korean green lights), not only because the counterattack would be a disaster for U.S. allies and perhaps the U.S. itself, but because China would then get involved in some capacity on North Korea's side.
KJU doesn't appear to want to be a responsible or rational leader, nor does he want to help his people. It seems like he wants the nuclear threat to get sanctions lifted so he can be even more of a jackass to his subjects and prop up his own regime with more comfort and power. He's already living well; if he's not happy with the status quo and wants more power and lifted sanctions to benefit himself and not his citizens, that makes me worry about his rationality vastly more than I worry about Trump's, and I do worry about Trump's sometimes.
Both these things exist now, and the war hawks are still pressing for war.
>A non-nuclear PRNK has nothing to fear from the USA, because China loves its North Korean buffer against South Korea, and will not let anything happen to it.
They do have everything to fear of China, and still could be a bargaining chip in some future deal between China and the US. They tried the whole "rely on a superpower" thing before, the USSR attempted to remove Kim Il-sung from power then the eventual collapse devastated the economy. The Juche philosophy exists for a reason.
>If KJU wanted to be a responsible leader, it seems to me that he would drop his nuclear and icbm programs, come up with a narrative for why that was necessary (or simply lie to his people and launch short-range rockets all the time to maintain a facade of continued progress), accept international aid and modernization,
Like they tried in the nineties and 00's, only to have the US reneg on the deals? [1] Or like they have constantly said they would be willing to do over the past several months? [2] That bridge is ablaze if not already burnt.
>KJU doesn't appear to want to be a responsible or rational leader, nor does he want to help his people
His main priority is maintaining power, this is hardly unique. Betterment of his citizens is a secondary goal, the Songun ideology isn't really a secret.
>It seems like he wants the nuclear threat to get sanctions lifted so he can be even more of a jackass to his subjects and prop up his own regime with more comfort and power.
He wants to remove the external threats so he only has to worry about the internal ones. Things wouldn't improve for his citizens immediately, but continuing the sanctions or war won't improve their situation either.
[1)http://www.38north.org/2017/08/lsigal082217/
[2]https://theintercept.com/2017/08/25/north-korea-keeps-saying...
NK nuclear program worked as a blackmail tool - they were getting aid in exchange for concessions like freezing plutonium-related facilities, though not terminating them.
Besides that, Gaddafi was a "responsible" leader and terminated his nuclear program. Dictators are paranoid, don't you think Kim Jong-un learned his lesson?
And you can talk all you want about the outcome and best scenarios, lives. Warmongers will war, money grabbers will grab, you will pay for that!
Data from the UN and Germany shows that 80%+ of refugees have a university degree or secondary education. When war strikes, those with more resources are the ones able to escape and pay their way through to the EU.
Of course this doesn't mean integration is any easier, but the reasons are not that simple.
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-s...
http://www.e-ir.info/2016/03/07/refugees-economic-burden-or-...
[1] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/migrant-crime-ger...
[2] - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2903116
Also I'm not sure if crime stats are right. There have been a lot of cases of covering up crimes by immigrants/refugees due to social pressure and allegations of racism. See the Rotheram incident, which set of a storm of reports all over Europe, but was covered up for years due to social pressure (56 mass rapists in one town, 53 of whom were immigrant Muslims): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
Another example from Germany, 1200 assaults in one night in one town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610391845/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_ISy...
What you don't realize is that no one (I don't mean average person, I mean politicians and leaders) really cares what the DPRK (by extension the Kims) do to their own people as long as they are not a threat to anyone else. China likes having the DPRK there as a buffer against the American forces in South Korea. It also provides a distraction as China is claiming the entire South China Sea.
South Korea while officially saying they want re-unification doesn't really want it. If and when the DPRK falls, you got 25 million refugees who are barely able to function in the modern world streaming to China or South Korea. China will not take the refugee in, they will either deploy PLA at the border and stop them or take over the DPRK as a puppet state. The economic cost to absorb the refugees is enormous. In the 20 years after West Germany and East Germany merged, over 1.3 trillion euros was spent on the former East Germany and its still behind economically the former West Germany. The GDP per capita for East Germany at the time of the merger was 10000USD (1990 dollars) and right now for DPRK it's less than 1500USD (current dollars). West Germany was also economically much stronger at the time then South Korea is now and has a much higher population (~60M West, ~15M East) compared to the Koreas (~50M South, ~25M North). South Korea doesn't have the money or the economic poweress help the DPRK like West Germany did with East Germany.
EDIT: read this instead, this guy explained what I said much better on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1etaxd/north_kor...
