Has been interesting watching some of the messages being sent out and the way they've been interpreted.
- is it that Kim Jong Un doesn't know how to ratchet down (Offer them a set of choices? Make signal too indirect and they may not understand it? Too direct and they may just ratchet it up again.)? or is he being influenced not to go down? Based on what I've read about him this doesn't seem like his 'natural personality' or his wording/phrasing (if feels like they've learnt from or were taught by the Iranians). Need further information though. Likely need a combination of greater background work by intelligence analysts (keep in mind the notion of 'projection' when doing analysis) and analysis by defectors.
- this is as much about us as about them. For a long while now, North Korea has used provocations and other techniques as a means of gaining concessions. They've been pushing back members of the international community and we've been responding to threats. Shutting down all communications is simply another means of controlling the situation from there side. Become proactive whether it has to do with offers of peace, aid, war, etc...
Basically, engage rather than respond to them. We need to break the cycle provocations/response at some point. Possibly link a stop of threats to a growth in aid over time? a reduction of sanctions? Then link any increase in provocations to the opposite as well?
- present all a wide range of options at next meeting. Figure out whether they are just looking for attention/aid? whether they simply aren't going to except anything? and are simply going to be a nuisance for a short while... if it is the latter would be looking carefully elsewhere.
- if it is the case that we aren't really dealing purely with Kim Jong Un then we should be thinking about those people are all 'pulling the strings'? if my reading of the background of some of the people who may be 'pulling the strings' is correct then we may need to factor in other issues as well. Personal experience indicates that that people who have been under intense stress, wars, famine, etc... often have an extremely tarnished view of the world. Factor this in as well...
- are they ratcheting things up because they are trying to solidify or is this going to be the tone of things to be come? support a possible uprising? chances of success (note difference between Mail and Iraq/Syria. Support was clear in Mali and we intervened early. Highly unlikely this is going to be a 'clean operation')?
- if the regime is at breaking point? does he simply need a way out of this for himself and other members of the regime?
- if Iran/North Korea are co-operating/distracting international community efforts for arms control then it's likely that messages are going to be 'massaged' as well. Factor this in. Use what we have learnt in past confrontations. Don't just give up, poke, prod, learn, feel...
- if you honestly believe that he is going trying to solidify things (with a chance of piece down the line) suggest you make the offer big and credible but not enough to make us look 'weak'. That will only encourage further provocations.
- look at trying to increase the size of the buffer zone if at all possible. That way we can reduce the chances of misunderstandings/accidents in future. You can't shoot/provoke someone if they aren't within range.
- if you want to ratchet it down, consider ratcheting down a lot... A simple re-schedule is unlikely to be enough. Something that can be seen to be a genuine concession. If they are to de-nuclearize the concessions are probably going to be high/almost unpalatable. This is more than just a regional problem. China, Japan, South Korea, United States, and other neighbours are all vital to the world's interests from both political, military, economic, and other interests. Hope that the if peace can be negotiated the burden of re-building North Korea is going to shared by all.
- reading further and clear that re-unification is unlikely going to be smooth/easy and if it is going to happen it's going to be in the distant future. It will take time. Don't try to do too much at once but don't give up an short/medium term stability. Many barriers are going to have to be broken down. Consider 'PSYOPS' type operations. Broadcast international media into North Korea, drop leaflets, etc... Try to ensure that it's not just propoganda. Try to make sure that there is no threat of invasion unless provoked. If we are to give aid make sure that it's the type of aid which can not be re-used for dual purposes. Make sure that it is the type of aid that can only be used to help the citizens of North Korea and ensure that they know where exactly it's coming from. Be more aware of the implcations of some of sanctions that have been imposed. Try to make it targeted towards the regime rather than the people. Done incorrectly it will just harden their resolve and case against us. Be aware that like Iran they have 'hardened' their economy against sanctions and it's likely that anytime you do ratchet it up their likely to simply take it away from the people. Keep in mind that the UN and international laws have not caught up or are applicable to our circumstances. In this case, we have to consider alternative options...
