digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

North Korea Performs Its First Nuke Test

cnn.com — South Korea reports the test...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • digitalsol, on 10/12/2007, -24/+86the rest of the world is *****... those guys are crazy...
    • fershizzle, on 10/12/2007, -101/+22these remarks are the kinds of things that make the rest of the world hate americans....do us all a favor...think before you speak or write
    • jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -14/+37get ready for the Korean War episode II: the clone wars
    • monowall, on 10/12/2007, -45/+3Fight back against oppressive governments: http://digg.com/security/10_Ways_to_Fight_Back_Against_Big_Brother
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45Test Verified:
      South Korea announced it detected a 3.58-magnitude seismic tremor at about 11:30 AEST.
      http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=131826®ion=2
    • IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41"these remarks are the kinds of things that make the rest of the world hate americans....do us all a favor...think before you speak or write"

      How did you determine digitalsol was American?
    • braingilbreath, on 10/12/2007, -27/+8"the rest of the world is *****."

      no i believe they are...
    • titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -34/+3We are *****/screwed/going to die/F'ed up the ass/raped. That is all
    • lazyrussian, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28Everyone shouldn't go crazy yet. It's just a preliminary. A lot of things will become interesting now but no reason to completely freak out ye.

      Rememebr, Iran and NK want to be considered equals to the rest of the world, hence their nuclear programs.
    • thejerm, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7reminds me of Team America... "herro"
    • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7@ lazyrussian

      ya, equals in the sense that they call for the total destruction of israel and/or america.
    • lazyrussian, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10@nreynolds

      I'm Jewish, so I know exactly what they want.
      And I am almsot positive it won't happen. American and Israel have a strong military bond. Israel has their own nukes and the best airforce in the world for many years now. Shin Bet & Mossad (their equivalents of the CIA and FBI) are very well informed and if anything is goign to happen, they'll know ahead of time.

    • djlancer42, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Siesmic data:

      http://digg.com/world_news/ASL_DCC_INCN_TELEMETRY_DATA

      Digg it!
    • blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15It is not twisted or insane to want nukes when other world powers claim that they have a right to nukes.
    • sniper6121, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I bet this company will start getting some orders.
      http://www.undergroundshelter.net
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25Kim Jong-Il wanted one-on-one talks with Bush. Bush told him to screw himself.
      Kim Jong-Il said he had nuclear weapons. Bush demanded people sanction him.
      China and Russia told Bush to slow his roll. Bush sat back and gave Kim Jong-Il an ultimatum.

      Here's the problem with US policy as of this minute. Our only diplomacy is at gunpoint and we're sort of comfortable with the fact that our guns are bigger. The problem is a gun is a damn gun. Now North Korea has a gun. It's not a big gun, but it is a gun after all.

      You have to ask yourself what would have been the cost of unilateral talks regardless of how much he was trying to stall. Is it better to have simply ignored him instead of trying to meet the guy on his terms? We didn't have to meet him on his terms, but it would have cost us nothing.

      Like I said in another post, the neocons love steps D-F but don't really care for steps A-C and F-Z. They don't want to follow the natural progression. Diplomacy should have been the first option and instead we actually tried to get a military alliance against North Korea before entering multi-party negotiations.

      Luckily, despite CNN trying to get Defense officials to commit to a battle plan, they've gotten smarter. I just listened to Gen. Kimmitt repeatedly say that military actions aren't even in the near future and diplomacy is the only thing being discussed.
    • sithmat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Let's see, would I feel safer with a nuke in the hands of an athiest nation like North Korea or a nuke in the hands of an extremist Islamic nation like Iran?

      Probably neither when both are run by maniacs.

      It really shows you that religious differences account for very little politically.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Waitasec... I suspect that govt may be developing some WMDs...

      We'd better find a Coalition of the Willing...
    • wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6And Bush II is not a mainiac?
    • Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I live and work in northern Seoul. No-one here seems to give a ***** other than Americans and some other foreigners. The government will no doubt express its outrage, but the people have other things to do.

      Who cares about nuclear weapons when you can buy a huge bottle of soju for 5,000 won?
  • fershizzle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38this could get interesting fast...
    • Roger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40I think you mean scary.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17I'm not scared. We've had unfriendly folks with nuclear weapons on the planet before. It made for a nice cold war. I like cold wars better than hot ones. God knows we would _never_ have invaded Iraq if Saddam had had nukes.
    • lazyrussian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@nfulton

      thats exactly what CNN and foxnews are saying right now.

      ALso I;m in DC, and there are a crapload of firetrucks outside the capitol area for the alst 45 mins (I love in foggy bottom, 6 block from there) - doubt it has anythig to do with this because they can't reach us, but it is an interesting coincidence.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42Here's what will happen in short order:

      1. China, USA, Japan, UN, etc.. condemns the test and completely cut off N. Korea
      2. N. Korea basically says F. U. to them and doesn't give in
      3. N. Korea's economy collapses (even further)
      4. Bad ***** happens

      I don't Know what Number 4 is but I'm just hoping it isn't a full blown war we have 250,000 Americans on that border... of course if N. Korea ever used a nuke against the US or it's allies N. Korea would be one giant piece of glowing glass about 45 minutes afterwards....
    • MiddleGirth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18They're already obliterating the Asian markets:

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EHSI
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8>4. Bad ***** happens

      The best thing for North Korea would be a coup by saner elements of their military that know what would happen to their country when they cease launching BS and start launching nukes.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6It would take about 45 minutes after the order is given to launch a nuke and have it hit North Korea... roughly...
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Maybe sooner if we have a couple of boomers parked in the WestPac.

      oh sorry:
      Boomers = subs that carry nukes
      WestPac - Western Pacific
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"They're already obliterating the Asian markets:"

      I wonder if they had to close? The graph has curiously come to an (almost) perfect stop, before which they dropped very rapidly. :-/ But yes, this could indeed cause some problems to the strong economic growth in the Asian region.

