What's the Difference Between a Missile and a Rocket?

In respect to the media, if there is anything you can count on - it is the media getting the details wrong

i said something similar

A missile can be a rocket but a rocket doesn't have to be a missile

I know. It doesn't become a missile until it's flying through the air.

I can't wait to see the remnants of this "comment" crash into Jupiter.

That blog's estimates you cite lack credibility at best. The reports in the interesting link you provided for the USA LEO test do not indicate much cause for concern, other than passing failures in infrastructure... EMP nukes have never been considered a stand-alone weapon any more than internet hacks (you need to follow-up with real weapons for them to matter). All this speculation, with hints of emotional engagement, is ill-serving in the context of politically-sensitive issues (as NKorea's nuclear and space program).

I'll mark myself off-topic, just to address your concerns (and mine):

1. It is natural and understandable that the strong like to shape and maintain a status quo that serves them. As it is natural that the weak are ill-served and threatened by this. As long as the concepts of 'strong' and 'weak' exist in national interactions, any status quo will be under persistent challenge. In this context, reporters will always be calling things in certain emotionally-charging ways (i.e. rocket vs. missile, nukes for electricity vs. nukes for war, revolutionary vs. terrorist etc)

2. 'Mental illness' refers to a certifiable medical condition. Ruthless dictators may be a lot of things, but are quite sane more often than not. We, the 'sane people' may not be able to tolerate them any more than the mentally ill. But by dismissing them as 'ill', we fail to understand that they are quite rational, but within a different framework of goals and assumptions. Thus we eliminate all chance of working towards finding common grounds.

3. I recall that the USA had a fundamentalist president not long ago. He too did not consult with the international community about much. In fact, he was quite the warmonger and threatened quite a few more countries. They call this imperialism and it has ticked more than a few nations off. Actually, I recall that since WW2 the situation has been this, more or less regardless of leadership.

4. Until some years ago, the 'USSR antagonist' used to provide convenient justification, but thankfully this distraction is no more. And then we have history to teach us. Read up on the 'peloponesian war' (431-406BC) between the then 'superpowers' Athens (democratic, likeness to USA?) and Sparta (holigarchic, likeness to USSR?). Never mind the end of that war. It is what led to it that matters here: imperialism and strive for more power. One would think we should have learned our lesson by now: Aggression breeds aggression. And it needn't be two equal opponents like Athens-Sparta or USA-USSR. Conflict between unequal oppontents is quite sufficient for bringing great loss and misery. We don't hear about it because the weak nation (who loses) doesn't get to write the history books.

5. One would also expect entire nations to act more like adults and less like school-boys. NKorea is a product of the cold war polarisation and we are still paying for that idiocy. Any oppressive regime that has been allowed to live without threats to its existence has either collapsed or transformed itself for the better and willingly moved out of isolation (i.e. see China). It is safe to say that antagonising a poor nation like NKorea over its (pointless but understandable) attempts at defiance is only helping further the longevity of its current regime and breeds more threats.

6. Besides, look at the UN 'security council'. Its synthesis alone makes obvious its interests. Its permanent members are all armed to the teeth with 'rockets' (or is it 'missiles'?) and nukes. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that if you are NKorea and need to defy their self-serving agendas for you, you must have 'rockets' and you must have nukes. It's a no brainer.

7. In a final off-topic but very relevant comment, let's look at 'terrorists' (really now, are we worried that NKorea will press the button or that their nukes may somehow end up in a suicide-bomber's hands a few years from now/ tomorrow?). 'International terrorists' in particular, because no-one blows an atom bomb in their own country. What are the chances of a foreign national going to i.e. Switzerland to kill and terrorise people? Clue: Switzerland does not meddle in other countries' affairs. Why would any one want to go to a foreign country to kill and terrorise people? Clue II: Because it does meddle in his country's (or people's) affairs. USA may be the poster-boy, but we have a lot of imperialistic 'players' around. Surely enough, they all have problems with 'international terrorism'. By the way, 'terror' reminds me of 'shock and awe'; same goal, different scale. In both cases it's war, actually. 'Terrorism' vs. 'honest war' is quite like 'missiles' vs. 'rockets', the terminology is chosen just to elicit emotions. The end result is again that we react rather than understand and think...

