3 ms·

Why do so many commenters desperately wish it to not be North Korea? I don't understand why it matters. There will be no war, they are already isolated and are

Why do so many commenters desperately wish it to not be North Korea? I don't understand why it matters. There will be no war, they are already isolated and are known for strange behavior.

AlyssaRowan 12y ago
I would actually be somewhat happy if it were; at least it'd peg the DPRK's malware capability at "rank amateur", only a threat to actors with extremely negligent security… …if 'happy' is the right word to use about nation-states of any size sabre-rattling with malware, and I'm not sure that it is! But it's clear whoever did this probably isn't a highly technically competent threat (or, at least, are pretending not to be).
nkozyra 12y ago
I think you're misreading skepticism. Most of the world lacks any background or education to be able to look at and analyze the attack, and will accept whatever their told about the source and nature. People that run in more technical or security-related fields might be privy to more tools in the analytical toolbox. It's probably also quite likely that trust in US defense intel is not at an all-time high, exacerbating said skepticism.
- meowface 12y ago
  Personally I think the FBI is probably correct in their assessment, but I can understand the public's skepticism when you look at the Iraq WMD debacle.
rmetzler 12y ago
There were no chemical weapons in Iraq and no babies were killed. There wasn't any connection with Al Kaida. The US lied about that and started a war. Why shouldn't they lie about North Korea?
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Mostly because, unlike with Iraq, it's difficult to tell what agenda is being furthered by pinning this on NK.
- kuhhk 12y ago
  There WERE chemical weapons in Iraq as recently reported by the New York Times [1]. I'm not saying this was justification for war, but informing you of incorrect facts. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleea...
  - shrikant 12y ago
    You're technically correct in that chemical weapons were found, but the bigger picture is that that these were manufactured before 1991. Also, the US government itself deliberately suppressed knowledge of these findings because they made the "active WMD programme" basis for going to war look even more dubious. All of this is mentioned in the linked article.

Why do so many commenters desperately wish it to not be North Korea? I don't understand why it matters. There will be no war, they are already isolated and are known for strange behavior.

AlyssaRowan 12y ago

I would actually be somewhat happy if it were; at least it'd peg the DPRK's malware capability at "rank amateur", only a threat to actors with extremely negligent security… …if 'happy' is the right word to use about nation-states of any size sabre-rattling with malware, and I'm not sure that it is! But it's clear whoever did this probably isn't a highly technically competent threat (or, at least, are pretending not to be).

nkozyra 12y ago

I think you're misreading skepticism. Most of the world lacks any background or education to be able to look at and analyze the attack, and will accept whatever their told about the source and nature. People that run in more technical or security-related fields might be privy to more tools in the analytical toolbox. It's probably also quite likely that trust in US defense intel is not at an all-time high, exacerbating said skepticism.

meowface 12y ago
Personally I think the FBI is probably correct in their assessment, but I can understand the public's skepticism when you look at the Iraq WMD debacle.

rmetzler 12y ago

There were no chemical weapons in Iraq and no babies were killed. There wasn't any connection with Al Kaida. The US lied about that and started a war. Why shouldn't they lie about North Korea?

pdabbadabba 12y ago
Mostly because, unlike with Iraq, it's difficult to tell what agenda is being furthered by pinning this on NK.
kuhhk 12y ago
There WERE chemical weapons in Iraq as recently reported by the New York Times [1]. I'm not saying this was justification for war, but informing you of incorrect facts. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleea...
- shrikant 12y ago
  You're technically correct in that chemical weapons were found, but the bigger picture is that that these were manufactured before 1991. Also, the US government itself deliberately suppressed knowledge of these findings because they made the "active WMD programme" basis for going to war look even more dubious. All of this is mentioned in the linked article.