- if there is an issue of pride/face at stake consider sending aid via China. History seems to play a more important role in Asia then in some of the cultures that I have most often been exposed to.
- believe that more work needs to be done into exactly why Kim Jong Un was chosen to be North Korea's new leader. Don't think that this is as simple as it first appears.
- history indicates that no countries that possess nuclear weapons have been invaded. Need to see how they view the rest of the world. Work back from there...
- delivery of message is poor in some cases. If someone like me is analysing your responses it can be guaranteed that there will be an army of staff on their side analysing the way you deliver your messages. Nuance/inflections points are important in guaging the mood of someone and their conviction behind the message being conveyed.
- if considering change of regime think about Libya/Syria. Not going to be smooth. Believe that the following quotes are relevant, "it was once said of Prussia that it wasn't a country that had an army, but an army that had a country. And North Korea is a garrison state, a society organized for war", and "the conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."
- China and other countries need to understand that while territory does play an important role in defense it is pointless unless you have some relative control over it. It is in China's best interests that they bring North Korea under control during peacetime than during war. Moreover, with some of the weapons in circulation and under development now, North Korea could be (depends on the level of risk you're willing to take) rendered fairly useless in the early part of any campaign. The strength, survival, growth, and stability of North Korea is important for both itself as well as that of it's neighbours so don't look at this whole situation like it's not your problem. Allies (or even 'attack dogs') who can not be brought to heal are just as dangerous for their owners as well as strangers/enemies. Moreover, while China plays an important cog in the world economy they should realise that they aren't indispensable. Others can and are likely willing to take their place. Continued military provocations can only serve to hinder relations and future trade between them and the rest of the world. Peace is in everyones best interests.
This post is intended to capture various online resources for taking classes and/or getting training in anything. They’re predominately programming language and software engineering courses but their are other tracks that focus on history and chemistry, for example.Solution
This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list, it’s a clearinghouse of the different resources as I come across them.
- MIT Open Course Ware
- 700 Free Online Courses from Top Universities
- MOOCs: Top 10 Sites for Free Education With Elite Universities
General Programming Courses
- Stanford Engineering Everywhere courses
- Harvard Extension School – Intensive Introduction to Computer Science
- Computer Science E-75: Building Dynamic Websites
- Computer Science E-76: Building Mobile Applications
- Code Avengers
NOTE: For further details regarding my one-liner blog posts, check out my one-liner style guide primer.
Book three of the Real Mermaids series read. This one had a good deal of action and mystery that it did and a coming together of friends at the end. What more could an adolescent girl ask for? There is even some headier romance. I will say, Boudreau has done another great job and the book kept me interested too. I look forward to reading the fourth novel in the very near future!
View all my reviews
This book picks up right were the first one ended and does a great job keeping the pace. My daughter loved this book.
There are new wrinkles along the way as the truth about Jade is revealed to her best friend. There is a quest to find her mother and return her to the family, and of course her blossoming relationship with Luke, who we learned from the end of the first book is also a Mer.
Pure, delightful fantasy for a pre-adolescent and not a bad read for adults, if you like mermaids and pre-teen angst.
View all my reviews
1. Which header file needs to be used for pthread programming ?
2.Pthreads are not useful in uniprocessor systems
3. What are the flags that are passed while compiling a pthread program using gcc ?
4. Among the arguments passed to pthread API pthread_create the final argument, is.
Ans: Data being passed to the thread
5. The data type used for storing the thread id is
6. Which of the following APIs can be used for synchronization between threads
7. To create a detachable thread which of the following structures needs to be modified
8. pthread_self returns
Ans: The thread id
9.Two threads can be compared using the API
10.pthread_create(&threads_id, NULL, Hello_world, NULL); creates a thread
Ans:Called Hello_world with default attributes
On the command line just execute "net statistics server", the line that starts with "Statistics since" provides the time the server component of the operating system has been up. In the case of a workstation this is almost certainly since the last boot.
