North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

To be fair he wouldn't be the first person to declare war against the water. Caligula did declare war against Poseidon. He told his men to throw spears randomly into the water. I have no idea how you would classify the winner of that war.
He should have known that in the war against man and nature, there is only one winner.

More recently but no less apocryphally there's the story of the good ol' boys who decided to teach Hurricane Irma a lesson.
 
...NK hackers steal US-SK war plans, BBC.

Among the intel stolen, includes a plan to assassinate the fatty Kim Jong-Un. The hacking apparently took place September last year.
 
So how secure are SK military servers if a country with pretty much basic DSL if anything can hack and steal data?
 
So how secure are SK military servers if a country with pretty much basic DSL if anything can hack and steal data?
North Korean hackers have been trained by China, Also South Korea has the best Internet Speed in the world I would be surprised if they are not tapped into that.
 
So how secure are SK military servers if a country with pretty much basic DSL if anything can hack and steal data?

As insecure as every other system in the world. The first thing I used to teach security engineers was that people are broken. We used to phish passwords (using 'normal' external sites) from one or two of them in the days leading up to the seminar to prove it. The methods for such attacks are well established and haven't really changed in 40 years.

I'm not saying that this is how the attack was undertaken but it's the easiest way. You don't even need to be in live data spaces to leverage your passwords, very often such attacks take place in backup areas.
 
As insecure as every other system in the world. The first thing I used to teach security engineers was that people are broken. We used to phish passwords (using 'normal' external sites) from one or two of them in the days leading up to the seminar to prove it. The methods for such attacks are well established and haven't really changed in 40 years.

I'm not saying that this is how the attack was undertaken but it's the easiest way. You don't even need to be in live data spaces to leverage your passwords, very often such attacks take place in backup areas.

But one would expect a military server that hosts top secret information would be more secure than your standard server.
 
May seem like a stupid question, but why are top secret plans accessible through the internet anyway? Surely that information wouldn't be kept anywhere that could be hacked into so that you would have to physically steal it.
 
May seem like a stupid question, but why are top secret plans accessible through the internet anyway? Surely that information wouldn't be kept anywhere that could be hacked into so that you would have to physically steal it.

Seems it was kept on an "Online Military" server.
I guess so anyone could access it but it is asking for trouble.
They should be encrypted if they're going to be accessed online with a 4098bit encryption and needing a decryption token on your PC to decrypt would be a smarter way.
 
In before anonymous sources claim Russian hackers were assisting the North Koreans.

So, the US and SK were/are planning a war against NK? Is that still considered to be the supreme international crime?
 
In before anonymous sources claim Russian hackers were assisting the North Koreans.

So, the US and SK were/are planning a war against NK? Is that still considered to be the supreme international crime?

No.

Charges for War Crimes or similar are only for poor countries as why hasn't blair, bush and howard been charged?
 
Seems it was kept on an "Online Military" server.
I guess so anyone could access it but it is asking for trouble.
They should be encrypted if they're going to be accessed online with a 4098bit encryption and needing a decryption token on your PC to decrypt would be a smarter way.

The attack, as we knew last year, took place via intranet - an authenticated area. Key holding is not secure any more than your car keys are. I take your keys, I've got your car. At some point a human has to authenticate into a keychain and has to be able to retrieve keys/certificates. There's a bit of Dilbert about encryption - bosses like to think they have it but rarely realise that it only works against outsiders. Add to that the fact that today's gold standard is processable on tomorrow's microwave oven. Encryption tech from five years ago is useless now. How do you refresh your multi-Tb backups securely?

Often the only way to discover outsiders inside is to monitor outbound traffic - hacks often generate remarkably little unusual inbound traffic. It seems in this case that the outbound traffic was what raised the red flag.

So, the US and SK were/are planning a war against NK? Is that still considered to be the supreme international crime?

Planning a war is not a crime. Planning a 'war of aggression' is a crime but I don't recall any case where the war wasn't undertaken before the planning was a recognisable crime under that statute. Simply planning for a war against a country that says it is at war with you would be an obvious thing to do, surely?
 
It's somewhat reasonable to say that they are still at war. South Korea (and its US support) and North Korea (and its Chinese support) are currently in a long-standing ceasefire. No peace treaty was ever signed in 1953. The Soviet Union might not be backing up North Korea any more but the status quo from 1953 is still in effect. I think the most appropriate term is a military stalemate.

Then again, one could also argue that they were never "at war" as no official declaration of war was ever issued; North Korea simply invaded the southern half of the peninsula without any issued documentation and the United States considered the 1950-1953 conflict to be a "police action" under the auspices of the United Nations rather than a war.
 
It's somewhat reasonable to say that they are still at war. South Korea (and its US support) and North Korea (and its Chinese support) are currently in a long-standing ceasefire. No peace treaty was ever signed in 1953. The Soviet Union might not be backing up North Korea any more but the status quo from 1953 is still in effect. I think the most appropriate term is a military stalemate.

Then again, one could also argue that they were never "at war" as no official declaration of war was ever issued; North Korea simply invaded the southern half of the peninsula without any issued documentation and the United States considered the 1950-1953 conflict to be a "police action" under the auspices of the United Nations rather than a war.


From my own perspective, I outline a few basic and highly important facts needed in order to understand the present conflict:

- The Korean peninsula has been occupied by humans for over a quarter of a million years.

- A distinct culture and national identity began to emerge well over 2000 years ago, resulting in three roughly confederated kingdoms ruling for many centuries thereafter.

- Korea fell under imperial domination by Japan, and was militarily occupied by 1910. The peninsula was exploited for the benefit of Japan, and Koreans subject to forced labor.