      I know many go for Asian stocks these days as it's been such a good area to invest in, but I wouldn't recommend that for a while.
    • anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@lazyrussian

      Foggy Bottom is about 25 blocks from Capitol Hill. It's not even that hard to figure out; Foggy Bottom is around 25th street, and the Capitol is on 1st street. Try again, liar.
  • opticaltempest, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38If this is a nuclear test, I wonder if the seismic data will show up here soon -

    http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/telemetry_data/INCN_24hr.html

    The detonation was reported around the time of 02:30:00 on the chart.
  • cjstone, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Is this the October Suprise????
    • Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5The bad thing about it is that this will be good for Republicans.
    • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -22/+15I don't think this will be good for Republicans. Bush could have been focusing on negotiations and cooperation with neigboring powers to prevent this from happening. Instead we're trapped in Iraq.

      However, having said that, it will make people scared, which leads to a shut down of the higher functioning areas of the brain, and that does generally lead to people voting Republican.
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -16/+25>>The bad thing about it is that this will be good for Republicans.

      JABF. Just Another Bush Failure. Bush had 6 years to defuse the situation. Does America really want the man responsible for the Iraq FUBAR to have unlimited power in dealing with North Korea and their nukes?
    • eUnSung, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Guys, don't get me wrong: I think Bush is a criminal, and that his war in Iraq is idiotic. But remember that NK has now laid their last card on the table, and the US hasn't even gotten started. Bush started this current policy pretty late in the game, but it seems to be working. The nuke test is proof of that. But feel free to blame him for the first four years he wasted on this...
    • cjstone, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7"However, having said that, it will make people scared, which leads to a shut down of the higher functioning areas of the brain, and that does generally lead to people voting Republican."

      I would bet this is Karl Rove's thinking. After the crap pulled in Iraq, I wouldn't doubt that the same gang would allow this to happen in Korea by doing nothing really to try to stop it.
    • soll, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31Can't people just stop fantasizing about how this hurts of helps the damn midterms? Some things are more important than politics.
    • Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11It will rally his base. Republicans are at their best when they have a bad guy to point at and the public is scared. Plus, it'll take the focus off of their scandals a bit. NK has said it would like to use the nukes on US soil, so that's a good boogeyman for the coservatives to use to scare the public into giving up more of their freedoms and ok the invasion of another country.
    • dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8soll: Politics will determine whether or not we get some sort of challenge to the Republican circle jerk that has avoided confrontation with North Korea for 6 ***** years. It's pretty damned important, to be realistic.
    • banter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@soll

      "The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best." - Thomas Sowell
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yes. I'm surprised.

      Kim Il Jung has always masterfully manipulated the press by dancing around a drastic action. Now that he has taken a drastic action, he has their complete attention.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Can't people just stop fantasizing about how this hurts of helps the damn midterms? Some things are more important than politics."

      In this case? I'm not sure. Only politics can stop a tragedy here. When some countries start testing nukes and others start wanting to build theirs (Iran), politics tend to get damn important.
  • NSAlabama, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Here we go...
  • cjstone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23State Department now say it's "likely" to be true, but still not confirmed...
    • candiru, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11That's all just for formality's sake; just like a murderer caught redhanded is still a "suspect".
  • Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17As I said before, this can't end well.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Actually, in the past the US has not attacked nuclear nations. NK can reach Japan and the west coast of the US. And they can hand nuclear weapons over to terrorists. If they have one bomb, they have others. Maybe we'll just decide to leave them alone.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18At least we know what these guys want.... They want to use this as a lever to get more aid (their economy is completely trashed). This would be a 1000x scarier if it were Iran. Their President has stated that he feels it is his holy obligation to cleanse the Earth of the Jews and their American allies. Him having acess to a nuke scares the crap out of me, as he would nuke Tel Aviv, Isreal would nuke back, and the spiral goes out of control.
    • braingilbreath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16China and Japan will attack, if anyone will.

      U.S. will probably help coordinate
    • soll, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I seriously doubt that was said.
    • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14the nuke is 4 tons and NK doesn't have a missile that can carry a warhead that's 4 tons yet. but they probably will soon.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5>in the past the US has not attacked nuclear nations.

      In the past, it wasn't actually necessary to do so. We have never had open hostilities with anyone in the "nuclear club". We went nose to nose with the Soviets but niether side actually pulled the trigger.

      NK or Iran would be good targets for surgical nuclear strikes. Unlike a super-power, their programs are in their infancy. They don't have an SS-20 or a Titan missile parked behind ever bush, their programs aren't robust and don't have redundancy.