And nope, the user had not restarted their workstation for almost three weeks.
On and off for a while now, I've been thinking of something different. It's roughly based on concepts from various different fields such as: - missle defense - crumple zones - force fields but essentially offers a diferent option for defense.
Modern weapons (there is work on chemical, directed energy, microwave, laser and other weapons but details of these programs are mostly classified) mostly work on the premise of a 'controlled explosion' in the context of direction, range, and magnitude of the subsequent impact.
If we look at current missile defense technology (Typically they work with with a combination of other systems comprised of tracking, interception, and control. Needless to say, they aren't cheap, require extensive training/skill to setup/operate, and with the exception of a few systems aren't all that efficient for the purpose for which they developed.) they basically work by activating missle warheads which are most likely triggered through one or several of the following means: - Contact - Proximity - Remote - Timed - Altitude - Combined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhead
Obviously, success has been limited particularly with longer range projectile interception (high speed, range, multiple warheads, decoys, and so on...). The biggest problem has basically been associated with the so called 'bullet-on-bullet' problem. Namely, trying to hit a projectiles moving at extreme speed with another projectile that are both relatively small.
Previously, I thought about this problem in my 'Convergence' report. Basically a 'colloidal' like solution (can be gas, liquid, or solid)(conceptually it would be similar in principle to using using 'shrapel' or multiple interceptors in the fashion that the Israeli have done in the Tamir interceptor using in the Iron Dome system) that can/will work based on physical, chemical, or other principles... but let's think about this further. Without range/accuracy/controlled explosions weapons are pointless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome https://csis.org/blog/iron-dome-watershed-missile-defense
If you flood a known area with highly volatile substances you basically have the same effect as missile interception. Namely, energy dispersal at an area that does not harm valuable targets or people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammable_liquid http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/flammable/flam.html http://www.tkolb.net/tra_sch/Flammable/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability_limit http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/explosive-concentration-limits-d_423.html http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/the-porous-shield-of-israel-s-iron-dome.premium-1.479064 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/world/middleeast/israels-iron-dome-system-is-at-center-of-debate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.thenation.com/blog/173497/united-states-china-compete-russias-favor http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/128753-top-10-future-weapons-israel.html
The added bonus is that it forms the basis for 'deterrence' without the madness associated with, 'Mutually Assurred Destruction'. Obvious problem is dispersal and control of it particularly in the case of secure installations/bunkers: - gaseus solution and you run of the risk of having it basically go anywhere especially in the context of outdoor environments (though mid-flight missile defense is significantly easier if there is a cloud of gas which disables incoming weapons than having to deal with 'bullet-on-bullet' type missle defense) - liquid based and you have the same problem unless there are natural canals/tunnels that you can use - solid and you have to deal with the problem of camouflage and existing security staff picking it up easily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_mine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/i-spy-with-my-little-fly--animal-cruelty-20130330-2h02s.html http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/swarm-of-robots-that-could-be-a-lifesaver-20130330-2h04o.html http://www.itwire.com/science-news/biology/59253-robot-swarms-unlocking-the-hive-mind
Other obvious problems include: - safety in research, development and deployment of such defensive systems as well - if not deployed correctly is that you run the risk of making the explosion even bigger than it would have been had just the original weapon being deployed (particularly worrying if you have a localised 'shield'). More research required... - the other problem with this technology is whether or not to disclose your use/development of it (battle between intelligence/defense)? In the context of control of WMD think about it in the following fashion. If we can find substances that we can secrete into areas that will react with WMD to either render them inert or cause them to explode in an uncontrolled fashion then we finally have the basis for true arms control without the needs for 'inspections'. Not easy though...
