4 ms·

It is quite interesting how so many are hoping against hope that it was not North Korea. I don't really see why they are emotionally attached.

Alupis 12y ago
There's no emotions involved -- just like there's no evidence involved. It's flat out wrong to blame some small and non-credible-threat country for something they likely had nothing to do with just to advance a political agenda. North Korea is not a great country... but that doesn't mean a "global leader" like the USA can just pin something on them with zero evidence.
- davidw 12y ago
  Non-credible-threat? North Korea? I'm not a fan of the US' foreign policy in some ways, and certainly place no blind faith in the declarations of the government, but, that doesn't exactly make North Korea the 'good guys'... http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14255&LangID=E http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass...
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > Non-credible-threat? North Korea? Their nuclear program claims it has a range of 4,000KM, but to reach the USA it would take about 10,000KM. Not to mention their last missile launch test could not even escape their border. That's what I mean when I say non-credible threat; they are incapable of inflicting meaningful harm to the USA. They are really all bark and no bite... > oesn't exactly make North Korea the 'good guys'. Of course not. Nobody said they are -- they just simply aren't the "bad guys" we are looking for in this specific case.
    - davidw 12y ago
      > they just simply aren't the "bad guys" we are looking for in this specific case. You seem to be awfully certain. Frankly, I have no idea and am quite skeptical of people who profess such certainty in the face of so few facts. Seems to be the kind of thinking where you have a conclusion and look around for facts to support it.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        > You seem to be awfully certain Perhaps I overspoke a tad. I'm awfully skeptical is better put. We're largely a scientific community here at HN. Something is False until proven True. You may have a hypothesis, but it's just that, an educated guess as-to the result. To prove something True you must present overwhelming evidence. We have none of that here... What we do have is a hypothesis being perpetuated as fact in the face of almost zero concrete evidence. The FBI first says "there is zero evidence to suggest North Korea has anything to do with the hack". Then some "high level anonymous White House official" "leaks" to the NY Times that they believe it's North Korea, and it takes the FBI 3 full days to change their public announcement, yet present zero concrete evidence. This was a rudimentary hack against a private company, there's nothing that would be classified or kept top secret here. Sony should do a full disclosure. Until then, we can not be certain of anything.
    - rgbrenner 12y ago
      but to reach the USA it would take about 10,000KM. Not to mention their last missile launch test could not even escape their border. I don't think a failed experiment is evidence that they're incapable. Did you know that a couple of years ago, NK launched their first satellite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy%C5%8Fngs%C5%8Fng-3_Unit_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy%C5%8Fngs%C5%8Fng-3_Unit... and the missile used (Unha 3) has a 10000 KM range and is capable of reaching the western US (with at least a 200kg payload): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha
      - Alupis 12y ago
        They have managed to put a single satellite into low orbit (back in 2012) which is only about 2,000KM (a far cry from the 10,000KM you claim)... and only after several failed attempts. Regardless, the flight characteristics of a space-bound launch vehicle are far different from an ICBM, and are very easily detectable and intercepted by just about all countermeasures. They would be more of a threat to South Korea of an attack than on US soil. To the US, they are a non-credible threat.
mijoharas 12y ago
I wouldn't say it is being emotionally attached to be sceptical of something that is presented without solid evidence.

Alupis 12y ago

There's no emotions involved -- just like there's no evidence involved. It's flat out wrong to blame some small and non-credible-threat country for something they likely had nothing to do with just to advance a political agenda. North Korea is not a great country... but that doesn't mean a "global leader" like the USA can just pin something on them with zero evidence.

davidw 12y ago
Non-credible-threat? North Korea? I'm not a fan of the US' foreign policy in some ways, and certainly place no blind faith in the declarations of the government, but, that doesn't exactly make North Korea the 'good guys'... http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14255&LangID=E http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?Ne... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass...
- Alupis 12y ago
  > Non-credible-threat? North Korea? Their nuclear program claims it has a range of 4,000KM, but to reach the USA it would take about 10,000KM. Not to mention their last missile launch test could not even escape their border. That's what I mean when I say non-credible threat; they are incapable of inflicting meaningful harm to the USA. They are really all bark and no bite... > oesn't exactly make North Korea the 'good guys'. Of course not. Nobody said they are -- they just simply aren't the "bad guys" we are looking for in this specific case.
  - davidw 12y ago
    > they just simply aren't the "bad guys" we are looking for in this specific case. You seem to be awfully certain. Frankly, I have no idea and am quite skeptical of people who profess such certainty in the face of so few facts. Seems to be the kind of thinking where you have a conclusion and look around for facts to support it.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      > You seem to be awfully certain Perhaps I overspoke a tad. I'm awfully skeptical is better put. We're largely a scientific community here at HN. Something is False until proven True. You may have a hypothesis, but it's just that, an educated guess as-to the result. To prove something True you must present overwhelming evidence. We have none of that here... What we do have is a hypothesis being perpetuated as fact in the face of almost zero concrete evidence. The FBI first says "there is zero evidence to suggest North Korea has anything to do with the hack". Then some "high level anonymous White House official" "leaks" to the NY Times that they believe it's North Korea, and it takes the FBI 3 full days to change their public announcement, yet present zero concrete evidence. This was a rudimentary hack against a private company, there's nothing that would be classified or kept top secret here. Sony should do a full disclosure. Until then, we can not be certain of anything.
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    but to reach the USA it would take about 10,000KM. Not to mention their last missile launch test could not even escape their border. I don't think a failed experiment is evidence that they're incapable. Did you know that a couple of years ago, NK launched their first satellite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy%C5%8Fngs%C5%8Fng-3_Unit_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy%C5%8Fngs%C5%8Fng-3_Unit... and the missile used (Unha 3) has a 10000 KM range and is capable of reaching the western US (with at least a 200kg payload): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unha
    - Alupis 12y ago
      They have managed to put a single satellite into low orbit (back in 2012) which is only about 2,000KM (a far cry from the 10,000KM you claim)... and only after several failed attempts. Regardless, the flight characteristics of a space-bound launch vehicle are far different from an ICBM, and are very easily detectable and intercepted by just about all countermeasures. They would be more of a threat to South Korea of an attack than on US soil. To the US, they are a non-credible threat.

mijoharas 12y ago

I wouldn't say it is being emotionally attached to be sceptical of something that is presented without solid evidence.