    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@crombenevolent

      "This would be a 1000x scarier if it were Iran. Their President has stated that he feels it is his holy obligation to cleanse the Earth of the Jews and their American allies."

      You're an idiot spreading falsehoods. The Iranian president has never advocated the 'cleansing' of Jews or American allies. Am I wrong? Post a link to disprove me or shut up. The 'wipe Israel off the map' statement as already been proven to have been mis-translated, so when else did he openly talk of genocide?

      North Korea has already stated that they have the capability of striking the US mainland and now they've demonstrated that they have a nuclear weapon. Spin it all you want, but right now North Korea is the most dangerous member of the 'Axis of Evil'. Don't forget what Bush said:

      "We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon."

      "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

      So, the US administration has made a defining statement here. Now that one of America's enemies have a nuke, let's see how America responds. According to the Iraqi gameplan, we should see a full out invasion in a few months. If not, we can only deduce that either nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent or America is only interested in oil rich areas.
    • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Its obvious in this line of comments that very few people understand the nature of the Korean problem and why the North is able to get away with so much.
      The North Koreans have covered the border with artillery pointed directly at Seoul. Any military attack on them means sacrificing Seoul and the millions of people who live there.

      If we attack to make ourselves feel safer, its the South that pays the price.
  • zerocomm, on 10/12/2007, -16/+26We need to invade them while they still dont have a reliable delivery system
    • ronh, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24"We" needed to do something about this a long time ago, before we went on our little adventure in Iraq. Now militarily/politically the US has it's hands tied.
    • memphysema, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21When will people learn that there are MANY other alternatives then just invading a country... that should be the LAST option!
    • caseyho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6But they *can* reliably attack South Korea, and possibly Japan too. A proper U.S. invasion would require a base of operations in one of those two countries (I doubt China would help us). And I'm guessing they wouldn't be happy with the idea of launching a war against a nuclear-armed country from their soil.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10@memphysema
      Yeah, first you should go to the U.N. and they can sanction North Korea.
      Kim Jon Ill: Hey UN, you got a problem with that? You know what you should do? You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army--- oh! wait a minute - you don't have an army! I guess that means you need to shut the ***** up, that's what I'd do if I didn't have no army I would shut the ***** up. SHUT. THE. *****. UP!!! That's right!
      Then we should try to negotiate with them unilaterally while they develop a more reliable delivery system so they can hit something that someone gives a ***** about.

      @caseyho 3
      Theres a simple solution: Nuke them
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Our hands are tied...unless we institute a draft. I doubt Bush could get a draft, even from his (still) Republican Congress for North Korea, nor could he get a draft for Iraq, to be honest.
    • Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8You digg.libs are great. Military action in Iran? Nothing but cries of *****! COWBOY! NO NEGOTIATION USED! All of a sudden....*****! WHY DIDN'T HE INVADE! I almost hope you guys win the election, because it'll be a two-year laughfest watching the moonbats try to come up with one coherent idea while sitting at the adults' table.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>We need to invade them while they still dont have a reliable delivery system

      A 2 and a half ton truck or a cargo container would make an excellent delivery system.
  • wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Well, all this really means is the North Korea officially has nuclear weapons. Pretty much it has been acknowleged that they had enough weapons grade fissile material for several devices, and that it was likely they had built at least one. Now we know for sure.

    But Kim Jong Ill is still so ronrey.
  • Mastertoast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19This is quite interesting considering the U.N. just agreed on a draft saying that if N. Korea doesn't stop tests they'll get really angry. Well I guess we will just have to wait and see, although nuclear war with N. Korea does not sound particularly appetising.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30The UN is a joke. All they ever do is send "Angry Letters". It did not work in Rowanda, Somalia, or anywhere else. They refuse to use sanctions or force, without which the only thing that is left is stern dis-approval.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4If the UN had teeth, it would bite the US and others who attacked Iraq.

      Since we don't want to be bitten, we defang the UN.
    • Mastertoast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@crombenevolant

      Hence the role of the U.S then? Is this your point? I agree the U.N. is more or less good for nothing when it comes to force, and yet using force has only brought the U.S. a lot of ***** from it's people. Look at the cold war both sides did more or less nothing for a few years and then it was over, there seemed to be no real bitching when no one used force their. And yes, yes, the action taken by the U.S. today can be seen as harmful and quick but it seems to me that whenever a political body acts it gets criticized for not thinking it through, and when one does not act or "thinks it through" they get yelled at for being to slow. Now, I have strayed from the original bitch factor of your comment but hey I had a little more to say and your comment just happened to spark it off.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Masertoast
      Totally agree. The problem is America doesn't have the stomach to act on things. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. In the beginning a majority of the people supported both, but when they lasted longer than the average sitcom plot we lost interest. The America that won WWII and rebuilt Germany and Japan is gone. In it's place is a country so divided by partisanship that we will use any issue to rip the country in half for political gain. Make no mistake, if Gore or Kerry had one and were the one to put us in Iraq it would now be the Democrats defending the war and Republicans screaming against it. We are crippled by polarizing politics and a media that likes to pit the two against each other and report the casualties.....
    • Mastertoast, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@crombenevolant