At this point we digress to 'force field' technology (not as outlandish as you may think. The British military have been done some succcessful testing of similar concepts to protect some of their vehicles.). Typically they work at the point (or close to) of impact but in principle to what was outlined in the previous section. The more energy is dispersed away (think about 'crumple zones' in cars) and distant from the target the less target will be directed against the original target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_shield http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7487740/Star-Trek-style-force-field-armour-being-developed-by-military-scientists.html http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/04/the_pentagon http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uas_2009.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/opinion/global/the-u-s-missile-defense-plan-in-europe.html?_r=0
The key problem has always been how to control the shape of 'shields' though. Electromagnetic based/wireless waves are used basically everywhere now. As a child I remember learning about the shape of magnetic fields by playing around with magnetics and ferro-magnetic/iron particles. Take these concepts further. If the field is strong enough we can begin playing around with synthetic/semi-synthetic substances (hopefully small/light enough to 'float' along with/in the field) which can: - cause the propulsion system (almost always chemically based nowadays though that is beginning to change) of incoming projectices to shut down - cause an explosion out/away from the target - otherwise render incoming projectiles inert Clear problems that we face: - how much power is required to deploy such a system? Is this level of power realistic or do we need to find/develop more efficient means of energy development? If others aware of possession of such technology do we require increased surveillance or less? - are there any available substances that fit our parameters? - if successful we face a 'class break' problem. We might have to completely change our all of our own weapons/propulsion systemns to continue to remain capable of offensive operations. Alternatively, 'tuning' of the technology would have to be required to allow for a 'one way' shield (allows outward but not inwards)... - if countries are able to find a way of making AWT style technologies 'one way' then others suffer a significant disadvantage and would basically be unable to defend themselves in times of conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
Clearly, developing AWT is easier said then done. Moreover (like conventional weapons), AWT style technologies have to be deployed/demonstrated to work in the field a number of times for it to have any longer term impact. Conceptually similar to booby trapped ammunition except the impact is far more significant. We basically use the strength of their own weapons/explosives/aggression against the agressor. The other thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the concept of pre-emption and deterrance only works with people of sane mind. http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/27-04-2010/113190-doomsday_weapon-0/ http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/its-a-conspiracy-says-cyberattack-accused-29162189.html http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4121
Such AWT style technologies obviously have significant applications: - especially in the context of conflicts that where the results of intervention are neither guaranteed or the results of intervention are unlikely to be predictable - conflicts where both a political solution is desired but cessation of fighting can not be guaranteed - useful for nations that want a defense/deterrent but don't want to pursue WMD style weapons technology - could form the basis for shields that could be used for yourself, your personal belongings, or even inter-stellar/gallactic travel vehicles - may be possible to create shields at regional levels or potentially globally to defend against 'rogue states' http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-korea-preparing-new-nuclear-test-20130408-2hghw.html http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-china-north-korea--20130407,0,1255574.story http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-korea-preparing-new-nuclear-test-20130408-2hghw.html
Like I said, I'm not going to pretend that any of this is going to be simple. Nonetheless, we seem to have the components there to make this work... Moreover, I believe that while Nuclear and other Weapons of Mass Destruction were a necessity during certain periods of human history they clearly represent an indictment upon us. It would be nice to finally have a means of defending ourselves against them.
vim, by default, searches case sensitively. If you search for apple, you will find exactly that, but not Apple or APPLE.
In most situations, I want my searches to be case insensitive. To make search case sensitive, set the corresponding vimoption by typing :set ignorecase (and press the return key).
ignorecase has a shorter alias called ic. You can type :set icand it will have the same effect.
Now searching for apple will give you Apple, APPLE as well as apple.
But, what about the situations where you DO want case-sensitive searching?
You can always disable the ignorecase search, by typing the following and hit return:
Flipping between ignorecase and ignorecase can be tiresome for even the most patient. Luckily, vim has the smartcaseoption that you can use TOGETHER with ignorecase.
