United States Begins Flying Stealth Bombers Over South Korea 567
skade88 writes "The New York Times is reporting that the United States has started flying B-2 stealth bomber runs over South Korea as a show of force to North Korea. The bombers flew 6,500 miles to bomb a South Korean island with mock explosives. Earlier this month the U.S. Military ran mock B-52 bombing runs over the same South Korean island. The U.S. military says it shows that it can execute precision bombing runs at will with little notice needed. The U.S. also reaffirmed their commitment to protecting its allies in the region. The North Koreans have been making threats to turn South Korea into a sea of fire. North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' mainland."
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
And so it BEGINS! (Score:4, Insightful)
please deport the cute NK chicks b4 any war, kthxbye
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Worked for Europe in 1938!
Re:The winner? (Score:4, Insightful)
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
That's the same stupid advice mothers give to their children about bullies. When has a bully actually given up because you ignored them hard enough?
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know B-2 are cool toys... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The winner? (Score:4, Insightful)
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
You might think that would work, but you'd be wrong. North Korea has a habit of making sneaking attacks on South Korea when they don't respond. Recently they sank a ship that killed dozens. In the past they have shelled civilian or military areas, kidnapped people across the border, and axed people cutting down a DMZ tree (since they claimed that Kim Il Sung himself planted it). I mean, what do you think the recent cyber attack was about? Without a proper show of force, these provocations will increase. We don't really need a proper USS Pueblo incident, do we?
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfect Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a terrible analogy. North Korea could pretty easily launch a nuclear weapon right into downtown Seoul and kill half a million people while launching a war that will kill a million more.
They're not a threat to the US mainland, no. But they're a huge threat to South Korea.
Re:Perfect Analogy (Score:1, Insightful)
They're not a threat to the US mainland, no. But they're a huge threat to South Korea.
None of their recent threats have been at South Korea, they have all been directed at the US and most specifically mention the mainland and Pacific bases. The analogy in this case is apt.
A farce (Score:4, Insightful)
So what do you think? You really think KJ Un wants a war? Or keep living with that level of UN penalties, poverty,
--
And of course Eric Schmidt was in NK to talk about the Internet...
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better way. Ignore them completely. Don't acknowledge them, don't respond. Act like you you don't even hear them.
Pretend they don't even exist.
That's bloody stupid. Has ignoring playground bullies ever worked? No, it just invites escalating provocations.
Depends on the motive of the bully. If they are looking for a reaction (eg tears) and they don't get one they will either escalate or move on to an easier target. If they are performing a show of strength to demonstrate their superiority then ignoring them won't be as useful. In the playground, _your_ objective is to not get picked on, which normally means don't be the softest target. This doesn't apply here as the objective is that nobody gets picked on.
If this does escalate and they do turn SK into a "sea of fire" then wiping NK out right now will be the option with the best net result in terms of lower loss of life, based on that this is what will happen anyway if they do make good with their threats. History won't see a pre-emptive strike that way though...
agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
People who dislike confrontation tend to prefer methods of confrontation-mitigation that are themselves non-confrontational. Sometimes, this works....for example if you never provoke a confrontational person they often don't notice you and hence an unpleasant situation is avoided.
Obviously, the strategy stops working the moment you are noticed anyway. But people who have a distaste for confrontation convince themselves that they can end the situation by continuing to refuse to participate. Of course, in the real-world, this does not work, never can work, and never will work. Once a predator (of any species) has its eyes on you no amount of ignoring it will ever get it off your case. After that moment, your only option is to fight back (or at least credibly demonstrate that you are ready, willing, and able to do so).
The need to kill other people is unpleasant, and we are right to try and avoid it. But the cold-hard fact is that sometimes, those other people make that violence unavoidable. You and the innocent you protect will be a lot better off if you nip the problem in the bud, and that requires direct confrontation.
Re:The winner? (Score:0, Insightful)
You're both idiots. I understand a) that you refer to each other as idiots and b) that I am calling you both idiots.
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
F. U.
Tell it to the little kid that was me 35 years ago. Smartest kid in the class and chubby. It started in first grade when I whizzed through vocab. Scaled up to ostracism, getting chased, being beaten. Got jumped by guys with knives but luckily ran away.