I am not quite sure nations/ states can ever rise above school-yard-intelligence. That includes mine. Aggressiveness is a natural human trait after all. I just hope we can survive this stupidity.

(I appologise for the loong off-topic post. That's what happens when I have too much time on my hands--slow day at work!)

p_x

This post suffers from the the "mental illness" of moral equivalency. Unlike the author, I am quite busy and cannot respond right now. Hopefully later. But for now, I'm pretty sure that 1930s Czechoslovakia and Poland, not to mention the Netherlands, were not imperialistic meddlers, either.

In your response, I'd like to see you flesh out the analogies your post implies.

I'd also like to see your definition of morality, before I begin to digest what you say. p_x

When time permits.

You do realize that blog is my own right? Did you happen to see the link to the Governmental study concerning the effects of an EMP pulse on modern infrastructure?

I have seen first hand on four occasions what happens when a region's infrastructure fails, most recently last August here in Houston. And that was only a relatively small region for a relatively short time. Chaos is being kind.

No, I didn't realise it was your blog, actually. Not that it makes a difference. To answer your points:

Damage to infrastructure can be repaired. Damage to the peoples affected by 'power politics' is less spectacular (starvation, civil war, oppression, complete lack of healthcare, death, inability to get out of these misfortunes due to polarisation...) but way more lethal than the effects of an EMP. I am quite sure that if anyone ever (god forbid) launches a nuclear warhead on somebody, it won't 'waste' it in the LEO just to generate an EMP... What you are proposing is science fiction.

I would not have responded to your initial post if you were not propagandising in what was until then a sober discussion over projectile definitions: You proposed that '(mentally) Ill' (!!) NKorean leadership is actually threatening the USA (of all countries...) and one is supposed to take that seriously? And since it obviously doesn't have the firepower to 'bust cities', you take out of the closet a (far fetched!) EMP scenario? I can just imagine the headlines: "NKorea launches nuke, EMPs the living daylights out of USA. USA is so peaceful that doesn't launch its overwhelming arsenal (conventional or otherwise) in retaliation to level the place. NKoreans (live to) celebrate." Yes, I can certainly see how you may feel the USA is threatened. Frankly, if you were a SKorean or Japanese, one would be inclined to at least sympathise with your fears. But, being Korean of Japanese, you'd be enough of a realist to forgo the EMP scenarios.

If it's any comfort to you, NKorea will never launch a nuke on you or your infrastructure. Unless you attack it, that is. In fact, the only nation that ever ever used a nuke on someone else is.... [] (Incidentally, when it was winning that war).

I bet NKoreans (the poor helpless people, not their leaders) are more justly afraid of the real consequences of power politics, which deprive them of their future, than you are afraid of imaginary consequences.

Do you want other people to be afraid like you? Is that why you blogged? Why? I'd rather see more sober thinking.

You list target practice as your hobby. Do you often shoot from the hip?

p_x

No, I never shoot from the hip, and I always hit what I aim at too, but clearly you do.

Kim Jung Ill is insane on many levels. He is a textbook megalomaniac. He is also Paranoid. He spends virtually all of his country's wealth developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them and lives and eats lavishly while his entire country starves and freezes to death. He continually threatens everyone when if it weren't for the threats nobody in the world would give a rat's arse about him or his backwards little hole in the ground. His actions do nothing but alienate him from everyone and further isolate him. his country needs manufactured products and raw materials. but his actions have eliminated virtually all of his trading partners. How are his actions anything but insane?

Damage to infrastructure of the type I am describing, and is backed up by the literature, would be so widespread that it would take years to repair it all. Much of the powerline infrastructure equipment is no longer made in the US and there are significant lead times even during normal times, lead times after such an event would run into years. It has been six months since Ike hit here and we are STILL cleaning up and repairing damage and will be for months more. If this were an EMP attack we still would not have power or communications. And thousands of people would have died from simple lack of basic sanitation. Look up the K series exoatmospheric tests done by the USSR over Kazakstan if you don't believe me, even buried power lines were damaged. And Kazakstan does not have NEARLY the amount of electronic infrastructure that the US does. Did you even bother to read the report from the Department of Homeland Security? it runs something like 150 pages and concludes that EMP IS a worrysome issue.

I'm not the only person that thinks he's barking mad. These guys think he's a homicidal sociopath as well.

As to the usage of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII, the US was faced with three options, we had to chose which one would result in the fewest casualties. That choice was Nuclear bombardment.