Type the following:
:set ignorecase (and hit return)
:set smartcase (and hit return)
With both ignorecase and smartcase turned on, a search is case-insensitive if you enter the search string in ALL lower case. For example, searching for apple will find Apple and APPLE.
However, if your search string has one or more characters in upper case, it will assume that you want a case-sensitive search. So, searching for Apple will only give you Apple but not apple or APPLE. It turns out to be quite satisfactory for most people (including yours truly).
While we are on the topic of vim search options, there is a third option that you should know:
:set incsearch (and hit return)
incsearch stands for incremental search. It means that you will see what vim matches as you type in each letter of your search string (without having to hit return before search is even attempted).
For example, you type / to initiate search, and right after you type the letter a, vim will highlight the a in apple. As you type the next letter p, vim will highlight ap in the word apple.
You can often find what you are looking for before you finish typing in the entire search string. It is also helpful if you are not quite sure of what you are searching for, and depending on the instant feedback as you type, you can make corrections to the search string by backspacing.
If you want to enable those options permanently, insert the following lines into your ~/.vimrc file.
Too many blogs and internet webpages are recommending huge ping list for your wordpress. That won’t make your site more popoular and increase visitors. You should instead focus on adding the best ping services and stay with those only.
Instead of using 30+ ping list, I recommend to only use the top 5 ones:http://rpc.pingomatic.com/ http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/pingSubmit?bloglink=http%3A%2F%2www.YOURADRESSHERE.com/ http://blogsearch.google.com/ping/RPC2 http://ping.myblog.jp
Iv’e been using a huge list in the past. After using this list instead, the visitor has increased a bit. Because i’m not pinging same ping service several times. 98% of all my visitors comes from google and probably is the same in all webpages out there. Why ping a service when it might generate 1 visitor in a month and can cause more harm than good. So use this WordPress Ping List.
WordPress Ping services 2013
- 1. Which header file needs to be used for pthread programming ?
- Pthreads are not useful in uniprocessor systems
- What are the flags that are passed while compiling a pthread program using gcc
- Among the arguments passed to pthread API pthread_create the final argument, is.
- The data type used for storing the thread id is
- Which of the following APIs can be used for synchronization between threads
- To create a detachable thread which of the following structures needs to be modified
- pthread_self returns
- Two threads can be compared using the API
- pthread_create(&threads_id, NULL, Hello_world, NULL); creates a thread
Depends on the compiler
Depends on the processor
Attributes of the thread
Name of the thread
Data being passed to the thread
The thread id
The thread attribute
Thread running time
Called Hello_world with default attributes
Called Hello_world with all attributes set to NULL
Called Hello with default attributes
Called Hello with all attributes set to NULL
First we need the images we need to use for the blend effect, in the above animation we have used the following three images created using gimp itself.
They can be created using the logo creation tool available under file->create->logos and the above effect is glossy.
Once the images are ready, open gimp.
choose a template size bigger than the biggest of the images to be used in animation and click on ok.
Drag and drop the images into gimp in the order in which the images have to appear in the animation.
For the above animation we will drop “linux.jpg” first, then “is.jpg” and then “”freedom.jpg”.
Now click on filter->animation->blend.
The following menu will appear.
The number of intermediate frames decide how slow the transition from one image to another should happen. In the above animation we have chosen the number to be 20 to make the transition happen slowly.
The blur option is to choose how much should the image blur before appearing and disappearing, the above animation has 0 blur. Click on “ok” and wait for gimp to do the magic. Once done we should see a new window as follows.
To preview the animation click on filter->animation->playback
Click on the play button to see the animation. If the animation is satidfactory close the preview and save the animation by clicking on
Enter the name and add the extension .gif example blend.gif
A menu as below will be shown, click on save as animation and click on export
In the next window we can choose the delay between individual frames, but in this case we can leave it as default and click on save and the animation should be ready.
We have updated minetest and minetest-mods packages today. Hopefully you find the new version more stable and more features…
I coulden’t find any changelog, so I can’t point out all the changes and newly added stuff.
so instead, install it and give it a go.