- At the end of WWII, Korea was divided at the 38th Parallel by Colonel Dean Rusk and the Soviet, Chischakov - shades of Sykes and Picot! The occupying US General Hodge declared Korea an enemy of the US. The United States Army Military Government in Korea was the official ruling body of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula from September 8, 1945 to August 15, 1948. The US assumed all previous Japanese positions as its own, and utilized Imperial Japanese officers in its own administration, as our people had nearly zero knowledge or understanding of Korea. Any hope for a unified, independent Korea evaporated as Cold War politics demanded the establishment of two separate states with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems. The US annexation of South Korea was officially incorporated in US General Order No. 1 for the surrender of Japan.

- In the North, land reform and break-up off the rigid class system took place. In the South, there was no land reform, and periodic unrest, strikes and uprising of citizens against the occupying US government. By 1948 Soviet forces were largely withdrawn and North Korea was an independent state.

- In 1949, most US forces withdrew. South Korea, under Singman Rhee, an anti-communist authoritarian, wanted to control the North as well. The North, now with increasing Soviet support, also militarized and sought control over the South.

- War erupted in June, 1950. Initially, the South was almost overrun. With heavy (88% of the total UN forces) US intervention, the war turned around and the North was almost completely overrun up to the Chinese border, the Yalu river. The Chinese then intervened, and the US forces retreated across the 38th Parallel. An Armistice was signed July 1953. Over a million were killed, and almost every last building in North Korea was destroyed.

- IMO, it is reasonable to say the Korean situation is dominated by Cold War fundamentals between the US, Russia, and China. The natives are our guinea pigs, the UN and Japan playing the role of nervous bystanders.
 
May seem like a stupid question, but why are top secret plans accessible through the internet anyway? Surely that information wouldn't be kept anywhere that could be hacked into so that you would have to physically steal it.
llD4PKK6yJA.jpg
 
...Footages of the defecting NK soldier released: graphic content warning.

BBC.

He was shot at a pretty close range. A miracle he survived that.
 
Steve Bannon has stated in an interview with a liberal news outlet that there's no military solution to North Korea, that ten million people in Seoul would die if the US attacked, and that the US would be blamed for that. "They got us", he said.

In every past conflict that I can think of right off the bat, the US, despite lip service and mild efforts, has taken little regard for collateral damage in the pursuit of policy and military goals. Why change now? Ten million collaterals just too many?

How long would it take to bus these folks to camps and villages out from under the guns buried in caves across the DMZ? Couldn't Seoul be rebuilt later?

Or maybe it would be more expedient to admit NK to the nuclear club? Perhaps give Kim everything he wants and eventually recruit Kim as an ally in GWOT against Iran, Syria and Russia? Or is it too late for that?


Given a choice like this, it might be more rational to take up a good fantasy, maybe like FE? Maybe, but I do prefer GoT. :dopey:
 
Last edited:
How long would it take to bus these folks to camps and villages out from under the guns buried in caves across the DMZ? Couldn't Seoul be rebuilt later?

Or maybe it would be more expedient to admit NK to the nuclear club? Perhaps give Kim everything he wants and eventually recruit Kim as an ally in GWOT against Iran, Syria and Russia? Or is it too late for that?


Given a choice like this, it might be more rational to take up a good fantasy, maybe like FE? Maybe, but I do prefer GoT. :dopey:
Bussing everyone in Seoul put of the country and then rebuilding the city after nuclear bombardment would appear to me to be the fantasy. It'd have to have some enormous financial benefit to the US to justify their undertaking such an endeavour proactively. I'm not sure how they'd get rid of all the radiation either.
 
Bussing everyone in Seoul put of the country and then rebuilding the city after nuclear bombardment would appear to me to be the fantasy. It'd have to have some enormous financial benefit to the US to justify their undertaking such an endeavour proactively. I'm not sure how they'd get rid of all the radiation either.

Give them NK when the war is over if they end up taking it all...

Which is unlikely considering all involved in this situation, but that's if they use Nuclear attacks on SK. Which if they were smart wouldn't be an option, you don't bomb your own back yard like that and expect it not to have consequences for you. I feel artillery would still be the prime candidate.
 
Which is unlikely considering all involved in this situation, but that's if they use Nuclear attacks on SK. Which if they were smart wouldn't be an option, you don't bomb your own back yard like that and expect it not to have consequences for you.
I can't help thinking that in that nightmare scenario there would be no one to evacuate in preparation for retaliation. I hope NK doesn't see it as an option for the reasons you describe.
 
Steve Bannon has stated in an interview with a liberal news outlet that there's no military solution to North Korea, that ten million people in Seoul would die if the US attacked, and that the US would be blamed for that. "They got us", he said.

Or maybe it would be more expedient to admit NK to the nuclear club? Perhaps give Kim everything he wants and eventually recruit Kim as an ally in GWOT against Iran, Syria and Russia?

NK, or Kim Jong Un, to be more precise, has rejected any efforts at coercion through threats & sanctions. He's "tougher" than the West - or doesn't give a **** about his own people - & is determined to become a full nuclear power. It would seem that the only way to stop that happening would be to remove Kim, through assassination or some kind of internal coup. The latter would require some kind of significant domestic opposition to Kim. I'm not aware of any evidence that this actually exists, but who knows what's really going on in NK?

Short of getting rid of Kim, I'm not sure there is a realistic option available (that doesn't involve major loss of life) other than "welcoming" NK into the nuclear club & trying to contain the threat from there on.

One thing I'm not clear on: how serious a threat does one ICBM with a single warhead actually represent? There's clearly no effective defence against a major "cold-war" style nuclear attack, but what technology is in place for destroying a single ICBM? I've read very contradictory views on this.
 
Back