I personally know people whose family was split by the arbitrary North/South border divide. For them, I think absorbing and reintegrating the population of the North Korean means more to them than just an economic burden.
Given that the South Korean government were elected democratically, you would hope that they would be prepared to represent the interests of the population.
There's been lots of talk that this won't happen but it's hard to see how there won't be at least some sort of checks reintroduced. This isn't too unusual, we had the Common Travel Area[2] since 20s well before Schengen but a return to any sort of militarized or "formal" border could easily kick it all off again in the border counties.
For an idea of the difficulty here's what crossing the border looks like the BBC did a little drone video where it's very easy to see how "leaky" it would be [3]. When I was growing up it looked more like this for the main routes [4].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz35L-TBt9M
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-40104333/cr...
[4] https://i.pinimg.com/736x/23/a3/54/23a354665613f3aa695f0e5c3...
> South Korea doesn't have the money or the economic poweress help the DPRK like West Germany did with East Germany.
Realistically, a merger has to make sense for the chebols/conglomerates, right?
Edit: also where do China PR and Japan stand on unification? I've read claims that neither is very fond of it?
I think they'll be really fine.
(Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious, because every time this subject comes up, everyone starts throwing around the "China doesn't want 25M refugees overnight" argument, so I assume there's some background I'm missing.)
Not Europe, no - because most of them didn't have the legal status to gain any european citizenship. But million jews rushed into Israel, with a total population of 8 million, which greatly affected the country.
Given that South Korea officially 'wants' unification, they won't have any other choice but to grant citizen status to everyone - and I don't doubt that a LOT of north koreans will jump on this opportunity right away.
Of course they'll have the choice not to immediately grant citizenship to 25 million!
Those were largely peaceful changes. Neither Germany nor the Soviet Union got nuked nor have millions of people die in a war, as is very likely to happen if war breaks out with North Korea. If they had, then yes, there would have been probably millions of refugees trying to run for their lives. Take a look at any other major war and you'll see that this is in fact what happens.
Those governments also fell internally, meaning the people were pushing for a change and were somewhat ready to make it happen. Invading North Korea would be pretty different.
One big unknown (at least to me) is the level of indoctrination. Related to the above, a lot of people in Eastern Europe were fed up with their government, didn't believe anything they said, and were ready to build something better. It seems like a lot more North Koreans might buy into their government's views, in which case they might flee the "evil imperialist invaders." Heck, even without indoctrination, a reasonable person might not want to be near the fighting.
25 million refugees is obviously a bit much. The entire country won't pick up and move. But it would probably be many millions.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq#Iraq_War_.282...
If we have to address this at the root, it's China, the pink elephant in the room. China, our biggest trading partner and also an authoritarian government (US is probably kicking itself allowing such a horrible government to be so powerful), is propping up this vassel state and prevent any progress made in the peninsula. If China wasn't propping them up, North Korean government would have already fell long time ago.
So what happens now? Do we just let China keep protecting its puppet until the puppet has shipped a nuclear bomb to a port in Los Angeles? I hope not. I hope the world takes action before then - I hope the world punishes China and North Korea
whatever you're suggesting, it's about now or some future time...
Those playing defense have a lot of incentive to keep their plans and capabilities quiet and uncertain until they are absolutely required. Once the defensive strategies are employed openly, the offense can more-reliably develop countermeasures.
Using a missile shield when it's not needed reveals the location of installations, which can make them deliberate future targets.
If you throw a punch and miss me (whether intentional or not), and I do not immediately react, it does not imply that I am incapable of defending myself.
What actually happened proves that this would have been unnecessary.
edit: for instance this Reddit comment https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/6wmnxp/north_korea_f...
> The THAAD system that is deployed in Japan intercepts an incoming missile as it is coming down on the target, with a maximum altitude of about 150 km.
Which gets you to reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...
> Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), formerly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is an American anti-ballistic missile defense system designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase (descent or reentry) by intercepting with a hit-to-kill approach.
I believe about seven destroyers in the Japanese navy are equipped with Aegis and can intercept; the 7th Fleet likewise, though not all of their destroyers are in Japanese territory at the moment (in fact, two of them were the ones in the news for crashes).
It's the same deal with holocaust. Worse things are going on in North Korea, yet the West seems more concerned about events that happened 70+ years ago. It's like you are automatically an anti-semite for saying what's happening in North Korea are equal if not worse than what Jews have gone through, as if Jews have suffered the most out of human history or something. Of course it's fucking horrid what Jews went through but it's time we start paying more attention to modern day holocausts happening around the world.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html