Can read more about it and installation here: http://www.foresightlinux.se/wiki-en/index.php?title=Minetest
Minetest git can be found at: https://github.com/minetest/minetest
Minetest homepage: http://minetest.net/
All this past week, people have been emailing and/or pinging me on IRC to tell me to read the article, The Meme Hustler by Evgeny Morozov. The article is quite long, and while my day-job duties left me TL;DR'ing it for most of the week, I've now read it, and I understand why everyone kept sending me the article. I encourage you not to TL;DR it any longer yourself.
Morozov centers his criticisms on Tim O'Reilly, but that's not all the article is about. I spend my days walking the Free Software beat as a (self-admitted) unelected politician, and I've encounter many spin doctors, including O'Reilly — most of whom wear the trappings of advocates for software freedom. As Morozov points out, O'Reilly isn't the only one; he's just the best at it. Morozov's analysis of O'Reilly can help us understand these P.T. Barnum's in our midst.
In 2001, I co-wrote Freedom or Power? with RMS in response to O'Reilly's very Randian arguments (which Morozov discusses). I remember working on that essay for (literally) days with RMS, in-person at the FSF offices (and at his office at MIT), while he would (again, literally) dance around the room, deep in thought, and then run back to the screen where I was writing to suggest a new idea or phrase to add. We both found it was really difficult to craft the right rhetoric to refute O'Reilly's points. (BTW, most people don't know that there were two versions of my and RMS' essay; the original one was published as a direct response to O'Reilly on his own website. One of the reasons RMS and I redrafted as a stand-alone piece was that we saw our original published response actually served to increase uptake of O'Reilly's position. We decided the issue was important enough it needed a piece that would stand on its own indefinitely to defend that key position.)
Meanwhile, I find it difficult to express more than a decade later how turbulent that time was for hard-core Free Software advocates, and how concerted the marketing campaign against us was. While we were in the middle of the Microsoft's attacks that GPL was an unAmerican cancer, we also had O'Reilly's the freedom that matters is the freedom to pick one's own license meme propagating fast. There were dirty politics afoot at the time, too: this all occurred during the same three-month period when Eric Raymond called me an inmate taking over the asylum. In other words, the spin doctors were attacking software freedom advocates from every side! Morozov's article captures a bit of what it feels like to be on the wrong side of a concerted, organized PR campaign to manipulate public opinion.
However, I suppose what I like most about Morozov's article is it's the first time I've seen discussed publicly and coherently a rhetorical trick that spin doctors use. Notice when you listen to a pundit at their undue sense of urgency; they invariably act as if what's happening now is somehow (to use a phrase the pundits love): “game changing”. What I typically see is such folks use urgency as a reason to make compromises quickly. Of course, the real goal is a get-rich-(or-famous)-quick scheme for themselves — not a greater cause. The sense of urgency leaves many people feeling that if they don't follow the meme, they'll be left in the dust. A colleague of mine once described this entrancing effect as dream-like, and that desire to stay asleep and keep dreaming is what lets the hustlers keep us under their spell.
I've admittedly spent more time than I'd like refuting these spin doctors (or, as Morozov also calls them, meme hustlers). Such work seems unfortunately necessary because Free Software is in an important, multi-decade (but admittedly not urgent :) battle of cooption (which, BTW, every social justice movement throughout history has faced). The tide of cooption by spin doctors can be stemmed only with constant vigilance, so I practice it.
Still, this all seems a cold, academic way to talk about the phenomenon. For these calculating Frank Luntz types, winning is enough; rhetoric, to them, is almost an end in itself (which I guess one might dub “Cicero 2.0”). For those of us who believe in the cause, the “game for the game's sake” remains distasteful because there are real principles at stake for us. Meanwhile, the most talented of these meme hustlers know well that what's a game to them matters emotionally to us, so they use our genuine concern against us at every turn. And, to make it worse, there's more of them out there than most people realize — usually carefully donning the trappings of allies. Kudos to Morozov for reminding us how many of these emperors have no clothes.