      Completely see your point and agree wholeheartedly. It is not really the political party that is what is important but the party IN POWER that really takes all the crap. I'm sure that America would have been incredibly angry if we had not done anything about the war, however it has lasted as you said longer then we had anticipated (Nice insult on sitcoms by the way). The times of Kennedy have been lost forever, the way that he united the country was amazing, now the U.S. people only care about themselves. The patriotism and general "togetherness" of earlier eras has passed by. Without support for a government the government will surely fail, maybe not now or soon but eventually. This partisanship of America is really what is going to destroy us, not nuclear war or even any war in and of itself, but instead an internal "conflict" where our government will literally break down to the point of it having no power, either that or tyranny one of the two. It is sad that we as a people cannot just unite to try to get over each struggle one at a time, I understand of course the argument over things like gay rights and abortion, both moral and logical, but the things affecting the ENTIRE country are the things we need the entire country to unite behind. This division by party arguments are killing what was once a thriving and close knit country.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3If the UN could punish people for behaving badly, they probably would take exception to the pre-emptive war we waged on Iraq and/or Israel's unfortunate treatment of paliestinian people living under occupation (note they have a huge number of sanctions against them).

      So . . . I'm not sure the powers that be in the US (the last (ha hah) remaining super power) want a UN with teeth.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Ohhhh the UN is really mad.

      By the time they agree on what to do Kim Il Jung will die of old age.
    • clord, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5The UN is powerless precisely because the US and other security council members neuter it. Look at the voting record! US vetoes pretty much every motion that mentions Israel or the US in a negative way. Russia and China both protect their interests in the same way.

      The big powers are also the big problems, but while they maintain veto power, the problems are un-addressable.

      And now, in the neo-con age, even legitimate uses of the UN are neutered in order to sell weapons contracts and security services. Why can't we solve NK or Iran diplomatically? Because there is money to be made.
  • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4This is why the focus on Iraq and so called "Islamic Fascism" in the war on terror is a mistake.

    The Bush administration knew North Korea was on the verge of this milestone and did nothing. Worse, they chose to get us sucked into a military quagmire in a country that was not a threat.
    • xSid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13So called Islamic Fascism? You're joking right. These guys in charge of Iran are as closed to the Nazi's as we've gotten in the last 60 years. If for not other reason than they want to wipe out all Jews, which is Al Queda's mission and all these other terrorist groups goal.

      So 3 years ago would you have been up for invading North Korea instead? What would you have done. Don't complain when you don't have an answer.
  • digitalsol, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5U.S. vs. North Korea in a war now is out of the question... North Korea is going to get what it wants (bilateral negotiations with the US)... Way to go George Bush!
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Well, I wouldn't go that far. This administration is filled with utterly insane people. They killed 100,000 Iraqi's for no apparent reason.
    • Nomios, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1what the hell is wrong with that? If we would have started them years ago this would not be happening today.
    • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1um, dudes, we are STILL at war with North Korea. We have been in a state of cease fire.The war never officially ended.

      OTOH, since I'm picking at details. I should mention, the war in Iraq was never declared.
  • scottieosu2000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Now the question is what will be the response from the Japanese ? Will they go nuclear and if they do when? I think they will and possibly within a year.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Well, that would be interesting. Seems like the "wild west" solution to nuclear proliferation. If _everyone_ is armed, maybe no one shoots.
    • jackkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12They'd be crazy not to. Japan and S. Korea will be nuclear within a year. That will drive China ***** crazy.
    • digitalsol, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Japanese can go Nuclear within a day...
    • radda, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2The question isn't will they, it's if they're allowed to. Their constitution still prohibits them from having a proper military, but I don't know if that extends to something like nuclear weapons...even if that's the case, I wouldn't put it past this administration to give them nukes and put them along the shore. That would make Japan a bigger target of course, and that's the last think I want D:.
    • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5japan is hardly even allowed to have an army (as a result of the constitution we made them). they just got temporary permission to create one in case an attack on them is imminent. Japan is our ally and they won't do anything unless we tell them to. + we have nukes for them and our army will fight for them.
    • venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I highly doubt Japan will go nuclear. Japan will continue to rely on the US for nuclear deterrence. Worked well for the last few decades, why would this really change anything? Plus, as the only country to ever be actually nuked, there's a lot of political resistance to developing nuclear weapons in Japan.
    • rberger909, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sooner then that in my opinion. Japan has ALOT of nuclear power plants. They could "go nuclear" over night. As for them not being allowed to have a military, hence no uclear weapons, that is incorrect. They are allowed to have defensive forces and if they classified theie new nuke as defensive then their problem would be solved.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>They'd be crazy not to. Japan and S. Korea will be nuclear within a year. That will drive China ***** crazy.

      China will build more nukes to match their neighbors which have been historic rivals.

    • TheHal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Japan will never have a Nuclear Program. Like previous people have said they have a rather large 'army', which they aren't allowed to have, but they call it National Security, and do not use it in UN Peace Treaties etc. Japan earliest post WW2 Prime Ministers set up a Anti Nuclear program, and they will stick to it...

      They are the only country in the world to understand first hand what power a nuclearn bomb can deal.. two of them actually.
  • sullyj, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19"We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an *****. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get ***** by dicks. But dicks also ***** assholes: assholes that just want to ***** on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can ***** an ***** is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they ***** too much or ***** when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of ***** that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us ***** this *****, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in *****!"