The only thing that got people's attention was studying karate and breaking a big 6th grader's nose. Aside from that a glacier rock was my best friend at lunch hour. Sure I had some friends, other geeks. But it only really stopped after I got out of the public school system and commuted an hour away to a preppy private high school.
If you want to know why America sucks at least one reason is because of the utter wasteland of stupidity that is the public school and community of people going to it for 90% of the people, and the system refusing to beat down bullies while they're young. Law of the jungle? Gandhi? Fuck that. I still have trauma from when I was that little kid. Maybe you just didn't get bullied enough. Tell it to kids (not me thankfully) who have gotten rolled up in gym mats, suffocated and died.
I bet a huge proportion of slashdotters have been bullied like me. Fixing (neutering) bullies and rewarding fair play would do a lot towards fixing (neutering) our military-industrial complex and maybe even our money politics.
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. In Vietnam the US destroyed the Vietcong and withdrew. Nearly half a decade later the North Vietnamese continued their original aim, invade South Vietnam. In terms of South East Asia it was an eventual defeat for the US-led Free World. In terms of the overall strategic geopolitical situation it was a huge win. Communist expansion was stopped. Eventually, with no more victories Soviet Communism collapsed (although it did leave its evil seed in many Universities around the World).
In Iraq the US defeated Saddam, smashed Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army. Installed a new democratic regime (very imperfect, but that is always going to be a problem in an Islamic country due to the political nature of Islam). The strategic mistake the US made was to withdraw and leave too few forces, and an even bigger strategic mistake was to accept an Iraqi Constitution where Sharia was enshrined. This was a fatal mistake that will haunt the Iraqi people (although it already affects the Assyrians, the Islamicist have nearly completed their ethnic cleansing of them ; and yet, the Obama Administration says nothing about the rights of freedom for all people).
In Afghanistan a few hundred US Special Forces with Afghan Northern Alliance soldiers toppled the Pakistani puppet regime called the Taliban. Smashed Al Qaeda, killed jihadis that were drawn to the honeypot from all over the World. Made the same mistake as Iraq in allowing a Constitution with Sharia.
The US never leaves the battlefield in defeat. The problem is they win well enough that they can't see the point in staying. So they leave (probably prematurely, but hey, it makes good campaign speeches even if it makes zero geopolitical sense).
North Korea is not like Vietnam (Russia and China are weaker relative to US power than they were previously). Furthermore, the South Korean Army is much much better equipped than the North. In any fight the Northern regime will surely topple. China might like to intervene but in the age of tactical nuclear weapons their main advantage, massed infantry assaults, is not a strength.
In short, learn proper history please (not the pop history that doesn't match the *actual* facts). The North Koreans would come apart even faster than the massive Iraqi Army if push comes to shove. The only real question is how much damage they could do to Seoul before they went down. Note also that the South apparently isn't that keen on reunification - the evil regime in the North have turned the country into a complete basket case that the South are not that keen to have to fix.
Re:The winner? (Score:4, Insightful)
NK is not Germany, though. And so far they're just shaking their fists in the air, not invading countries.
The difference though, is that when Germany pulled the trigger, they moved in troops and occupied territory. Should North Korea pull the trigger it'll be to wipe out millions in a single minute with no intention of doing anything but damage.
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Appeasement didn't really have much to do with it. It was the fact that we totally fucked Germany after WWI that made a second war inevitable. That is why they were treated differently after WW2, and why the EU was created.
Re:A farce (Score:4, Insightful)
KJ Un studied in Europe, he is far from being stupid, he likes life, good food, women ... in other words he is definitely not as crazy as his late father...
If he's that smart and sane, why doesn't he take a look at some of the saner monarchies out there? Like a lot of countries that have communist revolutions, it's essentially a dynasty at this point. He should move towards the British, Jordanian, or Saudi model. Much saner. Wow, you start talking about DPRK and Saudi looks sane and smart by comparison! He even makes the Castro dynasty in Cuba look good.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the B-52 [wikipedia.org] entered service in 1955. In fact, I remember watching B-52 raids back in '72, when we were in Tonkin Gulf, and steaming through the clouds of sand, dust and grit that they created. FYI, there's only one thing I've ever heard in my life that sounds the same as a flight of Stratofortresses cutting loose: an earthquake.