Option 1: Invade. Even the most optimistic estimates had the casualty counts pushing a million for the Allied forces and tens of millions for the Japanese.

Option 2: Blockade combined with conventional bombardment. This would have resulted in tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, of deaths of Japanese civilians from starvation. Eventually the population of the Japanese home islands would plateau when the number of mouths to feed was equal to the amount of food that could be grown, but until that occurred, millions would die of starvation. It would also result in a prolongation of the war by possibly as much as 3 more years, and that was not acceptable for both economic as well as political reasons.

Option 3: Nuclear bombardment. The total death toll was fewer than 1/4 million and ended the war virtually immediately.

Now, you tell me which option made the most sense.

when has the American government ever cared about their soldiers?

they always sent them to die on foreign soil

IMO it was about cost of money and they want some live tests of the atom bomb

American soldiers dying in foreign lands is the only reason why you speak Dutch instead of German, you ingrate.

They did not went into world war 2 on their own accord but because hitler declared war on america.

and why do you hide behind the guest status

freedom of speech is only valid if it is nationalistic and patriotic?

and as always people get emotional before reading, i was talking about the american government. I do not disrespect those american soldiers that died fighting for a just cause.

Like vietnam lots of amrican soldiers died at the hand of the politicans because the way they restricted the war

You are correct about Vietnam; we tied our own hands in order to not escalate the war, and a lot of American soldiers died needlessly as a result.

This is way off-topic to the original post; I use my identity when making useful on-topic responses, but prefer to sign on as guest when just refuting off-topic nonsense.

'We'? You fought there? Or were old enough to vote? I assume that you are thereby assuming some responsibility for the actions of your country?

Great example of international politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vietnam

be my guest, fellow guest, and read up.

Bottom line: War, cold war, 'pressures' and meddling all boil down to the same definition: aggression. Go ahead and say that any of it is justified. But not to me; to the dead- the Vietnamese and the Korean also.

No... Obviously you didn't fight. War is sweet to those who've never experienced it.

If you are bothered by death, and you should, be advised that the best way to have zero dead soldiers and spare everyone else too should be obvious. By the way, your concept of powerful nations 'protecting' others and self-sacrificing is very touching.

Since -curiously- you mentioned Epke's language, you might as well be told that: the Dutch are on average quite well educated in foreign languages, including German and English. No doubt in some degree because all three languages share common roots. Anyway, they luckily got to keep their language, sovereignty and land after ww2. I don't think the native Americans got to keep anything besides their language... (Obviously you needn't assume responsibility for that as well; you couldn't have been born!) Easy arguments and double standards are the trademark of inexperienced/irrational people; or hypocrits. Make your pick.

Ah, and I return the 'nonsense' attribution to its originator.

Surely thinking in terms of predefined options (and false dilemmas) is the reason for many of humankind's woes.

I am sure the then USA government considered its options carefully before dropping the a-bombs.

I am sure Hitler considered his own options carefully before invading everybody else.

...etc etc...

I am sure NKorean leadership considered its options carefully before adopting its offending strategy (incl. launching its latest 'satelite')

Believe it or not, islamist extremists also are aware of their options and ponder them carefully.

My point is, and has always been in this thread, that we should think more and understand, rather than reacting to 'options'. Reacting to what seems as the best option at any time is what gets nations into conflicts, where everyone is right.

Look at what used to be a rubble of warring nations: the EU. It still has terrible shortcomings, but it is the most visibly successful example of bridging 'irreconcilable' differences by creating new options rather than picking from what is on the table. It did this by identifying and nurturing common goals, rather than focusing on antagonisms. One will notice that ending the polarising cold war, and with it some of the most severe USA-USSR-dependencies, gave an important boost to bridging more differences and promoting unity.

So, rather than thinking what a fictitious EMP attack might do, I'd rather read in your blog about what is being done now. I'd also like to see intiatives to de-isolate NKorea and integrate it in our midst: History shows that it's the only model that has ever really worked.

I'd also like to see less fear; it is simply not becomming.