    Sums it up nicely I think.
    • YabaYaba, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Don't know about anyone else but certainly I'm scared *****
    • candiru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Don't be too scared. That's not really the main aim of North Korea.
  • ravens326, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2This logic just does not make any sense. North Korea says it needs a nuclear weapons arsenal to protect against a US invasion. The US says if North Korea creates a nuclear weapons program, it will invade as a last option to try to disarm them. If N. Korea didn't create a weapons program in the first place, they wouldn't have to worry about an invasion. The preemptive move on their part just doesn't make sense. Nuclear weapons are bad for the environment, they must be banned!

    http://www.dpodgor.net
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6"bad for the environment" is the understatement of the year. A handfull of high yield nuclear weapons could wipe out all life on earth. Keep in mind that Hiroshima was 1 kiloton (ie 1000 tons of tnt) where modern nukes are in the 10-50 megaton range (ie 10-50 million tons of tnt).
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0Yeah, like _anyone_ should trust the US Government (under the Bush Administration) to not attack them.

      And regarding "bad for the environment" we've used milliions and millions of of tons of depleted uranium munitions (contaminated with plutonium) in Iraq and Afghanistan. We haven't banned those weapons, though the UN classifies them as WMD and the material is contaminating _our own soldiers_ as well as the Iraqi and Afghan people.

      So if we are going to "ban weapons that are bad for the environment" we have a lot of banning to do here at home.
    • dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"A handfull of high yield nuclear weapons could wipe out all life on earth."

      Hardly.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2@dhakbar
      All it would take is about 6. While most of the inhabitants would survive the initial explosion, nuclear winter would ensue. The sheer amount of dirt and debri kicked up into the atmosphere would block out the sun, for years. Pretty much the same thing as the extinction of the dinosaurs. Don't underestimate the cleverness of the human species when it comes to destroying ourselves.
    • dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The dinosaurs weren't "all life on earth." Mammals survived and now we exist. Nukes aren't going to annihilate life on earth. Period. Life has made it through much more significant environmental shocks than humanity is going to produce with nuclear weaponry.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5The US Military has used hundreds of millions of pounds of depleted uranium munitions (fresh out of reactors, contaminated with plutonium) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.htm

      So if we are banning environmentally unfriendly weapons, we should start here at home. Especially since US soldiers are in the theater we are contaminating.
    • xSid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes I'm sure the nut jobs that are in charge of North Korea and Iran are going to pay attention to a nuclear ban. Hello, the only people that pay attention to laws are good people.
    • crombenevolant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@dhakbar
      The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was not radioactive, and there was only one of them. That gave the mammals a heads up over us. I do get a kick out of your blind optimism though. The world would be a better place if everyone was as positive as you.....
      • skith86, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0The asteroid that allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs had the explosive force of well over 1000 hiroshima bombs. And the fallout radius even though it wasnt radioactive, was much larger. An asteroid the size of a city smashing into the earth from millions of miles away at a thousand miles a second could easily do more damage then a couple of North Korean nukes.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Yes I'm sure the nut jobs that are in charge of North Korea and Iran are going to pay attention to a nuclear ban. Hello, the only people that pay attention to laws are good people."

      So what does that make us?
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The worlds nuclear powers have popped over 500 nukes in the open atmosphere since 1945. 1200+ underground tests.

      And people think cigarettes are causing cancer.
  • drpeppper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56these ***** better not delay the wii
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Is North Korea a big market for the Wii? Maybe we should send them a few million Wii's to mollify them and stress out their electrical grid.
  • dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19Ignoring North Korea for the last two presidential terms was a horrible, horrible mistake. Add this to the list of massive failures on the part of the Bush administration.
  • HotGore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Game over man, game over!
    • victimofkratina, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1lol, gilligans down, gilligans down!
  • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Some of you diggers should ask your parents what life was like during the cold war with the Soviet Union. Really, relax. Any nuke launched by North Korea would mean their *complete* destruction. Yeah, Kim Jong-Il is kaka for coocoo puffs, but so were other nuclear powered rulers in history. M.A.D works, as does diplomacy.
    • digitalsol, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5uh, the point is, they dont reallly care if they destroy themselves... they just want to take down others with them... kim jong would like nothing more than to take a chunk of the U.S. down with him if he goes down...
    • ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Exactly, especially considering the number of nuclear weapons that the US and Russia still have.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Thanks to Reagan's vision and pushes by many Presidents after him we now have a missile protection system, just hope we don't ever have to use it.
    • memphysema, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1digitalsol . . .

      So we better make sure no one tries to take Kim down . . . he might well be able to reach hawaii as well as japan.
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6>>uh, the point is, they dont reallly care if they destroy themselves

      Kim Jong doesn't enjoy his life as supreme dictator of his country? How do you know this? That's news to me.