Re:The winner? (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the things I take the least pride in as an American is the rampant anti-intellectualism.
OT of course, but not the answer either (Score:4, Insightful)
F. U.
Tell it to the little kid that was me 35 years ago. Smartest kid in the class and chubby. It started in first grade when I whizzed through vocab. Scaled up to ostracism, getting chased, being beaten. Got jumped by guys with knives but luckily ran away.
The only thing that got people's attention was studying karate and breaking a big 6th grader's nose. Aside from that a glacier rock was my best friend at lunch hour. Sure I had some friends, other geeks. But it only really stopped after I got out of the public school system and commuted an hour away to a preppy private high school.
If you want to know why America sucks at least one reason is because of the utter wasteland of stupidity that is the public school and community of people going to it for 90% of the people, and the system refusing to beat down bullies while they're young. Law of the jungle? Gandhi? Fuck that. I still have trauma from when I was that little kid. Maybe you just didn't get bullied enough. Tell it to kids (not me thankfully) who have gotten rolled up in gym mats, suffocated and died.
I bet a huge proportion of slashdotters have been bullied like me. Fixing (neutering) bullies and rewarding fair play would do a lot towards fixing (neutering) our military-industrial complex and maybe even our money politics.
Like most things it's not that simple. At 13 I would've agreed with your final conclusion. Then I grew up and learned the world is more complicated than that. I've also worked with and taught HS kids, where I learned things get even more complicated when you know even more of the backstory. Bullying often stems from problems, many of them at home. Abusive parents, neglectful parents, absent parents, actual mental issues, economic problems, familial stress, physical injuries, drug and alcohol issues and many more things all can play a part.
Bullies are often not evil kids, and a countrywide reaction to bullies Hammurabi style would do an enormous amount of damage too, as would simply overlooking competence, however fair it seems. Yes, there are some kids who would stop bullying if they get punched in the nose but there are many more who stop bullying *you* and move on to a easier target, and that's obviously not an answer from a societal view of things, since not all those bullied can punch the bully in the nose. The best approach is not a blanket one, but one that would take bullies and send them social workers to figure out what the hell is going on to begin with.
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the main reasons the US is failing is the lack of empathy. If someone emotionally harasses you, it's our fault for being bothered by it. I've been told that at least 100 times on Slashdot in various ways.
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. I'm no proponent of NK, but from here it looks like that what US is doing is a provocation. Of mentally unstable, suicidal lunatic. If you want to show your force, go ahead and do it. On your half of the globe. Not in the backyard of the idiot.
About those Russians (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The winner? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't underestimate North Korea's military. They might not have the most modern equipment but there are a lot of them and they are fanatical. Even though they would eventually lose it would be a very bloody war with a lot of close fighting.
Re:About those Russians (Score:5, Insightful)
That the Russians has a near unlimited supply of poor untrained peasants to fling at the enemy on mass does not say much for their strategy. If Germany had not made the bone headed move to invade Russia at the onset of one of the coldest winters in decades, the war would have turned out much differently. You also forget the AIR POWER that the Americans brought to bear on Germany's manufacturing cities and supply lines. Without manufacturing, the German war machine collapsed. It was American technological might that saved the world in WWII, not Russian brawn, which only resulted in millions more needless casualties on all sides.
It was a combination. We can theorize left and right about what might have happened without any one of the great powers, or with slightly different deployments of resources. Britain might have been forced into a separate peace due to an inadequate food supply, for example; Russia might have lost soldiers more quickly than it could produce them without advancing sufficiently if the Americans hadn't bombed the hell out of Europe; America might have turned nuclear against Germany in 1946 if Hitler had never been stupid enough to attack Russia; America might never have declared war on Germany if Japan had attacked a year later and Britain had made a separate peace; The Russians might have failed in their advances if they hadn't tied factory production directly to the food supply for incentive purposes.
There is so much anti-american sentiment these days that theories diminishing the importance of any American commitment are inherently suspect, IMHO. On the other hand, there is nationalistic propaganda that is often wrong, on all sides.