A final note: Usually, well-travelled people come to appreciate how fundamentally all people and all nations are equally worthy of living and prospering (from their own experience in working abroad, being others' guests and really being part of the international community). They are also more inclined to examine things from both sides of the fence, to the degree that most realise at some point that the fence is artificial and should be dismantled for the benefit of all. They are also on average less prone to bias and tend to call 'schoolyard bickering', 'propaganda' and 'imperialism' like they are. We have some of them in CR4. I'd highly recommend to anyone to lend an ear to their views and insights.

p_x

First off, smart guy, if you think there was a fourth option that Truman missed (and every historian for the last 60 years as well) by all means trot the idea out and let us examine it. But start backing up your theories with something other than your hot air or this discussion ends. I'm not going to waste my time talking to someone who can't back up what they say. I have taken pains to link to my background information. You haven't done squat but talk.

I'm sure Kim Jong Il DID review his options, but being a barking nutcase with delusions of adequacy, I'm sure his options were viewed through the lens of mental illness and delusion. Crazy people make crazy decisions.

And now to your parting shot. Therein lies your error. You think that all people and all cultures have an equal right to exist. In that you are wrong. Evil has no right to exist. Evil must be destroyed anywhere and everywhere it is found. All cultures and all people have varying amounts of evil inherent in them, some have much more than others. Is the Taliban equivalent to the Brown administration in the UK? No, it is not, The Taliban is an inherently evil organization, despite it's purported dedication to Allah, and must be destroyed. Are the Somali Pirates equivalent to the Austrailian Government? Nope, they need a good vaporizing too.

One parting note: I really don't care what you'd LIKE to see on my blog. My blog is not written for you, it is written for me.

About destroying/ evaporating (you mean killing):

1) The great majority of Germans in ww2 were cheering as long as they were winning that war- so they must have been fundamentally evil according to your logic. At that time, killing them all might even have seemed the right thing to do. Fortunately, this did not happen. Right now the same people are very constructive and peaceful. So it must have been the circumstances.

2) Muslims (the first organised group originating under Mohamed in a single city: Medina, Arabia) spread their faith and culture (and power...) fanatically by the sword, as per the calls of their faith no less (their prophet Mohamed set the example by forcibly seizing Mecca, which was not 'buying' his new faith, as you may recall/ google). Perhaps you and I feel that it is evil to kill people to spread your faith and power, but those people at that time didn't think so for many centuries. Now muslims are the most populous in the world and have turned out to be quite peaceful. Would you tell them that their ancestors were evil and should have been 'evaporated'? Again, it must have been the circumstances.

3) The confederates of the american south, who had very strong feelings about their interests regarding the union (evil slave owners, right?) were not put to death either- happily. Was that war about being evil? No, it was again about the circumstances. I am only mentioning this example for the sake of local flavour.

4) Millions and millions of people around the world (make your pick) think that USA is collectively (?) an evil state, because of it's government's constant meddling in what they feel (correctly) is their own affairs. If there was a worldwide poll on who's more evil, who do you think would come up first? I can't be sure, but I could risk a guess... So, do you really think we should be so quick to judge 'evil' so unequivocally that it merrits destruction? That's actually more along the line of what the islamist terrorists are advocating...

5) Ask Ukrainians and Georgians and some might ask for the 'evaporation' of Russia.

etc etc

But always, with hindsight, what once seemed like black and white at one moment in history always proves more complex and greyer upon more sober investigation, later.

Therefore 'good' vs. 'evil', black vs. white, option A vs option B etc are false concepts, with millions dead and billions suffering (now) to prove it. No citation needed.

I do hope you are getting my point.

About citations and supporting facts: You are certainly free not to reply if you feel that you are getting nothing out of this discussion. I don't blame you, I am somewhat losing interest myself. But I shouldn't have to cite the obvious and I needn't cite details. We actually disagree on your logic, not the facts.

p_x

Now muslims are the most populous in the world and have turned out to be quite peaceful.

I'm not so sure you'd get agreement on either of those premises from very many people.

The first is wrong factually, and the second would be difficult to prove.

I'll agree that a huge majority of Muslims are NOT suicide bombers, but that particular hobby seems to have more adherents within Islam than it does in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism, or most others.

Mind you, most religions have blood on their hands. I don't think any of them are particularly blameless. The argument "My Religion is less violent and bloodthirsty than yours" is rather specious, don't you think?

You can strike away the religion part and just say the human race has a tendency to look down/kill those who are not a part of their group (you can fill in anything for the group from fundamentalist to right/left wing groups and so on).