      Sit back, relax, read a bit and view the situation from a calm, objective perspective. With your logic, the US should have freaked out and began a nuclear assault on the USSR the moment Nikita Khrushchev banged his SHOE on his table at the UN and when he declared "we will bury you".
    • Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@digitalsol

      Do you not believe in the ability for other countries like the US to contain whatever weapons he has? The US spends a lot of cash on defense. They probably have a trick or two up their sleeves.
  • d722002, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Japan better get ready to kick some Kim Jong Il ass...
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11You want Japan to be nuked *again*?
    • xSid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3China is scared ***** of Japan they still remember what happened in WWII, and if Japan goes nuclear and begins building a military that has offensive potential it is going to get ugly fast. However I think the Chinese have made this mess it's time they lay down in it.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You have to be kidding me?
      Japan's military is be definition for defense purposes only... but they aren't stupid They have a navy that can wipe out China's in seconds, as well as air force. The only thing china has over Japan right now is ground forces but that ain't much when your enemy has complete Naval and Air suppority.

      but that not the point Japan and China are allies in this sense. Just imagine Two neighbors who don't like each other suddenly has another crazy neighbor that's threatening the life of their kids they will work together to stop that one crazy neighbor and worry about the small ***** later...
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8>>but that not the point Japan and China are allies in this sense. Just imagine Two neighbors who don't like each other suddenly has another crazy neighbor that's threatening the life of their kids they will work together to stop that one crazy neighbor

      Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4+digg for star trek reference
  • smittyfree, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3All your nukes are belong to us.
  • mrpink.137, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Digg should have an "OH F&%$!" category.
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I wonder how many times George just ***** his pants?
  • bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21This is not a Bush failure, nor is it a failure of any administration, in general. This is North Korea being North Korea. True, Clinton had the old agreement with North Korea, but even as North Korea was supposedly playing nice, every intelligence service knew that North Korea continued to develop their weapons and delivery systems.

    So, what could be done with North Korea? Even if they have a nuclear weapon (as far as a tit-for-tat, the US is 3,000 or so warheads ahead of them), their ability to damage the Korean peninsula remains about the same. Sure - it's nuclear, but for those who wanted "something to be done" by Bush, what? North Korea doesn't negotiate. It is, for all purposes, a backward bastion of Communism - the kind that Tom Clancy writes novels about. Invade North Korea? Ok, take a look at the estimated casualties of a North/South Korean war - 1,000,000 casualties IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS. Seoul is an easy target for the thousands of artillery pieces across the border. For those who think Iraq is a "quagmire," such a conflict would demonstrate what a quagmire truly is - now with the added bonus of everybody glowing in the dark for years.


    • xSid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Exactly one of the Ohio class subs parked off their cost is more than enough to make North Korea glow in the dark for a quiet 10,000 years. All I can say is thank God I live in Iowa.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Allowing Kim Jon Ill to get nukes is clearly a Bush conspiracy. See, his missile range is at the most California and thats a blue state, Bush knows he needs to knock off California to keep a Republican majority. He will provoke North Korea before the elections to:
      1. Drive up gas prices
      2. Keep Republicans in power
      3. Declare he is now dictator
      4. Kill homosexuals
      5. Kill Michael Moore
      6. BTW he already has Arnold out of there so he doesn't die

      /takes off tin foil hat and sees the world isn't as ***** as the ***** libs want me to think
  • obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2They blew it up! Those crazy sons-of-bitches blew it up!
  • JonBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -31/+3Asians are ***** up. Why should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons when they cant even open their eyes? How do they know what they are shooting at?
    • ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I doubt most people could be as racist as you have been if they were in the World Championship of Bigots, with a million dollars prize money.
    • cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I am a Malaysian-Chinese. =( . I am not racist myself but I always find some racist *****. Why?
  • MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10What's idiotic of North Korea is the fact that almost EVERY country is against this test, including their allies, for example, China. China even reportedly gave us a heads up once they learned.

    -Mike
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5North Korea does _not_ want to be Iraq. It was on the Axis of Evil list composed by Bush along with Iran. We have the Enterprise, Eisenhower and Fifth Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf preparing for a blockade to support sanctions on Iran. We are openly discussing air strikes and regime change.

      North Korea does NOT want to be Iran (which has been playing by that stupid Non Proliferation Treaty terms for several years).

      Kim says "I notice you leave nuclear nations alone . . . "
  • irie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1The first posting on this post , by Digitalsol- stands.
  • Halenthal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Is there anyone that thinks N Korea having nuclear weapons is a good thing? Anyone at all?
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I think it might be a good thing. They don't have many and it shows _exactly_ why Bush's strategy won't work. Attacking Iraq and screwing with Iran (who has been obeying the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, unlike Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, India) demonstrates that the ONLY defense against a rogue superpower is atomic weapons.

      We've had unfriendly's with nuclear weapons before, and Mutually Assured Destruction made for cold wars (with hot spots in _NON_ nulcear nations) rather than hot ones like WWI and WWII.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3well... let's see... We have something to calibrate OUR nukes against?

      .... not good more like sinister and evil... oh well...
    • Adoozie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No, hence the nervousness.
    • evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@nfulton
      Pakistan, India and Israel are not and never were signatories to the NPT. North Korea was but withdrew in 2003, a step I think everyone else should do, cause it isn't work beans.
    • LordLucless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Those in power in North Korea might. I know if I was a country at loggerheads with the US, and saw what they did to Iraq, I'd probably invest in a bit of deterrence too.
  • rmmcclay, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Bush's refusal to engage in any meaningful dialog with North Korea is certain a factor.

    Deadly Silence
    ----------------------
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/07/06/missiles/
  • mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I wonder what letterhead the UN will draft their strongly worded letter on. The blue is nice, but they may want to go with a more "we're serious" color.
  • MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3You know, if it wasn't for Bush canceling the program Clinton set up to keep them happy, we might not have this problem. They are just hungry, and they have been begging for help, but no one wants to help, instead we just poke them around and when they get something like a nuke to bargain with they are suddenly terrorists.