Part of the problem is that even in recent past history indicates several so called 'rogue states' (including North Korea) have:
- shared information, research, and (they've even flown scientists around the world to participate in joint research) expertise regarding weapons (WMD in particular) technology with one another
- probably not recognised the difference between standing up for their interests and crossing the line into belligerance (cultural differences do not help)
- have often ignored communications with other states (particular with respect with nuclear dis-armament) - possibly co-operated with regards to timing in during senstive times to possible distract others from other 'illicit activity' - have agreed to measures towards nuclear disarmament and increasing stability only to go back on their promises. Do some basic research/background and you'll see that the line between criminal and state activity sometimes blurs to become indistinguishable
- not (perhaps they have?) recognised have sent all sorts of strange and sometimes conflicting signals http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dennis-rodman-worms-his-way-into-north-korean-leader-kim-jong-uns-affections/story-e6frf7jo-1226612820351 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0404/Why-North-Korea-s-US-attack-plans-are-nutty http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100210753/what-does-north-korea-hope-to-gain-from-all-this-tub-thumping-belligerence/
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/north-koreans-send-photoshop-army-into-battle-20130328-2gvmp.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/04/map-this-is-how-far-those-north-korean-missiles-can-actually-reach/ So what are the options?
- wait, watch, and see. Basically, what has been done so far. Be aware of the situation, increase surveillance, do drills, take measures to guard yourselves against any possible manouvres. Problem is you're always reacting to what they do http://news.sky.com/story/1074718/north-korea-us-deploys-spy-plane-to-japan http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/05/retro_friday_forget_thaad_check_out_this_1945_article_on_missile_defense
- be proactive. Tighten restrictions/sanctions/aid even further. Shutdown EVERYTHING (including co-operation at Kaesong). Do not rule out pre-emptive attacks/covert action especially if there are imminent signs of a launch/attack
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/world/asia/us-sees-china-as-lever-to-press-north-korea.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 - he may simply be trying to tighten control/hold on power. In which case, we should just play along and hope that one day North Korea and it's neighbours can come to a peaceful arrangement. Obviously, this is a dangerous option and if we don't judge things correctly we may be worse off in future than we are currently http://www.smh.com.au/world/bomb-alaska-20130405-2hc7i.html?google_editors_picks=true http://www.news.com.au/world-news/north-korean-leader-kim-jong-un-paints-a-confused-contradictory-picture-of-his-true-character/story-fndir2ev-1226613251895
- this may simply be probing/poking us to see what the response will be in case of a real conflict. Likely that responses gathered from this particular situation will be used in subsequent situations. Wide range of responses possible here... job of defense, foreigns affairs, and intelligence analysts/strategists - if they refuse to give up nuclear weapons technology offer their neighbours nuclear and/or ofther arms (offensive as well as defensive) technology. Possibly even if it is under foreign/allied control. Make them realise that it is in neither sides interests to pursue this tack. Obvious problem is how other countries would react to such an offer and the precedent it would set worldwide. There's also the issue of operational security. In the past, Japanese rocketry research was successfully penetrated, research into American nuclear weapons was breached, and it's been clear that South Korean cyber security needs some work http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/20133319531732780.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/north-korea-in-state-of-war-as-fresh-cyberattack-claims-emerge/article10586425/
- offer a peace agreement (are they genuinely interested in peace though?). However, make it known that if we do go down this route North Korea has to know that it's neighbours have to be able to ensure their safety as well. Concessions will likely have to be made on both North Korea's part as well as that of it's neighbours. Recommend gradual, phased standing down of military forces, expansion of buffer zone, and inspections from both sides that they are they are complying with the terms of the deal. Similar in nature to nuclear weapons inspections but these will occur primarily between neighbours. International intervention a choice if desired- go to war. Choice up/down scale between 'measured response', 'escalation', and 'all out attack'. Long range bombardment to hit all known launch sites and sites of danger. They may back down at this point or act even more irrationally (based on conventional wisdom). Obvious risk is that not all dangerous assets are hit and they have may nuclear assets still in possession. Moreover, not sure how others in the region are likely to react. China may seem them as a strategic nuisance/buffer zone (reminds me of Iranian policy with regards to Syria actually) but it's also clear that North Korea is becoming more difficult for both allies and enemies alike. Would China join in (pictures of border indicate build up of Chinese forces)? A proxy war ensues similar to Syria? Another major issue is if the regime falls who takes over (UN forces until transition takes place or would)? How could it get worse though? Major humanitarian, economic, stability, and other problems at stake...
