5 ms·

I say this as a bit of a closet NK watcher and as someone who visited DPRK back in August but in all likely hood there most likely were / will be very very real

by mhoad 13y ago

I say this as a bit of a closet NK watcher and as someone who visited DPRK back in August but in all likely hood there most likely were / will be very very real and unfortunate consequences for whoever was responsible for this. I'm trying very hard not to do the moral high horse thing but maybe chill out on the jokes a bit?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pothibo 13y ago
I think that jokes and seriousness are not mutually exclusive. I made a small joke at the end of my comment not because I thought sending someone to the gulag is funny, but because speaking of serious stuff doesn't need to be all dark and serious, if you know what I mean. Never been to NK but from what I read, it seems like we would have made the world a favor if we'd invaded NK instead of Iraq (I know it's not practical and NK's invasion would be much, much harder than Iraq).
- mhoad 13y ago
  It's fine, it's just the nature of reading words on a screen with no other context. I don't disagree with your sentiment at all I guess the thought of this turning into a complete "look how stupid they are haha" thread made me slightly uneasy is all.
  - pothibo 13y ago
    I can't say for other people but I can assure you my comment wasn't meant to say that they were stupid. They are like 15 years behind us in term of computer science. 15 years ago, I bet many services had javascript security like this one. The outcome is the only thing that might be different. Anyhow, I enjoyed this discussion ;)
- shubb 13y ago
  Regarding your last paragraph, the operation plans for conflict with north korea are sumarized on wikipedia. They essentially predict the north of south korea would be overrun, following artillary bombardment around the border / later Seol. Then the remaining south must hold until marines from the mainland US and Japan can arrive, and then there would be a long and costly war to push back into NK (which the US would win, providing public oppinion held). There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. This could help the US, or create wider conflict, depending on how it played out. Iraq and Afganistan were not wars on the same scale as Vietnam or WW2. NK probably would be. We can all hope it doesn't happen.
  - leoc 13y ago
    > There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. I think most people consider that a near-certainty. The Chinese government has made it evident that it doesn't want a US-aligned Korea sharing a large land border with it, and doesn't want a flood of Korean refugees entering China.
  - pothibo 13y ago
    Very interesting, thanks!
  - avn2109 13y ago
    Invading the DPRK seems like a nightmare and I don't support it. But if the NATO powers were going to do it, I suspect they'd employ an overwhelming first strike, probably from the air/missiles, to knock out DPRK artillery, air power, and rail/logistical targets in the first few minutes of the war. Then they scramble enough planes-and-missiles in DPRK airspace to block out the sun, and any live-fire target or Southward troop movement is immediately deluged with firepower. The American military apparatus still subscribes, rightly or wrongly, to the notion that air superiority equals dominance; they've also learned the hard way to avoid boots on the ground if at all possible. This would probably be coupled with massive aerial food aid and propaganda drops to suppress the sort of popular insurrection that bedevils the Americans in Iraq. Then they hope the infantry can saunter in and meet the lightest possible resistance. Of course, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so things might not shake out that way.
pp19dd 13y ago
Agreed, there is a serious tone here that people should take in understanding how NK conducts itself. My interest here was just the data and a sincere explanation that there was no hacking involved or needed. Purpose of this wasn't to mock. It was to show that the world really did pay attention to NK. Kim Jong Il dying was a big thing. Guessing it made some people hopeful, some nervous. What's probably sure is that the nuclear test definitely made people nervous. With this data, measurably so. In my job I regularly evaluate whether to publish something, and it's never a light decision. Though this is a private item, I sat on it for a year and debated posting it monthly. Dozens of edits later, and the data kept nagging at me - so it's now out and done.
- mhoad 13y ago
  I don't mean this in some passive aggressive way at all but I was genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on why publish this at all. It's interesting data though for sure, I will give you that :)
- leoc 13y ago
  I still can't see a sufficient justification for this. Even though it's far from clear that the DPRK would care enough about this to drop the big hammer on someone at KCNA (and of course their extended family) over it, I don't see why the risk is worth taking.

by mhoad 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pothibo 13y ago

I think that jokes and seriousness are not mutually exclusive. I made a small joke at the end of my comment not because I thought sending someone to the gulag is funny, but because speaking of serious stuff doesn't need to be all dark and serious, if you know what I mean. Never been to NK but from what I read, it seems like we would have made the world a favor if we'd invaded NK instead of Iraq (I know it's not practical and NK's invasion would be much, much harder than Iraq).

mhoad 13y ago
It's fine, it's just the nature of reading words on a screen with no other context. I don't disagree with your sentiment at all I guess the thought of this turning into a complete "look how stupid they are haha" thread made me slightly uneasy is all.
- pothibo 13y ago
  I can't say for other people but I can assure you my comment wasn't meant to say that they were stupid. They are like 15 years behind us in term of computer science. 15 years ago, I bet many services had javascript security like this one. The outcome is the only thing that might be different. Anyhow, I enjoyed this discussion ;)
shubb 13y ago
Regarding your last paragraph, the operation plans for conflict with north korea are sumarized on wikipedia. They essentially predict the north of south korea would be overrun, following artillary bombardment around the border / later Seol. Then the remaining south must hold until marines from the mainland US and Japan can arrive, and then there would be a long and costly war to push back into NK (which the US would win, providing public oppinion held). There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. This could help the US, or create wider conflict, depending on how it played out. Iraq and Afganistan were not wars on the same scale as Vietnam or WW2. NK probably would be. We can all hope it doesn't happen.
- leoc 13y ago
  > There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. I think most people consider that a near-certainty. The Chinese government has made it evident that it doesn't want a US-aligned Korea sharing a large land border with it, and doesn't want a flood of Korean refugees entering China.
- pothibo 13y ago
  Very interesting, thanks!
- avn2109 13y ago
  Invading the DPRK seems like a nightmare and I don't support it. But if the NATO powers were going to do it, I suspect they'd employ an overwhelming first strike, probably from the air/missiles, to knock out DPRK artillery, air power, and rail/logistical targets in the first few minutes of the war. Then they scramble enough planes-and-missiles in DPRK airspace to block out the sun, and any live-fire target or Southward troop movement is immediately deluged with firepower. The American military apparatus still subscribes, rightly or wrongly, to the notion that air superiority equals dominance; they've also learned the hard way to avoid boots on the ground if at all possible. This would probably be coupled with massive aerial food aid and propaganda drops to suppress the sort of popular insurrection that bedevils the Americans in Iraq. Then they hope the infantry can saunter in and meet the lightest possible resistance. Of course, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so things might not shake out that way.

pp19dd 13y ago

Agreed, there is a serious tone here that people should take in understanding how NK conducts itself. My interest here was just the data and a sincere explanation that there was no hacking involved or needed. Purpose of this wasn't to mock. It was to show that the world really did pay attention to NK. Kim Jong Il dying was a big thing. Guessing it made some people hopeful, some nervous. What's probably sure is that the nuclear test definitely made people nervous. With this data, measurably so. In my job I regularly evaluate whether to publish something, and it's never a light decision. Though this is a private item, I sat on it for a year and debated posting it monthly. Dozens of edits later, and the data kept nagging at me - so it's now out and done.

mhoad 13y ago
I don't mean this in some passive aggressive way at all but I was genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on why publish this at all. It's interesting data though for sure, I will give you that :)
leoc 13y ago
I still can't see a sufficient justification for this. Even though it's far from clear that the DPRK would care enough about this to drop the big hammer on someone at KCNA (and of course their extended family) over it, I don't see why the risk is worth taking.