    When people have nothing to loose, they are really dangerous. I saw we start shipping them food. Kim said he is willing to make talks. So why don't we make talks. Or does our pres Bush just want to be the starter of WW3
    • mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5You are missing the point. We wanted 6-party talks to keep allies in the loop and allow for greater pressure form N. Korea's neighbors. I take it you would have rather have only us involved further alienating any allies we have?
    • Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Yeah. All we had to do was give them a sandwich, and KJI will stop being crazy. Riiiiiiiight. You digg.libs crack me up.
    • candiru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If we had maintained a program of giving them what they wanted, their demands would change constantly. This was their aim all along.
  • Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11i hope they commit to a real publicized nuke blast seen 'round the world and let the everyone know they mean business. maybe then the bleeding hearts will realize its time to (in the words of ari gold) "knock off the hippie *****, strap on a helmet and start shooting."
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Cool, see you on the front lines (you are enlisted, right?).
    • Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I was, Optimus, and served in theatre for OIF, and I am now in the reserves ready to get called back. How you like dem apples you hippie.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's my understanding that this was a test of a non-weaponized nuke. It's too large to put into a launchable warheard form?

    If anyone has any more info on the size of the blast and the form of the weapon, I would love it.

    If you remember the1st tests of nukes during the Manhattan project, the nukes were huge, cumbersome things.
    • Sophistifunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"If you remember the1st tests of nukes during the Manhattan project, the nukes were huge, cumbersome things."

      And weeks later they were dropping on Japan.
    • js530, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"And weeks later they were dropping on Japan."

      From a modified B29 they were affraid wouldn't be able to take off. With South Korea's radar coverage, the only feasible "suprise" attack would be from a missile.
    • pmr07, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, this is essentially the case. The North Koreans don't have the capability to deliver the weapon themselves. So despite the test, they are not an immediate threat. However, there is a known history of North Korean weapons showing up in Iran.

      Plus, the North Koreans are actively pursuing a delivery method of their own. Don't forget the TD-2 test of this past July.
  • Barbrady, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Thank you Bill Clinton for giving N Korea nuclear technology!
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Actually, it was Pakistan who gave NK the technology. And Bush let Musharraf give A Q Kahn (the guy in Pakistan who ran the open air nuke market) a happy retirement.

      So blame Pakistan (Bush's Ally on the war on terror) :)
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Let's just stop this now OK?
    • ServerMonk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@garyh84:
      Seriously. It's like a ***** meme these days.
  • bravefire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16These factually based stories are the stories that should be dugg as opposed to negatively biased-based stories which are so popular on digg. You know the anti -bush, anti-christian, anti-america, pro liberal agenda coupled with some serious hate for windows users posts. Arghh.
    /blanket statement
  • storminnorman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4this is the same ***** kim jong nutbag has been pulling for years, the only diffrence is W said ***** you whe he said give me money or else. so you know what? now he's got his bomb, and nobody will give a rats ass, MAD works=or kim jong nutbag will glow in the dark. and don't blame this on W, nutbag has been workign on this for a hell of alot longer than 6 years. he does it to get money put of the rest of us, to pay for the damn program while his people eat f'n tree bark. where is horatio sans on SNL when we need him??? his Kim Jong Il impersonation was the BEST!
  • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Kim Jong-Il called our bluff. We have no cards in our hands.
    We won't attack N. Korea and the N. Korean top brass knows it.
    What are the chances anything substantive will happen to N. Korea
    over this test?
    Will we throw up a naval blockade around N.K.? No.
    Will China cut N. K. off from economic aid? No.

    The significance of this nuclear test is that North Korean nuke hardware
    is now worth more on the black market since it's been shown to work.
    Iran is interested in some of that hardware, as well as Saudi Arabia.
    The N. Koreans are in a situation to start making a profit off of their
    nuclear program.
    • Nomios, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0no, that will never happen because we invaded Iraq....
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, that's true . . . NK could take up where Pakistan left off in the Nuclear Proliferation market. That is actually a pretty good Cash Crop I dare say.
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nomios,

      Sorry guy, but it would take a hell of a lot more than 150,000 troops to invade North Korea.
  • expresso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The guys who just released the game Defcon sure have a great timing.
  • Andyz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2We will do everything in our powers to stop iran in having a nuclear plant for electricity. war is possible get everything we have ready and plan it out. Diplomatic intervention first with iran . Make sure this iranian government know who they are dealing with.

    oooops .. who again did a nuclear test.
    usa blink now start shaking .....
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1We screw with Iran because they _do not_ have a nuclear weapon. Did I mention the Enterprise, the Eisenhower, and the Fifth Strike Groups now heading to the Persian Gulf to execute a blockade?

      We screw with Iran because they _do not_ have a nuclear weapon. NK does not want to be Iran or Iraq.
    • zombo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, but Iran wants to be North Korea.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>We screw with Iran because they _do not_ have a nuclear weapon. NK does not want to be Iran or Iraq.

      The geography of Iran and North Korea are really ugly for fighting. The Korean War was miserable. In WWII Anzio and Monte Cassino were fought in similar terrain and that was a horrific meat grinder.