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/what-will-china-do-if-north-korea-strikes-against-south-korea-and-the-usa/story-fndir2ev-1226613169835 - mount a phony war? Exfiltrate regime, bomb regime headquarters/all relevant sites, and then basically start from scratch? Practicality (suspect that even basic things like secure communications would be problematic)?
http://freebeacon.com/risky-business/ - Chinese strategic concept of buffer zone needs to factor in ability to control situation though. Perhaps they need to tighten grip on North Korea? Stop thinking about North Korean regime disappearing but make the Chinese realise that they will be the ones who have to support North Korea from now on. No more international support... - pursue nuclear research in parallel (as opposed to nuclear arms inspections) if it really is their intention to pursue nuclear power rather than nuclear weapons?
- perhaps the regime actually is in trouble (based on what I've seen they've always been able to manage in spite of sanctions)? Is this is just a means of solidifying power? Is this just a campaign of mis-information? - is this just internal stuff that we're unlikely to understand unless we are North Korean? Defectors to help interpret some of these messages? I remember reading reports/accounts from defectors in the past and a lot of what they said just seemed bizarre when viewed from a Western perspective (as an aside, I once remember taking a personality test of how I perceive myself and how I thought others perceived me. Not only were they unusual but there was somewhat of a disconnect between what I thought and what others thought as well. Suspect this may be happening (limited impact though) here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_defectors - obvious question but one that should be asked. Are they reacting to us or are we reacting to them? If we do 'play along' do we keep our message muted or go out of our way to praise their state? http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0406/North-Korea-Fidel-Castro-warns-Kim-Jong-un-against-war
- should we negotiate with the knowledge that they will almost definitely go back on their word?
- would temporarily stopping excercises/scaling back help?
Either way, I believe that we need to be more clear/firm in our communications. Clear that there is some room for interpretation at the moment. Many people can talk but there must only be one or a limited number of responses and it must be firm with no room for mis-interpretation.
Keep in mind standard tenets of nuclear warfare/strategy. Richard A. Clarke's Cyber War is slight alarmist but actually does a good job of outlining some of the strategies that have been used to avoid nuclear catastrophe in the past. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/01/is-north-korea-being-more-restrained-than-we-think/
You might not have thought about it, but every day you encounter a lock. There’s that lock on your door, your windows, your car doors, your car ignition, your office drawer, maybe even on your private little diary, and countless more that you come across day to day. Fact is, until you lost your keys, you would have never thought how important the role these little things are to your life in keeping you safe and secured. That’s why there are locksmiths. These professional lock makers like the locksmith Miami Beach specialize in services ranging from automotive, residential and even high end commercial locks. From extra keys, repairing jammed ignitions and emergency car lock outs, these guys can handle it. Lock replacements and home lock outs are no problem with a locksmith who even provides security consultations to keeping your family and love ones safe. And for those in the business sector, these locksmiths are experts in high security lock repairs and installation for desks, windows, safes, file cabinets, and security to other delicate and expensive office equipment using digital locks and master key systems. When safety and security are a top concern, it is important to know a trusted and reliable locksmith.