      Iran is a much bigger threat than NK. They actually have an economy and infrastructure capable of fighting a protracted war. Their military is competent and they have developed their own domestic arms industry.

      NK could throw one hell of a fight for about a month and then they would literally run out of gas.
  • neggbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/stnsdata/wf/index_e.php?filter=autoscaled&hour=13&station=first&tpl_region=yt_wnt&type=network&year=2006&month=10&day=8#SECTION_1

    Earthquake stations in the Yukon detected something...
  • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2This is what will happen...

    The dicks on wall street will see this as a prime time to get gas prices back to $3/gal. because they read the news paper in the morning and saw the word "nuke"

    And I will further my investment to get my home with solar panels....so I can get away from the death grip of energy cost.
  • evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6At the risk of being called crazy, tomorrow George Bush should call for, if he doesn't have the power to do it him self, the withdraw of the United State from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Then we should proceed to help our allies in the region to nuke up and get missile defense programs going. Or else we should also make a preemptive declaration that should Non-State entities get nukes and use them, that we will be very cross with North Korea.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Uh . . . we don't obey the NPT now, so its not necessary to withdraw.

      NK and Iran have both pointed out that the US, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India do NOT obey the NPT.
  • danakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Sheet sheet guys! Fire ze missiles!!!
  • vbbx, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Going to make some terrorist group a really nice big nuke truck bomb. Which group gets the first one? Hezbollah? Hamas? al Qaeda? Ah what the heck does it matter, they are all the same Islamo-Fascists or Commies, they all hate US. --- But -- Where is it going to go? Israel? Iraq? Afghanistan? NY City harbor? LA Harbor?

    Thanks Bill Clinton, your 1994 pact really worked. Never trust Democrats with national security.

    Back to the important stuff, we rejoin the Democrats gay witch hunt in progress.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Vbbx . . . you must be joking. The cretin in the white house ignored multi-national terrorists including bin laden in order to go beat the crap out of Iraq (so he could give his buddies tens of billions in no bid contracts).

      When he KNEW Iraq did not have WMD.

      Your guy makes a treaty with the guys who gave NK the nuclear weapons technology (along with Malaysia -- google A Q Kahn) and picks a fight with Iraqn who DOES obey the NPT and somehow its clinton's fault that NK had a nuclear bomb test.

      The 1994 pact worked great. This deal is Bush's disaster top to bottom :)
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7>>Which group gets the first one? Hezbollah? Hamas? al Qaeda? Ah what the heck does it matter, they are all the same Islamo-Fascists or Commies

      Do you even know what Communism and Fascism *are*?

      Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

      Communism is an ideology which seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of any forms of private property.


      The word you're looking for is theocracy.
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Stop this Clinton *****. It's getting a little old. He was president 6 years ago and signed a treaty 12 years ago that somehow made North Korea to create nukes... alright.
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Theocracy is the ideology "islamist extremists" subscribe to, not communism or fascism. Put down the TV remote and pick up a book or two.
    • Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6One of the reasons you hear the word 'Islamo-Fascism' bounced around is the fact that many right wingers in the US would like to see a form of theocracy instituted in their own country (beginning with a further tearing down of the seperation of church and state). Better to keep that word hush-hush and stick with some other pejorative (and inaccurate) labels.
  • Barbrady, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Thank God Jimmy Carter went over there and came back to the U.S. proclaiming peace in our time and that Kim had agreed to stop nuclear weapons development.

    Clinton gave them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food and a reactor and Kim produces a nuke. Great ideal, Bill!
    • fufubag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1there is this thing called political cultism (works for both parties). People will digg this down because they biologically CANNOT agree with it because they are too programmed to follow their own party's actions. Their brain will not let them believe the facts. There have been many studies done on this. Go to the "cult" entry on wikipedia and scroll down to the 'political party' section.
    • phort99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2fufubag: I dugg you down because you didn't really say anything, you just asked me to do research and immediately started subtly complaining about the workings of Digg. "there is this thing called political cultism[, now go LOOK IT UP! Digg hates my comments!]" You could've just told us what it was, but I'd rather insult your post than do actual research on what you just said.
  • dbmoodb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Like i said in the other post of this - Ummm dudes if Kim Il Jung, his family and senior officials go missing (shifty eyes) then the problem will be solved. Remove the leaders and the rest just fall...
    • candiru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's a very common mistake but...yeah... Current leader is Kim Jung-Il. His father was Kim Il Sung. There is no Kim Il Jung.
      Okay, so yeah, anyway, a problem is that Kim Jung Il is in almost constant hiding. They take so many precautions against assassinations--I'm sure it's one of their main concerns.
    • wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So state sponsored murder is the solution to your problems you create. gotcha.

      So when do we murder Bush II and Blair?
  • GerryDaman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This is kinda scary considering i'm working in Seoul right now...just less than 100 miles from the DMZ!!! Should I be contacting the Canadian Embassy anytime soon? Maybe we should cancel our trip to the DMZ!!! >:-|

    Will be posting updates on my blog after work...
    http://thedailykimchi.blogspot.com
  • scooter17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Give Kim Jong Ill a break, he's just ronery. Do you have any idea how ***** busy he is? If you piss him off, he'll put Hans Blix in an aquarium full of nurse sharks.
  • kyhwana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1See http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=264663077&size=o
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.